Microsoft Explains Digital Game Sharing On Xbox One

[SeventhSigil]

Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

The ability to share games would be nice, I mean that's the carrot they tried to offer in exchange for killing the used market. With a physical game I can lend the disc to my friend, he can play it then I can get the disc back (well, in theory). Here I can play it at my friends house... yay?

Now I can see why letting people trade and lend games digitally could be more problematic than people physically passing discs about. But if that's what we give up when we go digital then there needs to be a better carrot than "you can pay us to let you play your game at your friends house."

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

Tom, I'm legitimately curious about the first point you made, do you have a link to where they discussed their plans to create a used digital marketplace? The last time I had found any details about their plans, it has mostly been some nonspecific hints about how, sometime eventually in the future, The transfer to fully digital could lead to different forms of liscencing. But the interviews I found that even mentioned it never really went into anything specific, nothing about selling used digital titles at least, and any remote possibilities about what could be done weren't mentioned by Microsoft, but were suggestions by whatever media outlet was reporting at the time. I do grant, though, most of the interviews I found where directly in the wake of all the backlash, before they made the reversals.

You are probably right about that actually. I remember watching an interview where they spoke about a digital used games hub with participating retailers, but now I can't even find it. It's not factual to say it was planned to be digital, but I certainly think that Microsoft would have, and might still, want to implement some kind of online-based used games system.

Anyway, everything else I said about it is indeed true; Microsoft's Xbox One did allow for used games via official platforms such as Gamestop, without adding any fees of their own. It just wouldn't be digital.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Actually, the irony is that the proofing link for the issue about giving games being done only once is the very same link you yourself provided. XD Derp. In any case, I haven't been able to find any proof that confirms or denies the aspect of not being able to trade given games, so unless I dig up something later, going to toss that part in the rumor bin as well. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that the quote you made on trading games specified that it allowed Publishers to 'enable' their games to be sold or traded to approve retailers. That might just be my innate paranoia, although in my defense our last discussion did involve the distinction between lying and misleading, but would that mean that publishers would also have the right to completely disable the function?

This generation there are of course existing measures meant to discourage used game reliance; online passes, DLC of course, but it would still be a far cry from the ability to completely block out every aspect of a used game. In fact, if I remember the methodology properly, used game transactions would involve the official retailer removing the license from the seller's account, freeing the game to be added to someone else's later on. I suppose the implication is that publishers would have been capable of restricting this transfer of licenses entirely?

That being said, I can't imagine what publisher would have been insane enough to be the first one to do it, but even the option is a bit troubling.