Poll: "Heartbroken" Microsoft Employee Explains How Family Sharing Would Have Worked

[samwise970]

I fell for this too, but the article has been confirmed as BS.

 

[Jodah]

If these systems are so fucking great then keep them in place. God forbid we be able to share digital AND physical copies of games.

 

[Trueflame]

This just further cements my opinion that the Xbox One, in virtually every aspect, is an insult to gamers and consumers everywhere.

 

[wulfy42]

You want to stop used game sales? Offer your games through digital purchase......for less. Both initially...and drop the digital sales price every few months as well.

Poof...do that long enough and used game sales will dry up naturally.

Physical copy of a game sells for $60.....Digital for $50.....at launch.

2 months later the Digital copy drops another $10....to $40.

Why sell digital games for $10 less? Do you have a reason to think it takes $10 to make and stock a disk when you're doing it in bulk?

Yeah, gamestop etc won't be pleased by the situation..but the can still make money selling physical copies of games...at least till most people decide there is no reason to buy them anymore.

that's exactly why gamestop would just refuse to stock the game. If you're a triple A and gamestop refuses to stock your game because you made it $5-$10 cheaper on steam you're fucked

Yes, I do have a reason, because it costs money to make the game, the manual, package it, deliver it to stores...and then those stores take a cut of the profit as well.

Gamestop does not stock and sell all those games for free, they get a percentage of the sale frice for doing it.

As far as gamestop refusing to sell the games....then they would be gone in no time. Best buy etc sure would keep selling them...as they get the same profit for each sale as they do now (which is why it's cheaper to sell digital copies). I doubt gamestop would be happy, but it would be a slow process where less and less people bought physical copies and it'

Eventually it would have a huge impact on gamestop (although they would still be selling the consoles etc), but it would take awhile. There will still be people who need to buy physical copies...and over time..the cost to buy physical copies would probably have to go up as less and less people purchased them (with the increase going to the stores themselves t.

Doing it in bulk I highly doubt that's $10, maybe $5. Also: retailers always take a cut. Like seriously ,steam makes mad money. Stores taking a cut is just a constant.

Here's the thing though, that's mutually assured destruction for a triple A game. People are shitheads they're not going to another store. It's a major cost to the gaming companies to try to run a title bypassing gamesto, it could be done but shareholders are fucking idiots who make long term investments and yet care about how a gaming company loooks on a quarterly report.

Did you seriously repeat the implication that digital sales don't have a cut going to retailers? That is absolutely insane. Like have you never heard of Steam,GreenMan,Origin, UPlay? I'm pretty sure Steam takes a bigger cut on a $60 game than gamestop does on a new one (although they sell used where they get 100% cut so..)

Ahh, but if you sell the games digitally, through the playstation network (or Microsofts online thing), there would be nobody to take a cut. No steam, No origin....just sony or Microsoft respectively....and yes, they could take more of a profit that way...but also pass the savings on to us.

That is exactly my point. Right now games are sold by stores mainly...with digital copies of games being sold at the same price. Well....every single time you buy a digital copy of a game through the PSN (or Microsoft arcade etc), it makes more money for Sony/Microsoft..then if you buy the game for a store. Why? Because on top of the bulk price of shipping/manufacturing etc the discs (which even in bulk is probably 1-2$....they pay a percentage to the stores that sell them. I doubt it's less then 10% right there.

So if they sell the game themselves...digitally, right from the actual console they are selling, they can save a good $10 a pop. Game stores won't be thrilled...but there only option would be to boycott all games by the company all together....and plenty of other stores will happily keep selling them (walmart/target even bestbuy etc). So yes, people (now the minority) who want physical games could get them, but it's not nearly as likely that stores would specialize just in games anymore...and places like gamestop would eventually go out of buisiness.

There is no reason for Sony or Xbox not to sell future games (Even 50 gig games) digitally anymore. With the HUGE hard drives they will have...only people with less then 5 mb/s internet speed would even consider getting a physical copy and most of them (even the 1 mb/s users) would probably still get digital copies if it was cheaper at launch and constantly afterwards.

I have TONS of physical copies of games...and I find myself moving away from them. In fact....if a game is not on a system automatically at this point (Wrath of the white witch for instance) I am far less likely to finish it...or come back to it if I move on to try something else. If it's on steam, my PS3, My Xbox etc...well then I can switch around to a variety of games at will and come back to it any time. I like that ability...and am coming to focus on games that work with that more and more.

Yes...you can probably upload physical copies onto the future game systems....but at that point..why get the physical copy in the first place (other then not having internet of course).

So make digital the primary method of distribution, and pass some of the savings (or....if your smart all of them), on to us.

Why is it smart to pass it all on? It kills game sales, and moves us along towards an all digital model faster..which in the long run would be GREAT for the game systems themselves.

 

[lordmardok]

Wow, I'm even more glad than ever that MS reversed on its policies. If this is ACTUALLY what it was rather than how it was explained at E3 then MS dodged a bullet. The E3 announcement was, at least, just stupid. This on the other hoof is entirely fucking insulting.

WE'RE GIVING YOU THE PRIVILEGE OF PROVIDING DEMOS TO THE ENTIRE WORLD SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BOTHER! HUZZAH! CHEER FOR US! CHEER FOR YOU! EVERYTHING IS MAGICAL! HUZZAH!

Get. Bent.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Actually there was a product which went all digital and was resoundingly rejected by retailers and consumers alike, anyone remember the PSP Go?

 

[Gone Rampant]

*Sad Violin*

Boo hoo. I'm so broken over the fact that I lost a feature that doesn't honestly affect me since I'm the only gamer in my house.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

I'm still confused about why they can't still do this, and also drop the once a day DRM. I feel like it's an angry parent saying "You don't want your veggies? THEN NO DESERT!" Except in this case it's more like the flavor on the main course you're not getting.

captcha:
face the music

Fitting??

 

[Miss G.]

Ahh, but if you sell the games digitally, through the playstation network (or Microsofts online thing), there would be nobody to take a cut. No steam, No origin....just sony or Microsoft respectively....and yes, they could take more of a profit that way...but also pass the savings on to us.

That is exactly my point. Right now games are sold by stores mainly...with digital copies of games being sold at the same price. Well....every single time you buy a digital copy of a game through the PSN (or Microsoft arcade etc), it makes more money for Sony/Microsoft..then if you buy the game for a store. Why? Because on top of the bulk price of shipping/manufacturing etc the discs (which even in bulk is probably 1-2$....they pay a percentage to the stores that sell them. I doubt it's less then 10% right there.

So if they sell the game themselves...digitally, right from the actual console they are selling, they can save a good $10 a pop. Game stores won't be thrilled...but there only option would be to boycott all games by the company all together....and plenty of other stores will happily keep selling them (walmart/target even bestbuy etc). So yes, people (now the minority) who want physical games could get them, but it's not nearly as likely that stores would specialize just in games anymore...and places like gamestop would eventually go out of buisiness.


So make digital the primary method of distribution, and pass some of the savings (or....if your smart all of them), on to us.

Why is it smart to pass it all on? It kills game sales, and moves us along towards an all digital model faster..which in the long run would be GREAT for the game systems themselves.

You seem to forget that they tried and failed miserably with the PSPGo. The games were digital only as there was no slot to put in physical disks but they were priced the same as retail anyway because it was a monopolized market on the system. There is no need to lower prices in a monopoly as everyone would have to pay you the prices you set, no matter how high, to use your services/products. You are spouting /advocating the same 'trickle-down' nonsense that governments and the 1% believe in because it only makes them richer to the deficit of everyone that is not them.

 

[Akytalusia]

well geez. thanks for clarifying this. i almost actually felt bad for people who lost out on this. but that's horrible. it's just free advertising. it's not sharing at all. they planned to treat people like tools. damn, microsoft. you just keep digging that hole.

 

[SeventhSigil]

You want to stop used game sales? Offer your games through digital purchase......for less. Both initially...and drop the digital sales price every few months as well.

Poof...do that long enough and used game sales will dry up naturally.

Physical copy of a game sells for $60.....Digital for $50.....at launch.

2 months later the Digital copy drops another $10....to $40.

Why sell digital games for $10 less? Do you have a reason to think it takes $10 to make and stock a disk when you're doing it in bulk?

Yeah, gamestop etc won't be pleased by the situation..but the can still make money selling physical copies of games...at least till most people decide there is no reason to buy them anymore.

that's exactly why gamestop would just refuse to stock the game. If you're a triple A and gamestop refuses to stock your game because you made it $5-$10 cheaper on steam you're fucked

Yes, I do have a reason, because it costs money to make the game, the manual, package it, deliver it to stores...and then those stores take a cut of the profit as well.

Gamestop does not stock and sell all those games for free, they get a percentage of the sale frice for doing it.

As far as gamestop refusing to sell the games....then they would be gone in no time. Best buy etc sure would keep selling them...as they get the same profit for each sale as they do now (which is why it's cheaper to sell digital copies). I doubt gamestop would be happy, but it would be a slow process where less and less people bought physical copies and it'

Eventually it would have a huge impact on gamestop (although they would still be selling the consoles etc), but it would take awhile. There will still be people who need to buy physical copies...and over time..the cost to buy physical copies would probably have to go up as less and less people purchased them (with the increase going to the stores themselves t.

Doing it in bulk I highly doubt that's $10, maybe $5. Also: retailers always take a cut. Like seriously ,steam makes mad money. Stores taking a cut is just a constant.

Here's the thing though, that's mutually assured destruction for a triple A game. People are shitheads they're not going to another store. It's a major cost to the gaming companies to try to run a title bypassing gamesto, it could be done but shareholders are fucking idiots who make long term investments and yet care about how a gaming company loooks on a quarterly report.

Did you seriously repeat the implication that digital sales don't have a cut going to retailers? That is absolutely insane. Like have you never heard of Steam,GreenMan,Origin, UPlay? I'm pretty sure Steam takes a bigger cut on a $60 game than gamestop does on a new one (although they sell used where they get 100% cut so..)

Ahh, but if you sell the games digitally, through the playstation network (or Microsofts online thing), there would be nobody to take a cut. No steam, No origin....just sony or Microsoft respectively....and yes, they could take more of a profit that way...but also pass the savings on to us.

That is exactly my point. Right now games are sold by stores mainly...with digital copies of games being sold at the same price. Well....every single time you buy a digital copy of a game through the PSN (or Microsoft arcade etc), it makes more money for Sony/Microsoft..then if you buy the game for a store. Why? Because on top of the bulk price of shipping/manufacturing etc the discs (which even in bulk is probably 1-2$....they pay a percentage to the stores that sell them. I doubt it's less then 10% right there.

So if they sell the game themselves...digitally, right from the actual console they are selling, they can save a good $10 a pop. Game stores won't be thrilled...but there only option would be to boycott all games by the company all together....and plenty of other stores will happily keep selling them (walmart/target even bestbuy etc). So yes, people (now the minority) who want physical games could get them, but it's not nearly as likely that stores would specialize just in games anymore...and places like gamestop would eventually go out of buisiness.

There is no reason for Sony or Xbox not to sell future games (Even 50 gig games) digitally anymore. With the HUGE hard drives they will have...only people with less then 5 mb/s internet speed would even consider getting a physical copy and most of them (even the 1 mb/s users) would probably still get digital copies if it was cheaper at launch and constantly afterwards.

I have TONS of physical copies of games...and I find myself moving away from them. In fact....if a game is not on a system automatically at this point (Wrath of the white witch for instance) I am far less likely to finish it...or come back to it if I move on to try something else. If it's on steam, my PS3, My Xbox etc...well then I can switch around to a variety of games at will and come back to it any time. I like that ability...and am coming to focus on games that work with that more and more.

Yes...you can probably upload physical copies onto the future game systems....but at that point..why get the physical copy in the first place (other then not having internet of course).

So make digital the primary method of distribution, and pass some of the savings (or....if your smart all of them), on to us.

Why is it smart to pass it all on? It kills game sales, and moves us along towards an all digital model faster..which in the long run would be GREAT for the game systems themselves.

Could resorting to digital lower prices? Absolutely, the more you sell digitally, the less money is lost in transit, the more wiggle room there is for discounts.

Would they have, for the Xbox One?

Nnnnh, unlikely.

See, their console was basically burning down around their ears, the Interwebs was aflame, and Sony was just lobbing more molotovs in by the day. During that, I kept expecting Microsoft to turn around and say its digital distributed content would be cheaper- ten bucks or so, like you said- because THAT could have turned things around completely. Anyone who could have used the game sharing/downloading with their connections would have had a hell of a reason to join them, and because Microsoft has more reserve funds than Sony, i.e. more financial muscle, they could take the risk more easily than the competitor, cut their prices lower to suffocate him. Early in the launch cycle like that? Even ten bucks a game, a dedicated consumer could save hundreds. Revealing that, more than anything, could have helped Microsoft 'win.'

But no, instead they just axed the whole DRM thing entirely, wasting what is probably a lot of invested infrastructure designed to make it happen, and it won't even get them all the people they lost back, because a lot of them are just really pissed. Hell, they've lost a (smaller) portion of people who are insisting they want the DRM BACK. If Microsoft wasn't going to take that kind of plunge here and now, when they needed a really solid counter-attack to deal with Sony decimating them, what possible reason would they have to do it when things were bright and rosy? Sure, they could cut ten bucks off the price, but if you own the console already, and are getting all your games from them, then certain titles- such as Call of Duty games, Battlefield, etc- that are guaranteed massive sellers, they would much rather just keep the ten-bucks-a-pop to themselves.

I should also point out that the marketplace would, naturally, give Microsoft a monopoly when it came to digital games purchased on that console, and Microsoft has a pretty gross history when it comes to monopolistic practices. Unlike Steam, there'd be nobody to compete again when it comes to catering to Xbox One owners' gaming needs, so Microsoft would have no reason whatsoever to lower its prices, especially if Sony didn't. Hell, the only reason they backed out of DRM in the first place was because the consoles weren't bought yet, and MS knew they'd end up starting the race with a twisted ankle if they didn't.

Ironically, it looks like Sony's in a better position to push digital distribution than Microsoft; they've had Day 1 digital releases on major titles for ages, the PS+ system offers subscribers definite perks for relying more on digital distribution, and one of their newest features will allow you to play a game while it is being downloaded, cutting the waiting time considerably for those with so-so connection speeds. (I haven't been able to find any reference to Xbox One having a similar capability, though God knows they're cryptic sometimes, so I might be wrong.) Microsoft's remaining policies are all kind of three steps behind them, (even their 'free games' idea only lasts til December,) and the ones they removed seemed less about incentivizing an individual (since you could technically share disc-based and digital games alike under their system, making the purchase of one or the other identical) but rather by ensuring that its only available market would have stable internet. Any business practice that knowingly curtails its potential market is simply insane, especially in this business, because the more limited your install base becomes, the more it can really hurt you down the road.

 

[Legendairy314]

Wow, I was actually kind of disappointed when they said this feature was going to be going. BUT WHY TAKE IT OUT IF IT'S FREE ADVERTISING? I assumed to compensate for the DRM you would be able to freely share games with some friends. But in the end they were digging their own graves even more so with that feature in place with the DRM. Like that game? Go buy it! Never mind the fact that your friend/family member has a perfectly good copy. It's console locked for them. Why don't you have a PC again?

Wow, I'm getting even more upset at how STUPID their initial premise was. So glad they at least have a fighting chance so the PS4 doesn't simply have to be there to beat Microsoft.

 

[Laughing Man]

So, let me get this right.

The family share feature that this MS individual is so heartbroken about not being included is nothing more than a glorified game demoing feature, with the added advantage to MS that the demo content is stored on the person who is sharing the games HD rather than a central server that has to be maintained and hosted by MS?

So the person sharing the game acts as the host for the game files, has to supply the bandwidth for the download and at the end of the day MS get the cash if the person 'borrowing' the game ends up buying the game.

I assume this is how it works because if MS actually host the content and the users gain access through some security policy attached to their accounts when they log in then this person is the stupidest individual on the planet because they are effectively morning the lose of a feature that is nothing more than a game demo distribution service that unlike ANY other service where you log in to a central server and download the demo you want to try you instead have to have the added hassle of having a friend on your list that already owns the game you want to demo before you can try it.

Really was this feature a lose of any sort?

 

[McMullen]

45 minutes, unless they're being generous and grant a whole hour?

It sounded better without an adequate explanation. I'm not sure this person plays or shares games. With some family members I visit, the games are one of the ways we spend time together, and we play far longer than 45 minutes.

Why does Microsoft hire people who have no clue how their customers use their products, or what their customers actually want?

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

What are you talking about? If I had the drive to do it I could start making a 50 hour long RPG right now by myself with say, Unity or some other game maker program in about a year or 2. Would it sell millions? Even if I advertised it heavily probably not, (that wouldn't cost me much either) but it wouldn't take me 6 years to do it and it wouldn't cost me anything but my time unless I got a paid version and then it would cost me a couple thousand dollars at max. All it takes to make games is a little dedication, some hard work, and maybe a little green. It doesn't take 50 people and a 100 million bucks! Even if it really cost that much to make a half decent game, there are still more than enough ways to cut the costs without sacrificing the quality.

 

[Grape_Bullion]

I can't decide which is worse... if it's fake, you really can imagine this shit idea being part of the original Xbox Done. If it's real, then it just confirms how close we came to this unrealistically terrible idea.

 

[Regless]

I feel bad for the guy for having all that time and effort put into this for nothing... But is it just me or does it still sound like a bad idea?

 

[Smeggs]

Unless you're playing another generic stock shooter, an hour is usually hardly enough time to actually get into the game, Dark Souls or Final Fantasy XIII, for example. Games that take much time investment would most likely suffer from just half an hour to an hour of play. I can tell you if all I'd experienced of Dark Souls were a demo of the first hour I'd have never gotten into it, my first hour was hardly what one would call fun or enjoyable. Assuming we're not going to screw around with character creation at all and just jump in, you need to take into account cutscenes, as well as tutorial levels, and yadda yadda.

I don't quite see how the hell this is made any better than simply putting goddam demos for each game on the marketplace for download. Those were free too.

Being able to allow friends to borrow said games is all around the better option. I can understand how some people might find it useful, but again, I ask he question if you've got the connection to be using this feature, why the hell aren't these demos just on the XBone marketplace to begin with?