Stop complaining about the loss of the shared-library feature. It was a smoke-screen.

[Gmans uncle]

I'll be honest with ya, I don't care that they removed the shared library thing, never really enticed me all that much. What I AM morning the loss over is the ability to install games on your hard drive and play them without a disk, that seemed incredibly useful, very convenient, and was something that actually made me consider overlooking some of Xbone's negative aspects... I was still definitely going PS4 this gen because it's $100 cheaper, but I acknowledged Xbone's advantages in that regard. Wwhat's funny is that it's something they could easily do without used game restrictions by using some kind of online passish code for the licence to play the game without a disk.
the way I see it, it should work something like this...
New game - can play without disk.
Used game - need disk to play.
That seems reasonable, at-least to me.
nothing hinders used customers from playing the game, and it actively rewards players who buy new with a nice little bonus feature.
If they impliment a feature like that, make Kinect optional, and knock the price down to that of a PS4, I might just go their way this gen... Assuming Rare finally gets around to making that Banjo Three-iee I've wanted since childhood...

 

[chozo_hybrid]

snip

If you want some more ammunition for your argument, here is a rant posted by an MS employee who worked on the sharing system: http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

Essentially the sharing system was nothing more than a glorified demo system, with the advantage being you kept your save file between the demo and buying the game. If that isn't proof it's a smokescreen, I don't know what is.

I figured there had to be a major catch of some sort, and there is it. Seems pretty legit to me, but time will tell I guess.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Well what do you fucking know. Odds are it was a glorified demo system.

People are accusing me of jumping to conclusions or operating strictly through conjecture, but the market forces, the financial imperatives involved, *aren't imaginary*. They're very real and very powerful, and they absolutely inform every decision these companies make.

The family share plan, as outlined by its supporters in this thread, was 100% fantasy. It would have trounced publishers 2-3 times harder than the current model already does, and they were already bending over backwards to banish the one we have. The notion that they'd allow this feature (when every iota of XB1's design was aimed at restricting sharing/reselling games) is beyond naive.

If I seem annoyed, it's because I'm tired of being told I don't know wtf I'm talking about when all I'm doing is connecting the extremely obvious dots with basic reasoning. If you want to take everything a CORPORATION tells you at face value, have fun with that.

Few other things:

- They could go forward with the family share plan in a modified form. Easily. They aren't doing so because there's no point trying to fool people anymore. We decided we weren't going to swallow the bullshit cake, so they're not going to waste any frosting.

- Steam didn't lower prices by itself. It competes on an actual free market, in most cases, with other digital distribution services as well as some retail. There is zero reason to think that a "closed garden" like XBL, with exclusive rights to the hardware, was going to lower prices in a similar fashion

- Same goes for selling your games through "approved retailers". If the only place you can sell your game is to the publisher who made it, what incentive does that publisher have to give you anything other than absolute bottom dollar? And why should said publisher allow you to spend that "money" anywhere else?

All of these features and policies were aimed at lining publisher pockets at OUR expense. Gamers, for the most part, were smart enough to tell MS no fucking way. I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit here and say nothing when people backlash against what I consider to be an ultra rare victory for consumer rights. I'm gonna call you out and do my best to shred your arguments because I guess I can only take so much of the standard issue internet contrarian.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Jesus christ this is the least interesting "innovation" i've heard in a long time. You were giving us the honour of demo'ing a game before we bought it. Fantastic, that's so kind of you. GG Microsoft, don't know why i bothered giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Apologies to the people i've argued with in this thread. I wanted evidence and reason to play a part in the discussion, and here it is. Microsoft are full of shit.

No apology necessary, we all get fired up sometimes!

On some level, I can respect the way some people require that smoking gun. For me, in this case, things simply didn't add up. I hate repeating myself all the time, but it seemed clear the driving ideology behind XB1's design was "make it more profitable for the publishers". Introduce more DRM. Limit resale and sharing. Get as close as you possibly can to "every single person who plays a game pays full price for it".

Then they announce this "family share" feature, and it flies completely in the face of everything they had done up to that point. Let 11 people take turns playing one copy? Regardless of actual relation or geographic location? Watch as "families" organize their purchases around this feature, directly assaulting publisher profits with an organized, convenient, and encouraged framework? How does that jive with anything else MS was doing?

It makes a lot more sense when you realize the feature wasn't going to be ready at release. And they were still finalizing details. And a lot of the language surrounding it was extremely fuzzy. I would have put my money on publishers opting out, which is absolutely what they would have done if it had been a legitimate sharing feature. Instead, it was more likely a robust demo feature, which publishers wouldn't have minded at all. Of course, that's not even remotely a substitute for our existing ability to share games with friends, and it's definitely nothing like what MS was touting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if it seems way too good to be true, get started looking for that catch. It's there.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Funny, I said something similar in another topic, literally seconds ago. It would make zero financial sense to allow 10 (11?) people to play a game from one disc sold. That would be suicide for any company, especially considering they think a game bombs when it sells only a couple million units.

IT would make zero sense, unless you think about it. A ten-user limitation is a HUGE step up from what they have now: a system where one disc can be shared almost infinitely. Especially since the online system still only allowed one user at a time. They have an almost infinitely higher level of control with this system....

...And it "males zero financial sense."

Huh.

Sorta moot at this point, but I still don't care for this argument. Reality sorta crashes in and pees all over it. Theoretically, sure, you can circulate your copy of a game to an infinite number of users. How many actually end up using it, though? How many people are both trustworthy enough and close enough (geographically) to borrow your games? How many times can you lend it out before the disc ends up scratched, damaged, or stolen?

Take that same game, turn it into a license, and limit the number of lending instances to 10. Sounds much safer for publishers, right? Only in theory. In practice, the clearly defined parameters of the system encourage users to maximize their lending. I had already seen some threads where prospective XB1 owners were "getting their ducks in a row" - organizing their "families" in anticipation of sharing the hell out of all their games. And this with zero risk to a physical copy as well as zero geographic limitations.

Game-sharing would have been far more prevalent if this family share plan had ended up being anything like people thought it would. The publishers never would have gone for it -or- it was never going to be implemented as presented.

 

[IronMit]

- They could go forward with the family share plan in a modified form. Easily. They aren't doing so because there's no point trying to fool people anymore. We decided we weren't going to swallow the bullshit cake, so they're not going to waste any frosting.

- Steam didn't lower prices by itself. It competes on an actual free market, in most cases, with other digital distribution services as well as some retail. There is zero reason to think that a "closed garden" like XBL, with exclusive rights to the hardware, was going to lower prices in a similar fashion

- Same goes for selling your games through "approved retailers". If the only place you can sell your game is to the publisher who made it, what incentive does that publisher have to give you anything other than absolute bottom dollar? And why should said publisher allow you to spend that "money" anywhere else?

Spot on..I was following the MS stuff as were most people. All this game sharing stuff really felt like damage control. I can't remember the time frame but I'm sure they mentioned it 1-2 days after the initial backlash. And even then they were extra vague - what are the MS criteria for friends and family?

Why would they announce the pre-owned game fee's (azure-online, check-ins etc) before they told us of game-sharing? it makes no sense. MS are notoriously bad at marketing but this would be insane. So Either MS has the worst marketing ever or it was last minute damage control.

Seriously, if they advertised the console as 'share with friends and family' from day 1 and then afterwards told us it comes with drm we would of bought into it.
I can only assume this isn't the case and was a smokescreen like you said

Also why do something so obviously controversial as control the used game market and get the bad publicity to go ahead and do game sharing and cut into profits anyway? There is little logic here, and xbox fanboys are really clutching for straws; 'Please justify your crap with any poor reasoning so we can cling onto it'

 

[Smiley Face]

This is why I am disappointed with Microsoft's decision. The vast majority of the whiners didn't actually understand what Microsoft was trying to do, or the issues involved. Ultimately, that was due to Microsoft's PR failure. But their PR apparatus had little chance to succeed, faced with the mob-like idiocy of the Internet, endlessly spouting nonsense, egged on by Sony.

Hey UnnDunn, good to see my favourite hardline Xbone enthusiast here, one-sided arguments are far less interesting.

You can't make the argument that Microsoft's PR failure wasn't their fault - that it stood no chance because the internet hated what they were saying. That's what PR is supposed to DO - to get people to understand something, to like it, to be enthusiastic for it - the mob-like idiocy of the internet is a constant, and any PR firm who dives in not expecting that only has themselves to blame, as do their parent company. If PR can do nothing to fight the ravenous hatred of the internet, then the PR success of the PS4 is, what, an act of God?

No, the Xbone's failed on PR terms for at least one of two reasons - either 1, Microsoft's PR strategy/division/whatever is abominable, for which Microsoft can only blame itself; 2, the Xbone was so terrible that no amount of PR could save it, for which Microsoft can only blame itself; or 3, both.

As for what the shared library might have been, Microsoft's already revealed itself to have been far too willing to be duplicitous and make major feature changes with the Xbone - I don't think any of us can honestly say that Microsoft would have kept the library system as what they seemed to be promising - if they can make a change as big as they have, I really have no confidence that they wouldn't have adjusted it to something far more lacklustre than you imply it would have been.

 

[Something Amyss]

As I said, there will probably be "freeware" chairs, shirts etc but if you want a brand name you'll probably have to pay a licensing fee for it.

I would honestly think that it would be virtually impossible to remove items once printed, though. The licensing would no longer matter.

Plus, I'm imagining piracy in a world like this. You know those "you wouldn't steal a car" ads? Big difference in a world where you can make a perfect copy for yourself. Not that I'm advocating piracy, but I'm saying that once products become ideas one can simply print with sufficient resources, it becomes even harder to control.

Actually there's people here who would probably cheer... Oh wait, did you mean if Steam shot someone else in the stomach? In that case... well yeah there would still be some to defend it

Yeah, I don't know you well enough to know if people want to shoot you.

Reality sorta crashes in and pees all over it.

I don't think it does, because there are STILL games being passed around from the NES generation, something that would under this model require you to buy it new.

However, I think whether or not reality agrees with this model is completely moot, because Karma's argument was about what publishers would or wouldn't want, and this is a specifically-voiced fear of the gaming industry. Now, if the industry was logical, and if this wasn't specifically a fear, what was logical and realistic would apply. Given the known fear and irrational behaviour surrounding the topic, however, it's safe to assume those fears would override any realistic thinking.

One need only look at the Online Pass. The industry cleaved to it for quite some time, even though EA now admits it was costing them money. Why would they cling so hard to something that hurt them financially? Reason? Logic? Sense?

Or is it fear and hatred of that damned used dame industry that doesn't let us double-dip like we have no right to beause we're not special snowflakes!!!!!!?

Think about it: We already have an actual instance that they were so scared of losing money, they allowed themselves to lose money just to "prevent" it. That would be like being afraid your kids were going to die, so you smothered them in their sleep.

 

[Miss G.]

Think about it: We already have an actual instance that they were so scared of losing money, they allowed themselves to lose money just to "prevent" it. That would be like being afraid your kids were going to die, so you smothered them in their sleep.

Not that I'm defending them, but (in a cosmic sorta way) from a unstable caregiver's (publishers) perspective, that makes perfect sense because then they'd be able to have some semblance of control over when those under their care died. It's horrible for the kids (games) or the other people who care passionately about them (consumers). As a gamer I don't wanna see it happen but the concept itself made for interesting Greek tragedies, at least.

 

[Something Amyss]

Think about it: We already have an actual instance that they were so scared of losing money, they allowed themselves to lose money just to "prevent" it. That would be like being afraid your kids were going to die, so you smothered them in their sleep.

Not that I'm defending them, but (in a cosmic sorta way) from a unstable caregiver's (publishers) perspective, that makes perfect sense because then they'd be able to have some semblance of control over when those under their care died. It's horrible for the kids (games) or the other people who care passionately about them (consumers). As a gamer I don't wanna see it happen but the concept itself made for interesting Greek tragedies, at least.

That still relies on the context that the used games are actually harmful. The gaming industry isn't seeing its children suffering from famine or illness. I suppose if we change that unstable caregiver to a schizophrenic, perhaps. the problem is, this is more like Star Wars Episode 3: You sell your soul to save someone who you then choke out in a fit of rage.

Although technically, she died of a "broken" heart, but that's more because George Lucas is a bullshit writer.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Way i see we can buy and sell our games and can lend them with whom ever we want. I think this is great and the family share thing is not an issue anymore.

 

[Sectan]

In 2020, I'm still going to have to carry a case full of discs to my friend's house if I want to play them on his console. We're still going to need one copy of the game for every player in the house who wants to go head to head in different rooms. Because people didn't take the time to try to understand what Microsoft was really trying to do.

Your "case full of discs" example is sort of ridiculous. Are you regularly carrying a bunch of games over to a friend's house? In light of this proclivity, are you for some reason not transferring these discs from their original cases into a sleeved folder? Is the act of trudging around this sleeved folder, which might weigh all of a few pounds, causing you undue physical and mental trauma? We should give up our rights as consumers so you can better handle a hypothetical that probably never fucking happens?

To look at it from a different angle, what happens if his friend has shit internet? What about if his internet is slow due to the provider having maintenance. What if Microsoft's servers were just being shit at the time? Even if the internet is fairly good, how long is it going to take to download all of those games and if you're doing that, are you able to play online with any of them without any lag?

Even then wasn't the shared library more of a demo service? There was a thread about "an unnamed microsoft employee and totally not some random guy" who was quoted as saying that the shared library only let a player use a game for an hour. After that hour was up it would bring them to the store page to buy the game. Then again not sure how true it was. Regardless it was Microsoft's decision to pull the shared game library. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind having a 24 hour check in if it only was required to allow the shared library to function with everything else being independent.

Like I've said in other threads, this is Microsoft being the spoiled kid who took his other cool toys home because you wouldn't let him shove dirt in your face.

 

[Senaro]

The shared library didn't matter much, because your friend would have only been allowed to play the game for 15-45 minutes before being prompted to purchase the game for full price to continue playing. It meant you ccould Demo your friend's game. Nothing more.

 

[Miss G.]

Think about it: We already have an actual instance that they were so scared of losing money, they allowed themselves to lose money just to "prevent" it. That would be like being afraid your kids were going to die, so you smothered them in their sleep.

Not that I'm defending them, but (in a cosmic sorta way) from a unstable caregiver's (publishers) perspective, that makes perfect sense because then they'd be able to have some semblance of control over when those under their care died. It's horrible for the kids (games) or the other people who care passionately about them (consumers). As a gamer I don't wanna see it happen but the concept itself made for interesting Greek tragedies, at least.

That still relies on the context that the used games are actually harmful. The gaming industry isn't seeing its children suffering from famine or illness. I suppose if we change that unstable caregiver to a schizophrenic, perhaps. the problem is, this is more like Star Wars Episode 3: You sell your soul to save someone who you then choke out in a fit of rage.

Although technically, she died of a "broken" heart, but that's more because George Lucas is a bullshit writer.

Yeah. It is kinda like the threat is only inside their collective head and us 'normal' people don't get it. Hopefully they'll mature a little, like other entertainment mediums have, on used products/rentals and this can be something we can look back and laugh at...probably.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah. It is kinda like the threat is only inside their collective head and us 'normal' people don't get it. Hopefully they'll mature a little, like other entertainment mediums have, on used products/rentals and this can be something we can look back and laugh at...probably.

I'm not sure the other entertainment media have, as the video media were instrumental in HDCP standards, the RIAA still believe used CDs are the same as stealing and keep trying to come up with new anti-copying procedures, and so on.

If anything I sometimes wonder if video games are just playing "follow the leader" and just being louder about it. Like that annoying kid brother who follows you around mimicking you, but ten times as confrontational about it. That wold even fit in, I think, with their quest for legitimacy.

 

[Something Amyss]

used game sales destroy the industry, but its an okey dokey if you share your game with 11 other people.

Proprietary control vs a model which they count as a lost sale every time a game gets recycled on a media that can do so virtually in perpetuity?

Yeah, what madness!

 

[Miss G.]

Yeah. It is kinda like the threat is only inside their collective head and us 'normal' people don't get it. Hopefully they'll mature a little, like other entertainment mediums have, on used products/rentals and this can be something we can look back and laugh at...probably.

I'm not sure the other entertainment media have, as the video media were instrumental in HDCP standards, the RIAA still believe used CDs are the same as stealing and keep trying to come up with new anti-copying procedures, and so on.

If anything I sometimes wonder if video games are just playing "follow the leader" and just being louder about it. Like that annoying kid brother who follows you around mimicking you, but ten times as confrontational about it. That wold even fit in, I think, with their quest for legitimacy.

Forgot about those. Then again, my country has had a history of piracy since the real-life pirates of the Caribbean so what do I know about these laws and regulations. CDs and pirated movies can be sold in front of police without much problem on the streets and we even used to have video stores that we're just pirated movies back when VHS was still a thing because a lot of the regulations don't apply within our borders.

That aside, I think they all need to grow up. Until human nature can be legitimately controlled there is no real way to stop these kinda things from happening.

 

[Comocat]

I think it's worth pointing out that AAA games rarely have demos anymore, because once people demo a game they don't buy it. Its been reported numerous times on this site that AAA games demos are a waste of development time and hurt overall game sales. I'm not saying demos are bad, just if you look at industry trends, you don't see demos anymore. So now with the new console, we are being led to believe that we have some sort of unlimited sharing with friends and families?


I'm tired of the smoke and mirrors with this console generation and I've always considered myself a console gamer first, but I'm out. I love my X360 because its easy. Trying to figure out this Xbone is a nightmare that I don't even care to try and untangle.