Actually, it does. Lending means to temporarily give something. This policy was not for giving someone the rights to the game permanently.UnnDunn said:
Stop complaining about the loss of the shared-library feature. It was a smoke-screen.
- Thread starter FieryTrainwreck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, the morons have "ruined it for everyone". We're getting closer and closer to the point where you won't "own" anything, you'll have the license to use it instead. Digital printers are becoming a thing so you'll be able to download a chair, or a shirt, or plate etc etc because you bought the license to use it (undoubtedly there will be free versions as well but people will pay for brand names). Microsoft was just trying to be ahead of the curve, but apparently "the people" don't like forward movement. Sigh.UnnDunn said:
Of course with Valve thinking of the same thing, it will be the BEST. IDEA. EVER. Double sigh.
Because there's a huge difference between Steam and the XBone. On PC you'll be very lucky to find a game you can actually share, so it definitely is welcomed by the PC community. Console never had a sharing problem before except under the Xbone's new rules.Nimzabaat said:
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....KarmaTheAlligator said:
...And it "males zero financial sense."
Huh.
We used to trade games with half the guys in our class, we weren't limited to 10 friends and we didn't need to have our friends on a "friends list" for at least 30 days before we lended each other games. I don't really see how it was any more restrictive back then than it would be now. The only difference in terms of accessibility is the people i'd be sharing games with are 3000 miles away, rather than half a mile. Ok, we'd be able to share games without going to each others houses to grab the game (which was the great thing about this system), but the 10-person limit to people on your friends list for 30 days or more is a limit physical media didn't have. There were loads of games i lent to friends which were then lent on to others, and subsequently lost to me forever. I know for a fact there's some guy out there i never even spoke too who never had to buy Pokemon Yellow, because he has my copy.KarmaTheAlligator said:
You're still only assuming that publishers aren't going to opt into the system because reasons. We don't know how financially viable it would be, i believe Microsoft would know far more about that than us.
As for prices, i vividly remember paying £55 for N64 games. Cartridges could be really expensive.
These corporations are only in it to make money. If the excessive DRM is a cause of them losing money and their research shows this, there's no reason to believe they won't follow the research. It hasn't really been all that long since the whole DRM debate really started. The evidence is mounting up that excessive DRM is probably a bad thing, it's reasonable to believe that this is being taken on board where it hasn't in the past, because the evidence wasn't so resounding then as it is now.lacktheknack said:
Comparisons to PETA or the Government don't work. Those organisations are pushing an agenda way beyond financial gain. If you honestly believe Microsoft are doing all they've done for the pure sake of pushing DRM in the same way PETA do what they do to push animal welfare then you're deluded. PETA are willing to do crazy shit and lose money if they believe it promotes animal welfare, because PETA exists to promote animal welfare. Microsoft on the other hand does not exist to promote DRM, it exists to make money. They aren't going to do crazy shit and lose money for the sake of making money. Because that makes no sense.
I didn't check where you're from, but in the US we already don't "own" anything as it comes to gaming and software.Nimzabaat said:
Digital printers are not going to impact ownership. In fact, in a world where you can fabricate a chair immediately, how arecompanies going to take ti away from you?
If Steam shot you in the stomach but retained its sales, people would still defend it.
OK, then they'd obviously want to keep that feature in, right? I mean, they couldn't possibly want to go back to the almost infinite lending of physical copies, right?Zachary Amaranth said:
As I said in another topic, the thing about a physical copy is that it's actually limited to your immediate surroundings, unless you like driving hours on end to give someone a disc. The digital sharing would not have that limitation, so it comes down to nearly the same thing.
I wasn't talking about game prices, but their cost to make. I will agree that you do have a point with the sharing, though.Shpongled said:
Yeah... the whole "family group" think was a little too vague and even contradictory. Specially because they already said they were going to allow transfers to one person only and for a maximum time of 30 days (that had to be in your friends list for at least a month) in another section of their EULA, and that playing on secondary consoles would be more restrictive than on the "main" one. So the "family list" feature (at least, the version many people are dreaming about) would work against those other features.
In the end, that is the main issue with the Microsoft restrictions. Even after they reverted some of the most controversial points, its still too vague and contradictory at parts. Everything is preceded by preconditions and "what if" that further complicate its use. I would not be surprised if the released version has more small print that people are not aware of, or they had to add it later because they didn't thought of that.
That is why I strongly advice against buying a console in their first year... because its full of things that need to be ironed, or details people didn't realize before they bought it. Early adopters end up being testers.
In the end, that is the main issue with the Microsoft restrictions. Even after they reverted some of the most controversial points, its still too vague and contradictory at parts. Everything is preceded by preconditions and "what if" that further complicate its use. I would not be surprised if the released version has more small print that people are not aware of, or they had to add it later because they didn't thought of that.
That is why I strongly advice against buying a console in their first year... because its full of things that need to be ironed, or details people didn't realize before they bought it. Early adopters end up being testers.
I'm lost here. Are you shooting down your own conspiracy theory in a "cutting off my nose to spite my face" moment, or what?KarmaTheAlligator said:
Seriously, it looks like your arguing with yourself here.
Except ten users anywhere easily trumps potentially any number of users locally.
Sorry, this logic has more holes than swiss cheese. And it doesn't taste anywhere near as good.
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. Which will make brand names even more ridiculous than they are now. Now I have an image from Minority Report where they not only scan your retinas, but scan your clothes/accessories to see if they can sue you for copyright infringement *shudder*.Zachary Amaranth said:
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 itZachary Amaranth said:
You're not really demonstrating how it's contradictory. In fact, I'm kind of convinced people who think it's contradictory didn't really read any of the material on it. It may not be all sunshine and roses, but it's pretty consistent.hermes200 said:
To be honest, I don't really know anymore... Been up too long without sleep. Just ignore me.Zachary Amaranth said:
And as was said in that other topic that just means it makes even less sense why they decided to remove the sharing feature. I'm tired, I'm going to bed.UnnDunn said:
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/TE1MWES2FieryTrainwreck said:
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.
They got to their position by trying as hard as they could to monopolize key software development firms during the 90s; usually in the most ruthless ways possible.UnnDunn said:
Opening with an ad-hominem against everyone who doesn't agree with you.Nimzabaat said:
How mature and level headed.
That sounds fucking terrible for the consumer, quite bluntly.
Wait wait wait....stop the Bullshit Bus right there.
You complained about how dark the future is becoming; devoid of ownership and done through licensing...but then you COMPLAIN when the market rejects a system that means to usher in exactly that future???
What the hell kind of sense does that make?!
Either you're projecting so hard you have no idea what you're actually saying or you're stretching and distorting facts just to be as contrary and condescending as possible. Neither of which are valid arguments.
Fist off do we have anything supporting the legitimacy of this? Seems legit, but proof is always nice.blizzaradragon said:
Anyway, i redact my defence of microsoft on this one. This is moronic.
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.
I made this point on another thread:
This is the part that microsoft failed at. Giving customers the choice to take the step over the line that they were happy to push the consumer over. I reiterate from my self quote. If they had of kept BOTH options, digital with multi-person sharing, AND disc based gaming with current gen restrictions, they would have gotten a LOT of business from it, and would have, in my estimation, see a lot of customers move into the direction that microsoft desires, without forcing it on anyone.
Consumers should NEVER have to trade liberty for progress. Consumers know this. Smart businesses know this. Give a consumer progress without sacrifice and they will flock to it. Force them to trade their freedom as consumers in order to progress and as seen over the last few weeks, you will receive a collective fuck you.
Microsoft. Listen to this now. Open up the digital sharing, keep the DRM off (you would have to be online to share anyways at some point) and keep discs as they are, and you WILL WIN.
On top of this, people keep comparing , on both sides of the arguments, to steam. And once again, to me, it all once again comes down to choice. People eventually did flock to steam in crazy numbers... but why? Because somehow Valve forced the concept upon you and made it their way or the highway? No. They gave you the choice of using steam as a platform and made it an attractive choice (eventually). Steam failed hard upon release because they initially attempted to force it down peoples throats. But once it became a choice, an option, and they made it worth customers time and money, people began to use it.
This is the part that microsoft failed at. Giving customers the choice to take the step over the line that they were happy to push the consumer over. I reiterate from my self quote. If they had of kept BOTH options, digital with multi-person sharing, AND disc based gaming with current gen restrictions, they would have gotten a LOT of business from it, and would have, in my estimation, see a lot of customers move into the direction that microsoft desires, without forcing it on anyone.
Consumers should NEVER have to trade liberty for progress. Consumers know this. Smart businesses know this. Give a consumer progress without sacrifice and they will flock to it. Force them to trade their freedom as consumers in order to progress and as seen over the last few weeks, you will receive a collective fuck you.
Microsoft. Listen to this now. Open up the digital sharing, keep the DRM off (you would have to be online to share anyways at some point) and keep discs as they are, and you WILL WIN.