Actually, it does. Lending means to temporarily give something. This policy was not for giving someone the rights to the game permanently.UnnDunn said:This doesn't refer to the 10-friend library sharing feature.
Actually, it does. Lending means to temporarily give something. This policy was not for giving someone the rights to the game permanently.UnnDunn said:This doesn't refer to the 10-friend library sharing feature.
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:Wrong. The 10-friend sharing feature was a core part of the licensing model. It was not in the hands of publishers. The restriction was that only one of those friends could play at once; the other 9 would have to wait their turn.FieryTrainwreck said:The shared-library feature (aka the *only* good thing about the XB1 before today) is gone, and people are mad about it.
They shouldn't be. Because it was never a real thing.
Watch the language carefully. Microsoft was "enabling" publishers to provide sharing for Xbone owners. There was no mechanism or requirement compelling publishers to participate in the program. There was, of course, good reason NOT to participate: potential sales loss.
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.
And so we're faced with another 8+ years of the status-quo in game distribution. No new ideas, no innovation. 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.
The PCWorld article is badly worded. It shouldn't have used the word "lend" in this context.KarmaTheAlligator said:Actually, it does. Lending means to temporarily give something. This policy was not for giving someone the rights to the game permanently.UnnDunn said:This doesn't refer to the 10-friend library sharing feature.
So you have a better quote to show to support your view?UnnDunn said:The PCWorld article is badly worded. It shouldn't have used the word "lend" in this context.KarmaTheAlligator said:Actually, it does. Lending means to temporarily give something. This policy was not for giving someone the rights to the game permanently.UnnDunn said:This doesn't refer to the 10-friend library sharing feature.
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:Of course with Valve thinking of the same thing, it will be the BEST. IDEA. EVER. Double sigh.
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: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.
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:But there's a huge difference between the two methods of sharing: accessibility. When you trade a physical copy, you're limited to your direct environment, meaning it limits how out of hand that system gets. With digital sharing, that limitation is gone.Shpongled said:I mean, friends have been sharing discs for decades. Back in the old days we were trading games all the time at school and many developers still managed success.
And this is definitely not the same kind of world as back then, either, especially considering the cost of games nowadays. They can't afford to bet on sharing being the same as back then.
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:All that research is irrelevant when you remember how publishers react to piracy regardless, even to this day.Shpongled said:....FieryTrainwreck said:....UnnDunn said:....FieryTrainwreck said:....
Sometimes, people try to predict the actions of people/collectives/corporate entities based on their previous actions. You do it, too. PETA will keep doing crazy publicity stunts "for the animals", American government will continue growing more and more bipartisian, and game publishers will continue not indulging in behaviour that fosters piracy/copy sharing. Surely you can see that all of these are reasonable if not inevitable predictions.
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: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 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?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).
If Steam shot you in the stomach but retained its sales, people would still defend it.Of course with Valve thinking of the same thing, it will be the BEST. IDEA. EVER. Double sigh.
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: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: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.
...And it "males zero financial sense."
Huh.
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:As for prices, i vividly remember paying £55 for N64 games. Cartridges could be really expensive.
You already found it in a different thread, but in the interest of clarity, here it is:KarmaTheAlligator said:So you have a better quote to show to support your view?
Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend?s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.
Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.
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: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?
Except ten users anywhere easily trumps potentially any number of users locally.The digital sharing would not have that limitation, so it comes down to nearly the same thing.
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: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?Nimzabaat said: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).
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:If Steam shot you in the stomach but retained its sales, people would still defend it.
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: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.
To be honest, I don't really know anymore... Been up too long without sleep. Just ignore me.Zachary Amaranth said: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: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?
Seriously, it looks like your arguing with yourself here.
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:You already found it in a different thread, but in the interest of clarity, here it is:KarmaTheAlligator said:So you have a better quote to show to support your view?
Quoting from the Xbox One Licensing [http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license] page:
Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend?s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.
Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.
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:snip
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:Do you think Microsoft got to their position without doing their due diligence on issues like this?
Opening with an ad-hominem against everyone who doesn't agree with you.Nimzabaat said:Yeah, the morons have "ruined it for everyone".
That sounds fucking terrible for the consumer, quite bluntly.We're getting closer and closer to the point where you won't "own" anything, you'll have the license to use it instead.
Wait wait wait....stop the Bullshit Bus right there.Microsoft was just trying to be ahead of the curve, but apparently "the people" don't like forward movement. Sigh.
Fist off do we have anything supporting the legitimacy of this? Seems legit, but proof is always nice.blizzaradragon 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:snip
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.
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.When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour.
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.The thing is, if they remove the sharing feature completely , it is only to be assholes about it. There is absolutely NO reason why they could not still have this in place for digitally purchased copies of games. Sure, physical copies would be as they are now, share the disc how you do now, but it sounds like they are sulking now. "You complained about some parts of our things, so we are taking away ALL of it. Because fuck you for not accepting our shit".
The can still move in the direction they wanted to without fucking us over in the process, if only they weren't blinded by their own smug and arrogant selves. They are holding back progress by demanding it comes with conditions. Not the consumer for demanding the progress come without their sacrifice.
EDIT: Keeping the sharing option for digitally purchased games while leaving discs how they are would have actually benefited their goals perfectly. It would have left the step to the future up to the consumer to take, and not being manhandled into it, which i think many would have done gladly. Also, would have justified the same price point for digital games and physical copies, by giving the cheaper to produce version a benefit.
Really, corporations can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. Give consumers a choice. Make the choice you WANT them to make seem the better of two GOOD choices, and you will get the outcome you desire.