Why the Xbox One Cannot Keep the Family Sharing...

[Anthony Corrigan]

It was confirmed earlier today that Family Sharing was not going to be just a demo service.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/21/on-xbox-ones-social-network-canceled-family-share-demos

I agree it could have been kept with digital downloads, and it would have been awesome, but figuring out how to do it with physical copies is a whole different thing.

They can say it would give free Ferraris now, they don't have to put up or show any proof so they can say anything they like

As others have pointed out, if this was to please the evil overlords why would they have effectively made it so you could advertise online for a group of say RPG gamers to make your "family" and so you each only have to buy 1 in 10 games

 

[RicoADF]

As anybody who frequents any gaming news site knows by now, the Xbox One recently removed two of its most widely controversial features: the 24-hour check-in DRM, and the heavy restrictions on used games. However, they also removed what was most likely the most popular feature of said console - the whole "Family Sharing Library" system that allowed people to lend games to select friends and family members. This has understandably made quite a few people upset, especially those few who did not have a problem with the console in the first place. Once again, perfectly understandable. However, quite a few people keep recommending that Microsoft stick with the Family Sharing Library - which I'll refer to as the FSL from here on out, since I am indeed a lazy bastard - while keeping the system DRM free. To put it bluntly, that's simply not feasible and I'll explain why in a moment.
*SNIP*

That is utter crap. Games have been sold on PC from online stores for years with no requirement for an internet connection (other to download them). To save time I'll just copy what I said in another topic:

"But that's the thing, a constant internet connection isn't required to offer the options. Let me explain:

You buy a game from retail and put the disc in the console, at this point you would have 2 options:
1) Just play the game like on xbox from the disc, nothing changes
2) Register the game to your console online, which binds/links that disc to your account.

Once it's linked to your account you could install the game to the hard drive and play online and offline without the disc as the disc is locked to your account, even if you went offline and lent the disc to a friend it wouldn't work as it's already 'in use'.

However you could lend the game to friends via the sharing and family system as MS already had planned, which they would have to be online to make sure you didn't have 100 people running off 1 copy, that I could understand, but the original owner can still play offline as the licence is already locked to them and their console/disc.

Then when they don't want the game anymore and want to sell/give it away they simply login online and deactivate the game on their account, at which point it goes back to the first step where people can play from that disc or register it to another account.

That system would give both parties what they want and it can be done. Their not doing it because their acting like spoilt kids taking their ball home because they couldn't win. Go off at M$ for being assholes not the consumers that wanted options and rights, which they were correct to demand for."

So no, they didn't have to drop it, Microsoft is just being dicks if they do keep it disabled (initially it'll be unavailable to give them a chance to change the system). Hell even they said that they only dropped it "for now", so even they admit it will work without always online and their probably just adjusting the code/system so that it will work offline. Probably via a system similar to what I quoted above.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Not sure if the OP understood or not but basically everyone in the "family" can download and install the game but only one person at a time can play it (well technically more in a local setting). Potential savings of $540 (approx, i'm tired) per person if you know 10 people and buy 10 single player games. Um more clearly described below...

So now we get threads complaining about why we now can't have this because it was way ahead of Sony and Nintendo's system. You could "lend" a game to a friend in another part of the country just by letting him/her know you have it.

Then we get threads from the people who don't understand that Sony and Nintendo's "just pass the disc around" system is just another more restrictive form of DRM. We get threads claiming that Microsoft could never have been serious about their official stance on the family shared library system. Because if they were, that would mean gamers have made a terrible, terrible mistake. So they have to rationalize it any way they can. Like a hunter shooting a unicorn. Um wasn't really a unicorn... was only going to be a unicorn for an hour and then the horn falls off unless you pay for glue... um smoke and mirrors?

TLDR: We done fucked up. Big time.

 

[NoeL]

TLDR: We done fucked up. Big time.

NO! We fucking DID NOT! Always remember that it was Microsoft's - and Microsoft's alone - decision to remove this feature. Their ideas were disgusting, treating the consumer like a criminal, and had no place in the industry. You cannot blame gamers for crying out against that - we did the RIGHT thing. Microsoft chose to remove this feature (maybe they can no longer afford it if they're not fucking over the consumer, or maybe they're just bitter). Nobody forced their hand.

OT:

TL;DR: Family Sharing can't really be done without strong DRM, due to people who will abuse it and the install system like crazy.

Incorrect. Or at least I should say, it can be done without the draconian level of DRM Microsoft planned to have. As for the abuse, it's not as big an issue as it seems on the surface. This is my proposal:

If there's a disc in the drive, you can play the game - no restrictions, no bullshit. If you want to "borrow" a game from your "family member"'s library (or play an already borrowed game), you need to authenticate online. If the owner of the game isn't online to verify the game has been borrowed, it can only be accessed for, say, 24 hours. If you want to keep playing after that, ring them up and tell them to log into XBL. This will revoke their access to the game offline (unless they put the disc in the tray), and will have to connect in order to play from the hard drive (which prevents their friends from borrowing).

You can install disc-based games to the hard drive and play without a disc if you register the game online, and those games will be available to you (even while offline) until someone else registers with that same disc (or it's borrowed by a family member - see above). The next time you come online, Microsoft will tell your system that the game has been registered by someone else and block access to it. Now, this opens the possibility of abuse, as someone can install a shit ton of games, sell the discs, and then stay offline indefinitely - never losing access to their games. HOWEVER, in doing so the user severely limits their own console, because not only can they never go online again (so no online multiplayer, no game sharing, no cloud computing, no library access on other consoles, etc.), but they won't be able to install any new games without risking losing their entire library (since you need to login to register the game). This makes the abusive strategy pretty unappealing, and will only come into play at the very end of the console's life cycle once new games stop coming out, and at this point in time everybody would be filling their library with used games regardless so publishers aren't losing out on anything.

This setup gives users the best of both worlds. If you have no internet you can still buy physical discs and play them, but you won't be able to install them. If you lose internet access you'll still be able to play all the games you've installed, plus any new games as long as the disc is in the drive. If you want to take advantage of the online sharing scheme, then you have to put up with the DRM and play by the rules. Simple. Also, since digital downloads have no physical disc there is no reason whatsoever not to implement family sharing on those.

Logistically, this can be done. The potentially difficult part is getting it done financially. For all we know the publishers might have only been on board with family sharing (which will likely result in less people buying games) if they could make back that lost revenue elsewhere - e.g. controlling the used game market. The important thing to remember is that regardless of what they were offering, it wasn't worth what they were taking away.

 

[WWmelb]

I have posted my ideas for the solution to this elsewhere, haven't read this whole thread which is unusual for me, but will post what i have said before on this issue.

Yes you can keep games how they are now AND have the digital family sharing concept still active with very few changes to their initial coding, simply because there are two ways to buy a game anyway.

Basically, disc based games, you simply keep as they are. Need disc to play etc. Can loan disc/sell disc/give disc away and therefor lose your ability to play the game while the disc is not in your possession.

Digital download. Keep everything they had initially for digital downloads with digi-sharing etc. Can still drop the daily check in, but have very non-intrusive DRM to limit the sharing capability of said digital download.

In order to share a game over XBL you would have to get online anyway to buy the game, download the game and so the servers know you have the game to share to begin with, and your friends/family would need to get online anyway to download said game. That is the only connection to the servers that ever NEEDS to be done to manage the sharing rights.

Let me explain why.. maybe their are obvious flaws i've missed, but i don't think so.

1. You buy the game online and download it.

2. XBL Asks if you would like to add this game to your shared library (would not happen with a disc install).

3. XBL Adds it to your shared library and notifies your family list through their accounts that you have shared it.

4. You log offline and play your game happily.

5. All 10 (say 10 for the sake of argument) of your family list take you up on the sharing log into XBL and download their shared copy.

6. XBL Servers keep track of the fact that all 10 shared licenses have been used of your install, and makes the "share" no longer available for download.

7. 10 people log off and can play the game (supposing it is a FULL share of the game) or maybe if, they haven't paid for the game, have to stay online in order to play it (which could limit to one person sharing a game from your library at a time if need be). That is DRM yes, but seeing as the customer accessing the shard game paid not a cent, it is hardly intrusive. Could even add some code to the shared file limiting play time per day of shared game or whatever you like. Still wouldn't have to be online for this to work or to check in once a day or anything. The possibilities on how to limit play of shared copies is really limitless. And as the user of shared file hasn't paid anything, is not an owner of said content, and as their play on a share may be limited somehow, would be given an incentive to buy their very own copy.

By implementing the FSL in this way, while keeping DRM free disc based games, microsoft has a win win situation.

They are giving the customers CHOICE which is always nice.

They are making the purchase of digital copies more attractive, without detriment to the disc based game, and therefore steering the consumer base in the direction they want to go. Its the difference between guiding a traveler down a cliff face track, or pushing them over the edge. They get to the bottom one way or the other, but i think they'll be happier with the first option lol.

As i said in another thread, give a customer two good choices, and make the choice you want them to make slightly more attractive, and you will get the result you are after.

My idea for the system i guess could be exploited by serious hackers, but, hackers are going to hack regardless, so i deem it a non issue if anyone wants to point it out.

And i would also like to hear the OP's thoughts on my ideas.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Another point with the FSL is that it HAS to be region locked. The Australian government, for one, is pretty draconian in their stance on violent video games and not having it region locked would bypass their laws. Now if you mail a game to Australia there's still a chance that customs can nab it. I'm also pretty sure that the 10 family member cap was put there to appease publishers. It was a bold strategy that had to balance consumer versus publisher wants. It's too bad that the people who talk loudest aren't all that bright.

Bear in mind that this was such a great idea that Valve is looking into it. Of course if Valve does it, then it's the best idea ever, how did they think of it etc etc.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Then we get threads from the people who don't understand that Sony and Nintendo's "just pass the disc around" system is just another more restrictive form of DRM.

Discs are not DRM, they are a medium of storage and transmission for information.
DRM is NOT inherent to any medium for that matter. You can sell discs with DRM, digital downloads with DRM, or either without DRM.

TLDR: We done fucked up. Big time.

"TLDR: I presume to speak for everyone. Shame on us all for not doing what *I* specifically want."

 

[Nimzabaat]

Then we get threads from the people who don't understand that Sony and Nintendo's "just pass the disc around" system is just another, more restrictive, form of DRM.

Discs are not DRM, they are a medium of storage and transmission for information.
DRM is NOT inherent to any medium for that matter. You can sell discs with DRM, digital downloads with DRM, or either without DRM.

TLDR: We done fucked up. Big time.

"TLDR: I presume to speak for everyone. Shame on us all for not doing what *I* specifically want."

So having to have the disc in the drive so that only one person can play that particular game at a time isn't a form of digital rights management? I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Rickin10]

I see Microsoft's tactic of playing the martyr is falling on very receptive ears. Stockholm syndrome is still alive and well.

'Hey everybody, we had like this totally AMAZING feature that was gonna revolutionize gaming....sorry, what was that, "why didn't we talk about it?" Errr...well it's bloody irrelevant now isn't it! All you luddites who didn't want follow us into our glorious gamer-friendly utopia ruined it for everyone didn't you? Eh..? "Can I explain exactly how this Family plan was going to work?" Uhhh....did you SEE TitanFall?!?!!

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

The whole thing was smoke and mirrors

http://www.heyuguysgaming.com/news/12507/heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets-rip-must-read

It was only a demo service anyway

Not everything on pastebin is necessarily the truth.

My tuppence on this matter is somewhat underrepresented.

I think the merry folks over at Microsoft have not yet figured it out completely, and had that Family Sharing service/feature turned out to be anything less than awesome and sugar-and-spice nice, there would have been another shit storm right after release.

I think Microsoft will try and stay away from shit storms for a little while now. So, if they're all doing their jobs right, expect more outrage... just not before, say, February 2014. We all need a chill pill and some recreative drug use after a month of living on the edge.

So having to have the disc in the drive so that only one person can play that particular game at a time isn't a form of digital rights management? I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hah. Funny. You shouldn't play with the kids, you'll spoil them.

With consoles that rely on optical discs and optical drives, the disc-in-drive copy protection/DRM is easily my favourite. I did not and do not like it on PC, but on our current consoles, it's the easiest, simplest, most straightforward, cheapest and most sensible one stop procedure to establish a certain level of security, even if the game is actually played from a 10'000rpm hard drive.

Ever since the 3DO, PSX, Neo Geo CD, Philips CDi, Amiga CD32, Saturn and especially the Dreamcast, optical-storage-based consoles were pretty much on track of becoming glorified, locked down, black-box type exercises in content management and user control. A lot of effort, time and money were spent/wasted on coming up with hardware locks and lock outs, dating back even to the most humble Nintendo Famicom / NES days, and with the growing processing power, more and more of these - classically easily circumvented measures - were handled via software, leading up to the very unsatisfactory fact of save games and user data being locked to not just one console, but basically to one optical drive controller and one hard drive, with not even the tiniest aspect of user data being user transferrable or manageable if the content provider has locked things down 'just to make sure'. With the tumour of legalese metastasizing all over the planet, the globalized consumerist escapist world becomes not a lush green field over which we can frolick and dance while singing merry songs, it's the frozen labyrinth of Shining. We just need to realize that to properly focus and be able to vocalize our concerns and dreams of a better tomorrow.

Microsoft's wet dreams of Big Brother levels of user and content and license and rights and everything control looked like one feverish nightmare to me, but they will absolutely try again, as the system we've let slip into existence is still a horror of Lovecraftian proportions. Just be aware of that.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So having to have the disc in the drive so that only one person can play that particular game at a time isn't a form of digital rights management?

Ayup. The CD/DVD/Blu Ray doesn't care whether you copy the information over to access it on the hard drive, or access it directly. The medium doesn't care; only the system that's accessing the data on said medium.

As for the sharing system being less restrictive; that's highly circumstantial.

I can walk down the street and borrow my friend's copy of Devil May Cry 3, put it in my PS2 and the game will play 24/7 no questions asked. Not when my friend isn't using the game, not after I've spent a month on his friend's list, and not only after my machine can access the internet.

It's only a major benefit if you regularly lend/borrow games from people a long distance away and have a good internet connection.
Apart from that, it's not much of a benefit; especially against the wall of new drawbacks.

I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sure thing!