Or the guy that writes Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)...Anthony Corrigan said:
seriously, his little rant about fan reactions to the xbone debacle was basically about how we should all be grateful that Microsoft is screwing us over.
Xbox One Fans create a petition to have Microsoft re-enable the DRM for the Xbox One
- Thread starter Snazzymathematics
- Start date
Recommended Videos
seriously, his little rant about fan reactions to the xbone debacle was basically about how we should all be grateful that Microsoft is screwing us over.
It's a bit weird on hereAnthony Corrigan said:
youtube=video ID (found after v=)
put that inside of []
If you quote my post you can see the code for it
Actually it makes complete sense if you think about it.KOMega said:
The region locking was probably put in place due to negotiations with global governments. For example Australia... oh Australia. Does anyone honestly think Australia would let people get around their heavy handed rating system with the click of a button? MS may have started region free but realized that they couldn't implement the family sharing system because of different rating systems. They may have even been making baby steps toward getting that removed in the long term, but we'll never know now.
The once a day check in was put there as a placebo to keep publishers from freaking out. How many AAA pubs would go for a system where they could potentially lose 90% of their sales? Something would have had to be said to get the pubs on board with that.
It was a very forward-thinking idea that probably required a lot of legal legwork and compromise to pull off. Sadly, the most vocal consumers don't do "forward-thinking". So we're left with discs.
[ youtube = videocode ]Anthony Corrigan said:
With videocode being the end of the URL, such as xcXdWRJ-xb4, and the spaces removed.
If you wanna know how to use the coding on the site there's a guide thread stickied somewhere and you can always just quote someone to see how they did it.
OT: Because of course they are, because there just has to be people that stupid.
No matter how stupid something is, there will always be idiots defending it.
I don't think any of these people knew that family sharing was going to be little more than a glorified demo system.
I don't think any of these people knew that family sharing was going to be little more than a glorified demo system.
About 2,500 signatures- some, by their listed reasons, clearly in protest of the aim of the petition itself- against the collected ire of, well, almost everyone who is actually aware of the issue and cares.
Nice lead balloon they've got there. Wonder how it will go over?
Nice lead balloon they've got there. Wonder how it will go over?
I get humor, but people need to wise up about signing it for the lulz. If anything, recent events shows us that people don't get 'internet jokes'. Justin Carter, anyone? Be as funny and hilarious and irrevlant as you want. The Rest of the World doesn't get. your. humor.
You are on the fast track of erasing a victory, however marginal it is. You will get Microsoft employees (whoever is replacing Don) seeing these numbers as just proof they were right. I mean, they looked at the number of people who connected to Xbox live per day and figured that means everyone has a great internet connection and would never mind checking in once per day to play the games they supposedly bought.
Do not joke with morons. They lack the capacity to understand.
Downloadable content, WHOLE downloadable content is still a very relatively new thing. Gaming has been out since the early 1980's? There was no way to ship information other than disks or whatever until very recently. And only very recently has connections been strong and fast enough to make downloading things an option. And even still, why would I want to wait 30 minutes when I can just pop something in and get the playing?
No one knows what the family share program is. It is the glow in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. I have just as much proof that Microsoft didn't even know what the hell they were going to do with it as people who believe you could share the games infinitely. So holding it as something we lost is really meaningless, because we lost a non-fleshed out idea that no one is ever sure of.
Really, how can anyone believe that a company who made it clear that they are backing the industry (with it's hate of used games and game sharing) would release a system of game sharing that seems like CliffyB's worst nightmare?
You are on the fast track of erasing a victory, however marginal it is. You will get Microsoft employees (whoever is replacing Don) seeing these numbers as just proof they were right. I mean, they looked at the number of people who connected to Xbox live per day and figured that means everyone has a great internet connection and would never mind checking in once per day to play the games they supposedly bought.
Do not joke with morons. They lack the capacity to understand.
... That's like saying owning a car is the car companies DRM to prove that you purchased a way to get around.Nimzabaat said:
Downloadable content, WHOLE downloadable content is still a very relatively new thing. Gaming has been out since the early 1980's? There was no way to ship information other than disks or whatever until very recently. And only very recently has connections been strong and fast enough to make downloading things an option. And even still, why would I want to wait 30 minutes when I can just pop something in and get the playing?
No one knows what the family share program is. It is the glow in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. I have just as much proof that Microsoft didn't even know what the hell they were going to do with it as people who believe you could share the games infinitely. So holding it as something we lost is really meaningless, because we lost a non-fleshed out idea that no one is ever sure of.
Really, how can anyone believe that a company who made it clear that they are backing the industry (with it's hate of used games and game sharing) would release a system of game sharing that seems like CliffyB's worst nightmare?
Oh don't worry, EA have great experience with influencing Online polls:Rob Moir said:
http://www.maxconsole.com/maxcon_forums/showthread.php?187806-Is-EA-using-Origin-to-illegally-sign-anti-gay-bullying-petition
And that's why I will never allow Origin on my Computer.
The issue I take with this is all the "maybe" "probably" and "may have"s that we need to use when discussing anything about the finer points of the Xbones software, because Microsoft were so guarded about how exactly their system worked.Nimzabaat said:
You can view it through the lens that Microsoft had the best possible motives when designing their console, many others view the evidence through the lens that Microsoft wanted to control and monopolise through their console, and with the information given we simply cannot say whether the final product would have truly been the Christ or Antichrist, but one thing is for certain: Microsoft royally messed up this console launch.
The region free thing. okay... problems with allowing access to games over certain borders.Nimzabaat said:
Legal stuff is a mess and very costly. I can believe that.
The once a day check up was a placebo.... to replace.... always online?
Or a placebo to counter the thought among publishers it wasn't going to be always online?
Even if the X1 were always online, how would that stop the family sharing plan (assuming it works when viewed in the best possible light)?
To get publishers on board I would think they would want a way to control the number of games in circulation, physical and digital. So if someone wanted to play a shared game, the original owner cannot play the game while the borrower was playing, thus basically limiting the number of people who can play on a single copy.
The other way that might get publishers on board is if the rumor was true where the family sharing plan was actually a way to produce free advertising through a demo service.
Either way, in light of the trouble with borders, it would mean that bringing back the restrictions will not make the family sharing plan work anyways in the first place.
Ah, my friend, but don't you see? As Nimzabaat has said, we're all backwards-thinking luddites because we don't instantly trust Microsoft on the one feature that might have been good (but probably wouldn't be) even if that feature and the shit tethered to it would have screwed us in so many ways, such as making sure we don't have full ownership of what we buy and preventing either troops in other countries or people in the places Microsoft doesn't make enough money in to care about from playing games altogether.Headdrivehardscrew said:
Nope, we're basically Epimetheus because we're too focused on NOT allowing ourselves to be screwed over now. In doing this madness, we're preventing Microsoft from revolutionizing the industry so that they can screw us over more in the future.
Your travel time thing does not work out, as it is factually incorrect.Nimzabaat said:
I bought, say, Walking Dead for my PS3. I want to allow my buddy/mother/brother to play it, all they have to do is to log in with my credentials on their system, download the game, boom! Instant share! That's how it's been on the PS3 ever since it came out and the PlayStation Store was up and running.
OK, bear with me. If I put my brain into Microsoft mode, this is how 'Family Sharing' would have played out:
1) You have a limited amount of shares available. Let's assume it would be TEN (10) SHARES per game that HAS NOT BEEN BLOCKED FROM USING THIS FEATURE BY THE PUBLISHER (i. e. EA, UBI, Activiavision, for they make my poop smooth)
2) These shares can be used either a) locally or b) globally
3) All shares you use locally (for actual family members) will cost you ONE SHARE. So, if your XBOX31 has THREE user accounts registered, you will have SEVEN shares left. If you have a second XBOX31 downstairs, at your brothers crib, in your kid sisters room, you'd be down SIX shares.
4) There are limitations as to how many times you can activate/deactivate accounts
5) There are limitations as to how many times a single title can be activated 'for free'
6) Sony couldn't keep up their sexy 5 Share programme, they toned it down to 3 shares, which is significantly less awesome, since most people I know (me included) own more than one PS3. What makes you think Microsoft would willfully sell a TENTH of what they could? I don't find that to be very probable.
etc.
I just don't find it in my heart to believe that Microsoft would have given us stuff for free.
It's probably whoever pitched the idea in disguise. I KNEW there was a reason why there was a sudden increase in sales for fake glasses with mustaches attached
You didn't quite have it right there. It was sharing amongst 10 people in your "family". The limitation was that only one person could play a particular game at a time (unless two people had purchased that game). If you sell the game it comes off your account and goes on to the buyers account so you can't play it unless you're one of the buyers "family" and there's really no point to selling it among family actually. There was no limit to shares or anything like that in the original diagram for it. So basically speaking a well organized group of friends could buy 10 games and each play the others games when they weren't actively playing it saving approximately $540 depending on where you live. Obviously that wasn't quite as advantageous for multiplayer games which would require multiple licenses and explains why EA wanted every game they would make going forward to have multiplayer.Headdrivehardscrew said:
I do understand your attitude that MS wouldn't give away free stuff (unless you've got xbox live of course, because they totally are doing just that) but people basically "looked the gift horse in the mouth" and didn't understand what they saw. So nobody wins. Well until Valve does it and makes it palatable for people and then MS will try it again and people will make fun of MS for copying Valve. *sigh*
What is really odd is that the PCGMR play a lot of MMO's so they should be both familiar, and comfortable with the concept of licensing and not owning something that they paid for. It's not a new concept, MS just tried adding the ability to share things you've paid for with other users.
EDIT: How did the travel time thing not work out? Can you instantaneously travel between cities? I'd like to learn that!
Sorry I cut out the dross.Necromancer Jim said:
You do realize the used game market needs to die right? Gamestop gives you about $5-10 back for a new release and sells it for $5 off? That is completely anti-consumerist and needs to end. Blockbuster's days were numbered as soon as the world started moving to digital distribution and Netflix. Gaming should get with the times and move to solely digital distribution as well. AAA titles could drop their prices because they don't need to pay for packaging and distribution anymore. All those people who "can't afford" to buy new could have been spending $40 for a new game instead of $60. Brave new world on the horizon and survey says... no.
The biggest problem wasn't the digital-only part. Steam, GoG and both companies online stores proves that. The problems were with the "trade it once" policy, the online check-ins, the always-on kinect and the fact it put the power into publishers hands.
The XBone DRM and digital rennaisance could have worked if they slightly modified the E3 model.
- Allow lending of the license to a friend for a user-specified length of time.
- The sharing feature would work again.
- Allow selling of the digital license, without restriction, to a store or friend, without Microsoft trying to take any money from it. The licence belongs to the user, not the publisher, and is theirs to sell for whatever they ask. The simple way to do this is to allow the license to "return to the cloud" as it were, and allow the store or friend to then "claim" it.
- Have games require an online connection only to activate the licence (so that the same licence cannot work on multiple consoles), but thereafter work offline, indefinitely. I would accept this as a legitimate use of DRM.
- Allow the option of playing a game FROM THE DISC, without the need to activate the licence. This allows people who have no/poor internet, serving military and people who like to own physical media to do so without the hoops.
A crafty MS could've allowed these to be traded digitally with strangers by having XBL act as escrow. It holds User A's licence until User B pays whatever they chose. When both parties are satisfied, they hit "Accept" and the trade goes through with MS taking a 5% cut for transacting the payment, like Visa/Amex.
This would've pleased everyone. Games can be shared. Games can be lent digitally and physically. Games can be sold/traded digitally/physically. Games can be played offline. People who like discs have them, people who like digital have that too. There's no reason a "digital licence" cannot be manipulated by the XBL cloud and traded, sold, shared or lent as a (virtual) commodity.
The XBone DRM and digital rennaisance could have worked if they slightly modified the E3 model.
- Allow lending of the license to a friend for a user-specified length of time.
- The sharing feature would work again.
- Allow selling of the digital license, without restriction, to a store or friend, without Microsoft trying to take any money from it. The licence belongs to the user, not the publisher, and is theirs to sell for whatever they ask. The simple way to do this is to allow the license to "return to the cloud" as it were, and allow the store or friend to then "claim" it.
- Have games require an online connection only to activate the licence (so that the same licence cannot work on multiple consoles), but thereafter work offline, indefinitely. I would accept this as a legitimate use of DRM.
- Allow the option of playing a game FROM THE DISC, without the need to activate the licence. This allows people who have no/poor internet, serving military and people who like to own physical media to do so without the hoops.
A crafty MS could've allowed these to be traded digitally with strangers by having XBL act as escrow. It holds User A's licence until User B pays whatever they chose. When both parties are satisfied, they hit "Accept" and the trade goes through with MS taking a 5% cut for transacting the payment, like Visa/Amex.
This would've pleased everyone. Games can be shared. Games can be lent digitally and physically. Games can be sold/traded digitally/physically. Games can be played offline. People who like discs have them, people who like digital have that too. There's no reason a "digital licence" cannot be manipulated by the XBL cloud and traded, sold, shared or lent as a (virtual) commodity.
First of all, I can buy Max Payne 3 at GS for around 20$ used so you are underestimating the saving in used games. Second I like being able to sell games I'm done with, and the inability to do so is one of the biggest problems with Steam. Bought a game, then finished it and don't feel like replaying? well too bad its going to sit in your library forever taking up space. Third if big publishers refuse to lower their prices to compete, what on earth makes you think they will lower their prices if they can force competition out of the market? Hint: they won't. The godawful prices on Xbox live games on demand seems like a fair indicator of what MS does in a market they control. Also lol @ $20 less for a new game somehow being a "brave new world"Nimzabaat said:
A glorified demo service and disallowing used games is less restrictive than having to put a disc in a tray? What kind of crazy shit are you smoking? You do realize the family share only allowed you to play a game for 45 minutes to an hour, right? While also being a key factor in their restricting the ability to play used discs?Nimzabaat said:I find it funny in a sad way that nobody seems to realize that having to put the disc in the console is the most restrictive form of DRM on the planet. MS's family share program was less restrictive, not more. Though, from seeing the petitions there are at least some people who want more as opposed freedom to share as opposed to less, and want to spend less as opposed to more.
