You really think people that split the price between 3 people are the average case? Seriously? Thank you for proving my point.
XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
- Status
You really think people that split the price between 3 people are the average case? Seriously? Thank you for proving my point.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Well there's no mention of a "family list" on the licence page, what it says is:
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.
We don't know how this will work but, since it's potentially a huge exploit and Microsoft aren't idiots, I think you can expect some restriction or design to limit you using this to share with friends.
I'm betting that Microsoft will introduce a family Xbox Live account, allowing up to ten people with different profiles to be part of that account - with appropriate account restrictions for different people. Having a "family list" that you can add anybody who can share your games? Yeah, that's obviously not going to happen. Image Mike and Steve both play a lot of games together. Now only one of them needs to own any one game because they are both on each others family list.
If you buy a rollercoaster you should be able to let whoever you want to ride it. And you should be able to sell it too.
The difference with Xbone is that you are no longer buying a rollercoaster, but a ticket. And that ticket costs the same amount that buying it used to. And you're no longer allowed to buy rollercoasters even if you'd be happy to pay more.
Little by little the war on game lending is picking up pace and mindshare now, simply by virtue of a corporation with a popular product trying to stamp it out. It's the same language used first in the war on piracy, then in the war on 2nd hand sales.
I'm curious, there seem to be some diehards who will accept any restriction.
Is there some threshold where the restrictions become a deal breaker?
For me, I won't pay to play online, no matter the price. If Sony requires it for the PS4, then I'm out.
But do others have deal breakers?
What if they set XBL Gold (if they keep that name) to $10 a month (with no deals, just a firm price)?
$20 a month?
Is there some threshold where the restrictions become a deal breaker?
For me, I won't pay to play online, no matter the price. If Sony requires it for the PS4, then I'm out.
But do others have deal breakers?
What if they set XBL Gold (if they keep that name) to $10 a month (with no deals, just a firm price)?
$20 a month?
You aren't buying the rollercoaster, just the rights to ride it. That's all you have ever been buying with software, you do not have the right to do with it as you please, you never have.
Perhaps... OR... MS knows this and is allowing it so as not to completely KILL game sharing as some are saying now and are allowing some leeway while at the same time being able to more clearly track and identify exact number of uses, sales, borrowing etc... You can after all only have one other person besides yourself playing form your library, not all ten
this is the first salvo in this policy, after Sony comes clean on their plans, and over the next 4-5 mos we will hear more and more details and I expect a few cookies from MS to soften the blow with some perks we are not aware of yet. Possibly even this week.
It's a crappy comparison to begin with. Lets take it to the correct thread please.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Early software carried no or very few restrictions. Nobody was worried about anybody copying Atari 2600 cartridges in 1977. Over the years EULA's have emerged and added in prohibitions covering leasing, renting, sub-licensing, publishing, modifying, adapting, or translating the software.
For the most part, none of the licence restrictions impacted consumers at all. In many countries such restrictions have no legal basis and in the ones that do, these are only enforced in the most serious cases such as large scale counterfeiting. But this change to the concept of ownership, enforced by the system's DRM, is new and will impact consumers used to owning games with few, if any, meaningful restrictions.
This changes user's perception of their purchased games and limits their ability to chose what to do with this. It's a huge, huge change. If people hated the use of DRM before, this will do nothing to make it seem more appealing.
Would be quite ironic if this move will result into the big publishers to shrink down to their core studios. If external studios needed them for pre financing, distribution and marketing in the past taking away the distribution part makes it a lot easier to work around them in the future.
If it costs too much, then it could be a deal breaker for me. I think I've talked about this before...
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1741059&postcount=1351
To me it's all about playing the games first & foremost. Owning, trading, lending, renting, etc plays a distant second. If I can afford to pay for the ones I want to play then I will. I will just accept the means at which to play them. If I can't lend them to a friend, then my friend needs to get a job & pay for his own. LOL I've never rented & never plan to. If I decide to keep buying disc games then MS is still giving me a way to trade those in for credits. You seriously think 3rd party publishers are going to let MGS be the white knight who is the only publisher on XB1 to allow trading? I really like the up to 10 family members plan, but then again it comes down to cost too.
So in summary, if I can afford the system & the games I want to play, then hell yeah I'm going to get them. But if I can't, then I can't. Does that mean I'll go PS4? Probably not. I expect Sony to be in the same ball park on cost & services. If I can't afford a XB1, then I won't be able to afford the PS4 either. I will just wait until I can afford the XB1 & its games. I still have a lot 360 games left to play.
Tommy McClain
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
But it would be laughably simple for Xbox One owners to simply buddy up with another person, even if they don't know them, for the purpose to sharing the cost of games between themselves. There would be matching websites for this within days! Then both people can games all the time all the time.
Do you honestly believe, given the measures Microsoft have unveiled to put the control used games sales in the hands of the publishers, that those same publishers would be cool with the scale of potential lost sales if they introduced sharing as you describe?
Uh, no. No way. Never. Nada. Nyet. Nein. Nicht.
hey! I object :smile:
and I do not believe my argument is a moral one, it's a logical one but Mods can determine better than I what they want here if I am mistaken
and Atari lost their machine and business because they did not plan ahead to license their software... lessons learned, technology advances, people adapt...
It's not perfect but if MS had gone all DD this would not be as much of an issue. the problem has resulted form hanging onto an old medium
as to legality, especially EU, I have no idea but i's not like MS does not have an entire legal dept doing nothing than calculating what will be legal/illegal and or winnable to change a precedent
Damn, i am down on courtroom movies, i need to read up on those so i can come up with a witty response
Anyway, most amusement parks are 1 day subscription based now
If my games are a rollercoaster ride, then i bought the track and used to buy the wagon/cars that i ride on that track. When i got tired of the cars i would sell them and buy a new one. With the new scheme the same people that sold me the track wants to control what i do with the cars i bought for the track..
Man.. why did you start this comparison it's hard to translate to games
Damn, i am down on courtroom movies, i need to read up on those so i can come up with a witty response
Anyway, most amusement parks are 1 day subscription based now
If my games are a rollercoaster ride, then i bought the track and used to buy the wagon/cars that i ride on that track. When i got tired of the cars i would sell them and buy a new one. With the new scheme the same people that sold me the track wants to control what i do with the cars i bought for the track..
Man.. why did you start this comparison it's hard to translate to games
hey I'm al for that too
PS+ type full game subscriptions baby, Day 1 releases, make it happen
haMy cellphone comparison was better
It's hard to empathize with a rollercoaster owner, because it's obviously someone very rich, and I hate rich people.
But it would be laughably simple for Xbox One owners to simply buddy up with another person, even if they don't know them, for the purpose to sharing the cost of games between themselves. There would be matching websites for this within days! Then both people can games all the time all the time.
Do you honestly believe, given the measures Microsoft have unveiled to put the control used games sales in the hands of the publishers, that those same publishers would be cool with the scale of potential lost sales if they introduced sharing as you describe?
Uh, no. No way. Never. Nada. Nyet. Nein. Nicht.
It can be extremely inconvenient at times. You are still sharing a virtual version of one app. You all cant access it all at the same time. For a bunch of buddies with similar tastes who love to game, sharing one instance of a franchise like COD, BioShock, Elder Scrolls, Madden, Forza, or Halo at launch would seem unreasonable especially at release. Plus it seems you are able to pick and choose what you share means sharing wont happen until the purchaser chooses so. As a gamer you would most likely share titles that dont warrant much of your time. Meaning the group would still purshase their own copies of titles where sharing would be too inconvenient.
Plus, in any group where you have hardcore and core gamers there will probably be an expectation of equal contribution. You are not going to find a bunch of hardcore gamers willing to support the gaming needs of 9 hanger ons who contribute nothing to the shared library.
Shared library expansion would be strong motivating factor for some especially heavy buyers. Its almost like piracy except wider access would be influenced by the level of investment in one's own library. Versus piracy where wider access is more dependent on the knowledge and skills set.
Last edited by a moderator:
And your console gaming habit is being supported by a bunch of devs and pubs who do exactly that, high risk investment.
We crave for diversity in market where general consumption behaviors reward similarity. How many low budget releases turn into big hits? Not many. The PS3 and the 360's library isnt strictly composed of high budget highly marketed games. Most of it is low to mid budget titles. Yet general consumption handsomely rewards high budget highly marketable titles where a million in sales is practically not that hard. While for the majority of low to midrange titles a million in sales would probably exceed expectation.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm assuming pairs of people buddying up, not groups. You see the licence states:
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.
So, you can both play at the same time. A group of six buddies buy 3 copies, a group of four buy 2 - like game clubs of old where you pool your money to buy more games and share them. But you're still halving the number of sales on what could be quite a scale. Sure, it wouldn't work in all instances but I'd wager it happen enough to decimate sales of popular games. The more popular, the greater the potential loss of sales because the appeal for sharing cost is greater.
This is why it won't work like this
While multiple people can play on the library at once, you'll notice it doesn't actually say you can play the same GAME at the same time. Word is that the system will allow no more than two simultaneous players of the same game from the same library. So basically, you and your brother/son/sister/whatever, but no one else.I'm assuming pairs of people buddying up, not groups. You see the licence states:
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.
So, you can both play at the same time. A group of six buddies buy 3 copies, a group of four buy 2 - like game clubs of old where you pool your money to buy more games and share them. But you're still halving the number of sales on what could be quite a scale. Sure, it wouldn't work in all instances but I'd wager it happen enough to decimate sales of popular games. The more popular, the greater the potential loss of sales because the appeal for sharing cost is greater.
This is why it won't work like this
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
