You'd need to share your password so they can access your library, and vice versa. You'd then gain all access to their content, and vice versa. Whoever you share with will need no second console already activated for their account.
XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
- Status
What, pray tell, is a crock of cow balls. Apparently, I'm a liar again.
Think that would require all installs to require an online check. Otherwise I could opt in, install it, and then sell it or give it to someone who is offline and they could install it and run it from disc-check opt out mode.
So in this scenario, abusing the share system lets you share the disc with one other person?
But online check is a fair trade for the ability to share. A give for a get.
Thinking.....thinking.......but it would still require everyone to check in. I see the problem.
It would have been an easier sell without the semi-always online requirement ... it wasn't just sour grapes whining, I'll just keep repeating my appeal to authority to prove it
PS. guys, just put him on ignore, I did that 40 pages ago ...
After all the reading in forums and such I am still a bit unclear on how the 24 hour check would work. If you go for vacation for a few days and unplug all your devices Xb1 included and then when you get back, would you have lost your whole library all will at all be there once Xb1 would have "called home"?...
You would have had to plug the network back in so it could call home before you were allowed to play the games again.
The functionality would return once the validation process completed after plugging back in, possibly minus any license revocations due to expired sharing or resale events.
I agree with your line of reasoning and also MfA's. Microsoft could have a system that suits everyone with minimal risk, but for some reason they aren't doing it.
A well implemented system would have the disc be the master. If the disc is placed into a console that connects online it deactivates digital copies on other systems.
If I were implementing the system this would be the risk to publishers. Only the risk would only be assumed if the console with the disc never goes online. As soon as it goes online it deactivates other digital copies until they are reauthenticated with the disc.
Maybe Dean is running things and this is all a conspiracy designed to sell books.
I'm not even sure how to surmount that without a check-in process for all. You could have different physical discs, where some are digital convertible and some are not. The supply side of that and customer confusion could be a bit of a problem.
Doesn't this still leave a problem for something like Redbox where either the renter who returns it after 1 day still gets to play it until that particular physical disc is rented again? The only way around that I could see is if the rental material owner (Redbox, Gamefly, etc) had a system which booted the disc upon return and messaged the servers to turn it off on the renters box.
I don't think this is a big risk and something like Gamefly could easily stick the disc in a console when it's returned. They could also require these services to register serial numbers so rental games don't play without the disc in the drive. My thinking is the disc can't be played as a pure digital copy if there's no internet connection to authenticate.
In the case of being able to upgrade a disc-based game to a DD version, it would require submitting the game to Live.
Redbox would be wise to register itself first, after which Live would reject the renter's attempts at an upgrade for disc-free play.
Redbox would be wise to register itself first, after which Live would reject the renter's attempts at an upgrade for disc-free play.
It would have been an easier sell without the semi-always online requirement ... it wasn't just sour grapes whining, I'll just keep repeating my appeal to authority to prove it
My thoughts are that the online requirement was needed for two reasons. From a technical point, it was required for disk to digital conversion, which as others here have found, other alternatives are not particularly workable.
From a business point of view it was necessary to control disc resale. I suspect this control was at least part of the trade off to publishers for their support of sharing. While it may be technically possible to still have sharing for digital copies, it may not have been palatable to publishers without the used games control, which did require the check in.
These two reasons are why I think disk to digital was ruled out completely, and sharing is at this stage not happening as its not a technical issue but one that will require negotiation with publishers.
Oh come one, drop that attitude already -it does no good to you, nor to me nor to anyone-, he isn't confronting you. He stood his ground, you stood yours, can we have some peace, please? Afaik, Silenti's initial intention was always to buy the console and -I think it was him iirc- I remembered him saying that he wanted to drink a bottle of liquor after Microsoft reaffirmed their position on the DRM policies.
We lost, the people supporting the non-DRM policies were majority and presented better arguments than Microsoft's marketing and PR people did and that's it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
