I don't know what to say, it's all there in text, how much more can Microsoft do. Maybe they should have hired Cirque de Solei to perform a show where they explain the feature, It's not like it would reduce games to $6 anyways because you can only play the game one at a time because it's game sharing not game duplicating. If a new game came out and you wanted to play it, would you wait a few weeks or even months until you could borrow it from a friend or would you go buy it right away anyways? If someone doesn't want to pay $60 for a game that's what they do now, they wait and get it used later for cheaper and the publisher makes no money anyways. It doesn't really change the game buying dynamic that much except that it becomes fully digital, it keeps people out of Gamestop, and it makes it all much more convenient.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
I don't know what to say, it's all there in text, how much more can Microsoft do. Maybe they should have hired Cirque de Solei to perform a show where they explain the feature, It's not like it would reduce games to $6 anyways because you can only play the game one at a time because it's game sharing not game duplicating. If a new game came out and you wanted to play it, would you wait a few weeks or even months until you could borrow it from a friend or would you go buy it right away anyways? If someone doesn't want to pay $60 for a game that's what they do now, they wait and get it used later for cheaper and the publisher makes no money anyways. It doesn't really change the game buying dynamic that much except that it becomes fully digital, it keeps people out of Gamestop, and it makes it all much more convenient.
Yup ... the family share was basically a full game but in a demo mode with some likely time limit. This of course makes perfect sense compared to sharing an entire game with someone else let alone 10 other people, not concurrently of course. Imagine what 10 people around the country or around the world could do with a simple app to timeshare 1 game. No way this is going to happen.
No, that doesn't make any sense. They said that anyone on your shared list can play the shared copy of a game with "the only limitation" being that one person can play the shared copy of a single game.
Where do used games come from
If you have an instantly shared game that comes out day one then it could affect those 1st week sales. Used games obviously have a lag built into them. There is in fact a bit more stability with used games sales one would imagine because of that.
They can change the time limit to whatever they want.
Legally it isn't a demo, it's a full game. They just don't need to tell you it can act like a demo.
Ok then when I buy a new game it also doesn't clearly state on the box how long I can play it either. Therefore that $60 game must be a timed demo as well right? I mean the box after all doesn't clearly state that I can play it for as much as I like. See that's the problem, people are just inferring the worst case scenario all the time, you can go nuts with that and make all kinds of assumptions on everything. That's why it's been difficult to get accurate information, it's all buried under a mountain of crud. What makes it an even sillier assumption is that all games already have demos anyways, so why would I need to share my demo of a game with someone when they can just go download it themselves off Live?
It doesn't matter anymore anyways, the feature is dead on console, "hardcore" gamers got their wish. It's time to look to other platforms for that sort thing.
yup but it's not a REAL demo. It just acts like one.
2 things:
When you "sign" the EULA it will state "Terms and conditions can change without notice"
Why do you think that MS executives and support staff and PR people had such a hard time getting on the same page with their explanations ?
When you "sign" the EULA it will state "Terms and conditions can change without notice"
Why do you think that MS executives and support staff and PR people had such a hard time getting on the same page with their explanations ?
Billy Idol
Legend
Sorry Joker, but this time I really don't know what to say anymore to you. You ignore my arguments and keep iterating the vague official MS statements. So, my last try:
- you always state that you have this huge backlog of games, so you don't buy them at their day 1 price, as you can happily wait and play the others. Will this behavior of yours change with X1? Or are you willing to wait a few days until it is your turn to play the game in a shared library? If you setup a shared account with 10 people, it will cost you 6$ in average. Even if you setup a shared account with only 1 other gamer, this would immediately cut down potential customers by 50%. So is it a problem for you to wait a few days to play a game cheap?
- in your case, when you share the game with your wife, uncle, parents and nieces...how much money does this exactly generate for MS or the game publisher? How do they make money out of it that is worth:
'(number of sharing involved people-1) x 60$'
- how is sharing a game better than used games? For used games there is at least the potential that one buys the DLC. But then, MS never stated if you can share DLC in your library or not.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Here are the questions I've not seen definitive answers to, although I could have missed them.
- Is there a time limit on how long family members can play for?
- What happens if somebody is playing a game and you want to play?
- What happens if your console hasn't been online for 24hrs?
- Can you change your 10 family members, if so how/when?
- Are all games in the shared library or only some?
- Are there any limitations as to who can be considered a family member?
- How many of the 10 family members can be playing different games simultaneously?
Nothing suggested that there was a time limit on playing the game. However, I bet there was a time limit to playing the game offline, i.e. you had to stay connected to play.
I am not trying to paint you as anything. If i was, I would have just painted you instead of asking you questions. I also wont go look up voting records or anything of the sort. You have nothing to prove to me. This is JUST a messageboard.
It was your posts painting people as essentially MS bots if they embraced MS' visions of the cloud or motion controls or DRM with benefits. Titanfall is an example of "Show me" as opposed to "tell me." I accept that and hope to see more.
MS seems to have the most advanced plans in either case and its evident beyond just gaming - which is what makes it so exciting. You just dont get that sense of breadth and inclusion this go round on the PS platform.
You are taking the word "family" in family share too far to try to make a point. You dont have to establish a relationship beyond having someone on your friend list more than the previous 30 days to enable that feature. Its not even a mentally provocative description.
On the one hand you decry DRM as just MS' dirty bidding, then you decry the publishers who you also believe dont do things in the consumers interest. You are pretty sure of what EA is or isnt going to do? Companies change course all the time for their own reasons. Sony just played up to the crowd. They dont care about your rights either. But its a great soundbite.
As far as me and Sony, Me and Sony have this relationship called the PS3 which has been going strong since 2006. We also had a relationship in 1996 with their CD gameplayer I sometimes had to turn upside down on occasion to play. I had a Genesis, SuperNES, Saturn, Dreamcast, xbox and gamecube too... So what brush do I fall under to you?
I only buy digital. My 360 and Kinect dont get as much use as they used to - go figure.
Hell yeah I'm goning to buy an Xbox One. Mostly in the hopes that not only will I be able to control my entertainment choices using whatever input I choose, whether its voice, motion, controller, or second screen, but I get to play all of the games that actually interested me from E3.
So far PS4 will be my second pickup not the least of which reason is they arent doing anything I consider broadly innovative. But the next Uncharted and God of war I'm there.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Hang on, what is the source for this? Because that looks like the requirement for gifting a disc-based game, not establishing a family member.
According to joker454, the statement on family sharing said:
What I never saw clarified was who/how/when somebody could be designated a family member. Journalists asking this during E3 they were told it was still being worked out.
You see, you're pretty up on the Xbox One stuff and even you're confused
Actually Major Nelson said you could share DLC... just saying.
All that would change for me is that I would be willing to spend more on digital games. Right now I'm only willing to spend <$15 on games on Steam because once I've bought them they are locked to me for life, I can't trade them or resell them. So to mitigate that I only spend in the <$15 range, usually buying 10 to 20 games in one shot on Steam's Christmas sales typically at around $3 to $5 or so per game. With xb1 I'd be able to share digital games with friends so personally I'd be willing to spend more.
Simple example, Far Cry 3 was recently on sale for $30 on Steam. I didn't buy it because since it's locked to me forever on Steam means I want to get it closer to $5 to $10 or so. At $8 I'd probably bite. I can do that because I already have a backlog of games to play. So while I'd like to play Far Cry 3 right now, I'll wait and keep playing my existing backlog of games.
On an xb1 if it came on sale at $30 then I'd buy it. That would let me toy with it a bit now and play it at my pace. Then eventually I can share it with someone else and get a game from them in return. I don't mind spending more because I can get another game in return.
Net result, on Steam I'm willing to only part with about $8 for Far Cry 3, on Xb1 I'd be willing to part with $30. Now that's a loaded answer because I'm a graphics whore and would realistically only play a game like this on pc, but there it is.
Nieces and nephews would likely just get old simple non violent games that I'm done with. They don't buy games on their own, I just want to be the spoiling uncle that gives them games. So it's no loss for publishers because they would not have bought games on their own, but publishers benefit because now I'm willing to spend more since I can get extra value out of my games, namely making the little ones happy. It's a net financial plus for publishers. Now even if you assume that they would have bought games on their own, for older games that I'm trading means they either would have them already because they didn't want to wait to get them so they bought them new (publisher made money), or if they did wait then they probably got them used so the publisher made no money anyways.
Looking deeper into it, it's a way to get new people into games that normally would never spend any money on games at all. For example if someone bought an xb1 purely for the entertainment apps, maybe I share with her a game that she normally never would have bought. She finds she likes that game and is now a fan of it. Net result is publisher made more money from me because I was willing to spend more on the game, and they generated a new fan of the game as well.
The mistake I think you're making is that you assume every $60 game is now $6 because 10 people will share it. The problem with that logic is that it's possibly already worse than that right now with games being sold used. They don't make $60 per game anyways because who knows how many people will play that one game disc, maybe 10, maybe 20. The other thing you are missing is introducing new audiences to games. My wife would never buy a game, period, she's not into it. But if someone shared one with her and it just appeared on her console one day then she may give it a try. It's a cool way to gain new audiences, because on her own she would never walk into a gamestop. It's like if something is trending on twitter she checks it out to see what it is, or if a friend likes something on facebook she explores what it is. If someone wants to share a game with her she would try it out just to see. It doesn't mean she will buy that game, but without that sharing mechanism she never would even bother trying it.
It's a more convenient way to do it once it's all digital. If I want to talk to a relative I don't write them a letter and mail it, I send them email. If someone wants a used game they can kick it old school and go drive to gamestop, or they can digitally grab it from a friend. You're right they never mentioned dlc, but if you bought a used game disc from gamestop you'd have to buy the dlc on your own anyways, it's not like you can get the dlc from the person that used to own that used game. With shared digital games it would be the same, borrow the game from a friend and buy the dlc if you want it. Nothing changes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
Thanks, did not know that.
Billy Idol
Legend
Thanks for the detailed answers.
- So you are willing to wait until games get cheap, so you do not expect that it is a problem for people in a sharing group to wait a few days to play the game and get it super cheap, getting it way earlier than waiting for a price drop for instance. Exactly what I think as well.
- you are right that your nieces would not buy a game directly themselves, but most probably their parents. Anyway, that was not the point of my question. As you clearly state, there is no direct money for MS or a publisher with you sharing your games. You are right, it might attract people in the long term to play more games, if they are able to play a game for free and test it out. But this is not proven and difficult to argue.
- this was exactly my point: first, lending a physical disc takes a lot of effort and is hence not that common and hence not that damaging: you won't mail a disc to your nieces, as you said. Lending games by a button press on the other hand is super easy, but will certainly lead to sharing groups all over the world. Note, that this exactly happens in case of PS3 type sharing, which is not that easy (but not that complicated either: my pan account is on my buddies ps3 and he can login and download everything from the download history, but Sony had to put it down from 5 to 2 shared accounts) where people communicated over the web to organize game sharing, even complete strangers. Second, apparently dlc was shareable. For used disc games you have to pay for dlc, i.e. a possibility where a publisher and MS can make at least some money from the customer. For shared games, a publisher won't see you even spend money for dlc.
Honestly, there are just not that many advantages for MS and publishers if there is no twist with this strategy. If you really have access to the full game with family share, maybe the twist is that the fees for this feature would be higher. It just does mot sound logic to me from a MS or publisher point of view what you are describing.
But if you are right, which I honestly doubt, they should immediately fire their PR team.
Hang on, what is the source for this? Because that looks like the requirement for gifting a disc-based game, not establishing a family member.
According to joker454, the statement on family sharing said:
What I never saw clarified was who/how/when somebody could be designated a family member. Journalists asking this during E3 they were told it was still being worked out.
You see, you're pretty up on the Xbox One stuff and even you're confused
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...ames-with-ten-family-members-but-some-details
"So that answers one question: Microsoft doesn't seem to care whether or not the ten people in the group are actually family members. They can be friends, roommates, boyfriends, girlfriends, your dog's groomer… you pick ten people, and you share games with them. "
