News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[RancidLunchmeat]

It wasn't one of your games it was all of them. If one person out of your huge group of 10 special friends was playing any game from your library then no-one else could play any of your games at all.

We have absolutely no confirmation that was the case. This is filed in the same crazy Sony fanboy rumor mongering category as the idea that games could only be shared for 45 minutes at a time and were essentially just demos.

But I do appreciate your over use of italics, I really like it when somebody tries to use a specific technique to show emphasis and then ends up defeating the entire purpose.

 

[function]

We have absolutely no confirmation that was the case. This is filed in the same crazy Sony fanboy rumor mongering category as the idea that games could only be shared for 45 minutes at a time and were essentially just demos.

Read it and weep, Rancid. It was there all along.

"You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

Pay particular attention to the "any one" ... "at a given time".

[Edit] Just to make this easier to understand: "at a given time <-> any any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library". The order doesn't change that one condition applies at the same time as the other i.e. one family member at a time. [/Edit]

Lets file the official MS "clarification" of their DRM policy under the crazy Sony fanboy rumour mongering category! Because I'm a Sony fanboy. That's what I am. Me and my zero Playstation products.

But I do appreciate your over use of italics, I really like it when somebody tries to use a specific technique to show emphasis and then ends up defeating the entire purpose.

Cheers! You just won me a drink, son.

 

[(((interference)))]

It wasn't one of your games it was all of them. If one person out of your huge group of 10 special friends was playing any game from your library then no-one else could play any of your games at all.

Ah see, I knew there had to be a catch there somewhere

That makes far more sense than MS being uncharacteristically generous and facilitating widespread 'freeloading'.

 

[Rangers]

Havent fully kept up with the latest iteration of what this was supposed to be, but it sounds like disc sharing, digitally.

But still a lot easier cause you know, you dont have to physically give your buddy the disc. Pretty helpful if he lives 3 states away.

 

[Squilliam]

I think the major problem Microsoft had was that they had far better knowledge of upcoming games and the marketplace than the gamers themselves. If >50% of the games and 90+% of the console use was going to be spent online anyway then the online requirement doesn't look like such a big deal, doesn't it? Microsoft understands gamers better than gamers understand themselves.

 

[zupallinere]

Microsoft understands gamers better than gamers understand themselves.

Well it's not for lack of trying but their record on this remains spotty.

 

[RacVic]

Bkilian, do you know how good the video scaler chip on the One will be? I remember you talking about the sound chip and was wondering if you had any information this on as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We have absolutely no confirmation that was the case.

I went to the effort of tracing and recapping all MS's communications yesterday to understand the policy, and that's technically what MS said in their official policy document (spelled out in grade-school English as Cranky would say). I do wish people would stop blaming the fanboys for everything, and actually investigate things impartially. Attitudes are so biased and prejudiced that 80% of the discussion is just about how biased and prejudiced everyone is (often expressed with angry voices).

 

[Squilliam]

Well it's not for lack of trying but their record on this remains spotty.

They have the analytics. They know how their box is being used and they have the big picture as to where the future of games are headed because they know what games are coming and how they interface with their networks. Whilst they may make mistakes, they do have a pretty good idea of what the future holds for gaming. The backlash is similar to people saying that 'you don't need that SUV'. People react in the exact same way.

I went to the effort of tracing and recapping all MS's communications yesterday to understand the policy, and that's technically what MS said in their official policy document (spelled out in grade-school English as Cranky would say). I do wish people would stop blaming the fanboys for everything, and actually investigate things impartially. Attitudes are so biased and prejudiced that 80% of the discussion is just about how biased and prejudiced everyone is (often expressed with angry voices).

So what's your verdict?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So what's your verdict?

MS presented their policy extremely badly (didn't even explain game sharing at the XB reveal event!). Gamers were turned off from the system as a result. A couple of weeks later MS decided to release clarification, by which time the internet had a life of its own regards the information and policies. MS's weakly presented message got drowned out. Even at E3, MS failed to use the opportunity to tell their story in a strong, positive way. At the end of the day, the gamers aren't really responsible for getting the wrong end of the stick. And I don't understand those backing the sharing system and lamenting its loss when it only allowed one friend at a time access to the shared library. I suppose the key emphasis there is that the shared library allowed you to play with a friend online without them having to buy the game to join you. that and being able to take your games to any friend's house, which was cool. Visit your family and share your library in local coop with them. As the game sharing aspect was rather weak in the end, I think gamers would still be up in arms about the DRM and resale limitations even if MS had come out string with the policy and shown a swish lifestyle concept movie demonstrating young, upwardly mobile and gorgeous models sharing games, so I can see why MS dropped the policy altogether with a view to not alienating the core gamers and existing XB fans.

 

[zupallinere]

so I can see why MS dropped the policy altogether with a view to not alienating the core gamers and existing XB fans.

Zactly. MS should have waited for a few Xbox Ones to find their way into the living rooms of the mainstream American consumer before alienating core gamers and existing XB fans I mean the whole point of the XB1 is to free MS from caring about the enthusiast base.

 

[zupallinere]

they do have a pretty good idea of what the future holds for gaming.

Of course gaming is not the main reason for the XB1 since it is supposed to be the new cornerstone of the living room. I don't doubt however that MS has lots of analytics on the matter.

So you are comparing the backlash against Microsoft ham handed maneuverings in the gaming console world to the "backlash" against SUVs. I guess I am not seeing much of an intersection there. I'm not to sure if you are comparing complaints lodged against MS to complaints lodged against SUV owners or ....

 

[AlphaWolf]

Of course gaming is not the main reason for the XB1 since it is supposed to be the new cornerstone of the living room. I don't doubt however that MS has lots of analytics on the matter.

So you are comparing the backlash against Microsoft ham handed maneuverings in the gaming console world to the "backlash" against SUVs. I guess I am not seeing much of an intersection there. I'm not to sure if you are comparing complaints lodged against MS to complaints lodged against SUV owners or ....

The backlash at SUVs is mostly just talk, they are enormously popular because ultimately people find value in what they offer, even if they don't 'need' them. GM doesn't care if some environmentalist won't buy their product because millions of soccer moms will.

They were never going to please everyone, they want to please the cross section that will net them the most money.

 

[Cranky]

But it's a wonderful method to drive new sales.

Exactly, the family plan was a rare triple win. Consumers win by gaining unprecedented ability to share their games virtually. MS wins by offering great options that lead to better adoption, increases Gold user-base, and additional revenue through digital game purchases. Pubs win through increased sales via viral effects and the above mentioned scarcity component of not being able to always play the shared game that you want.

The real value for consumers here wasn't for the 10-friends scamming access to 1 game purchase. It was for folks that would allow their little brother across the country to play games for free. He probably wouldn't be buying games anyway so no loss there, but big brother might purchase more games just to share. Overall, I think that this would have led to a net increase in sales except for a couple of possible exceptions - Really high volume single player games like GTA and games that underdeliver such that shared access decreases demand because the game isn't that good.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Exactly, the family plan was a rare triple win. Consumers win by gaining unprecedented ability to share their games virtually.

I wouldn't call it unprecedented. PS3 provided unrestricted sharing of a game with 5 users for several years.

 

[Cranky]

I wouldn't call it unprecedented. PS3 provided unrestricted sharing of a game with 5 users for several years.

I am not a PS3 guy, but wasn't that PSN only and an unintended exploit of a loop hole.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

True, it was download titles only. It wasn't a loophole but by design, to share your games across 5 PS3s, similar to XB1's sharing across 10 users. The advantage was all five could play the same game at the same time. It was exploited by strangers swapping accounts though, rather than being used just for friends and family, and reduced to two PS3s. XB1's sharing is a variation of this form - 10 users instead of 5 consoles; disc games as well as downloads (because distribution of large games is more viable now than 2005/6 and the DRM that registered the disc); only two users at a time instead of five as on PSN.

 

[(((interference)))]

Did their proposed sharing plan really let both you and a friend play the same game simultaneously?

I thought bkilian said the limitation was only one person at a time could be playing the game - including the owner?

 

[Cyan]

Did their proposed sharing plan really let both you and a friend play the same game simultaneously?

I thought bkilian said the limitation was only one person at a time could be playing the game - including the owner?

What I understood from the little info they gave on the subject is that the owner could play the game simultaneously with one of those 10 people in their family sharing list --perfect for me, for example, to play with a brother of mine in the distance.

However, only 1 out of those 10 could play the game either alone or with you, the remaining 9 would have to wait for that one person session to end before they could play.

I agree with Cranky this was one feature that could increase game sales --Steam is copying it already. This means sales could step up because of sharing with others, as people would try to buy games *no one* had just to share with others alone. Maybe some of them would actually buy the game themselves too

 

[bkilian]

Bkilian, do you know how good the video scaler chip on the One will be? I remember you talking about the sound chip and was wondering if you had any information this on as well.

I believe there is a hardware scaler, but I have no information on how good it is in comparison to the scaler on the 360.