Well you didn't buy the games from MS, you just loaned them, cause if you would've bought them, you would be able to resell them. So i am looking forward for the new advertising, come and LOAN some games from us, for a low price of 60$/euros.
On June 08 2013 00:57 maartendq wrote: I don't see the issue with having to be online every 24 hours. In all honesty, I can't imagine a gamer anno 2013 who does not have an internet connection. People who don't have internet connections are generally people who lack the money to buy expensive luxury products like consoles or gaming PCs anyway.
The fact that buying second hand games is going to be severely limited sucks though, even though we had it coming. Publishers aren't gaining anything from people who buy secondhand games, on the contrary. They've been lobbying against the second hand market for a while now.
I do find it a bit hypocritical that PC gamers are complaining about always-online requirements and the inability to resell a bought game. Steam, starcraft 2, diablo 3 and many other games require you to either log in online every few days or require you to be online at all times, and ever since steam became popular it's been downright impossible to sell PC games on the second hand market, unless they're 10 years old.
If the Xbone has this kind of DRM, you can be sure that the PS4 will have it as well. I'm actually a bit worried about the lack of communication by Sony. They probably want to ride the hate-wave a bit, but at the same time I feel like they're hiding something.
The issue is big companies creating restrictions that screw over the user just to save a few bucks on piracy, and it wont work anyway. Also im not sure where your getting that info from, but steams offline mode doesnt require you to go online at all, and i played WoL for about 2 weeks without connecting to the internet, never played D3 so cant comment on that.
Steam's offline mode works for 30 days and then shuts down. Microsoft will likely adjust the time required from 24 hours as things go on.
And lets be clear, the DRM isn't about pirated games. That was a problem with the Xbox and PS2, yet the 360 and PS3 didn't have super DRM. The DRM is about used games and the publishers being undercut by Gamestop. There is overwhelming data to back up that the used game market is crushing sections of the video game industry, causing studios to go out of business.
Microsoft does not give a shit about pirated games. But publisher do give a shit about used games being sold one day after the release of the 20 million dollar title.
Ever stopped to think why companies such as GameStop sell used games? It's because publishers barely share any of the revenue with distributors. It wouldn't have to if publishers weren't so greedy to take everything for themselves. If it was more profitable for GameStop to sell new games, then guess what? They wouldn't even waste time in the used game market.
Another way to confirm this point is the online prices of games. They cost exactly the same as in at the stores!!! This is insane! If distributors actually got a noticeable part of the revenue then this wouldn't make sense at all. Selling your product online is even much preferable because it's cheaper for publishers and offers them total control and yet somehow they still charge the full retail price for products online. It really goes to show the level of greed of these guys. Day one DLC with basic in game elements, games being released way before they are actually ready and lots of anti consumer features - the list goes on and on. These guys will do anything to squeeze every last bit of dime out of customers (and distributors) and they are not afraid to sacrifice the product's quality to do so. And now, in the midst of this, Microsoft is for some reason hell bent on helping these greedy ****
The used game issue is a problem created by developers and publishers themselves and so is it if they can't make ends meet. If they didn't all have these ridiculous bloated development cost to produce the next generic rip off of what is currently the most popular game they wouldn't be in this situation. EA for instance needed to sell 5 000 000 copies of Dead Space 3(which has become more and more generic as the series goes on) in order to find profit in continuing the series! And has this ridiculous production cost made it any more of a better game than so many others? If these are the criteria for success then of course some people are going to fail! We see many examples of where games marked to niche audiences achieve great success but somehow it still seems like a battle for so many to create the most expensive game with the "broadest appeal" ever... :/
Games are hard to make and cost money. Look at the Skull Girls Kickstarter if you want to see exactly how much it cost. None of this stuff is easy, it all takes smart, talented people to make those games. People who claim game budgets are bloated, or that online sales should be cheaper(because CDs somehow got expensive to stamp) don't really have a firm understanding as to how hard making games is.
Its like people who thing making a website is easy and can happen instantly. Or that Game of Thrones could be sold to people on a per viewer basis at cost by HBO. People undervalue the cost making making things they can't hold in their hands.
Really?
Heard of a company called CD Projekt RED?
Guess what? They may not be a rich company but they created a great game called The Witcher series. You overvalue cost making things sometimes. And they have a good philosophy around games. Not charging for people for extra content.etc
Remember the EA 1990s era and Blizzard indie time? Their passion for games is what drove them to make great games. But now all they are more of a megacorporation whose end goal is profit instead of making money.
XBONE just has too many restrictive features.
Let's see how Sony hold up.
Saddest thing is that Sony and XBONE probably has the same feature albeit Sony will have better features but the difference shouldn't be much.
On June 08 2013 05:05 vidium wrote: Well you didn't buy the games from MS, you just loaned them, cause if you would've bought them, you would be able to resell them. So i am looking forward for the new advertising, come and LOAN some games from us, for a low price of 60$/euros.
Yeah, it's truly an amazing offering! Think about it! You get to borrow the games from Microsoft for only 60$ and they only want you to return them when you are done with them! Sick deal!
Like, if you get a rental car you have to pay more the longer you have it! But with this ***AMAZING DEAL***, the price doesn't change over time! I mean, who does that!
On June 08 2013 00:57 maartendq wrote: I don't see the issue with having to be online every 24 hours. In all honesty, I can't imagine a gamer anno 2013 who does not have an internet connection. People who don't have internet connections are generally people who lack the money to buy expensive luxury products like consoles or gaming PCs anyway.
The fact that buying second hand games is going to be severely limited sucks though, even though we had it coming. Publishers aren't gaining anything from people who buy secondhand games, on the contrary. They've been lobbying against the second hand market for a while now.
I do find it a bit hypocritical that PC gamers are complaining about always-online requirements and the inability to resell a bought game. Steam, starcraft 2, diablo 3 and many other games require you to either log in online every few days or require you to be online at all times, and ever since steam became popular it's been downright impossible to sell PC games on the second hand market, unless they're 10 years old.
If the Xbone has this kind of DRM, you can be sure that the PS4 will have it as well. I'm actually a bit worried about the lack of communication by Sony. They probably want to ride the hate-wave a bit, but at the same time I feel like they're hiding something.
The issue is big companies creating restrictions that screw over the user just to save a few bucks on piracy, and it wont work anyway. Also im not sure where your getting that info from, but steams offline mode doesnt require you to go online at all, and i played WoL for about 2 weeks without connecting to the internet, never played D3 so cant comment on that.
Steam's offline mode works for 30 days and then shuts down. Microsoft will likely adjust the time required from 24 hours as things go on.
And lets be clear, the DRM isn't about pirated games. That was a problem with the Xbox and PS2, yet the 360 and PS3 didn't have super DRM. The DRM is about used games and the publishers being undercut by Gamestop. There is overwhelming data to back up that the used game market is crushing sections of the video game industry, causing studios to go out of business.
Microsoft does not give a shit about pirated games. But publisher do give a shit about used games being sold one day after the release of the 20 million dollar title.
Ever stopped to think why companies such as GameStop sell used games? It's because publishers barely share any of the revenue with distributors. It wouldn't have to if publishers weren't so greedy to take everything for themselves. If it was more profitable for GameStop to sell new games, then guess what? They wouldn't even waste time in the used game market.
Another way to confirm this point is the online prices of games. They cost exactly the same as in at the stores!!! This is insane! If distributors actually got a noticeable part of the revenue then this wouldn't make sense at all. Selling your product online is even much preferable because it's cheaper for publishers and offers them total control and yet somehow they still charge the full retail price for products online. It really goes to show the level of greed of these guys. Day one DLC with basic in game elements, games being released way before they are actually ready and lots of anti consumer features - the list goes on and on. These guys will do anything to squeeze every last bit of dime out of customers (and distributors) and they are not afraid to sacrifice the product's quality to do so. And now, in the midst of this, Microsoft is for some reason hell bent on helping these greedy ****
The used game issue is a problem created by developers and publishers themselves and so is it if they can't make ends meet. If they didn't all have these ridiculous bloated development cost to produce the next generic rip off of what is currently the most popular game they wouldn't be in this situation. EA for instance needed to sell 5 000 000 copies of Dead Space 3(which has become more and more generic as the series goes on) in order to find profit in continuing the series! And has this ridiculous production cost made it any more of a better game than so many others? If these are the criteria for success then of course some people are going to fail! We see many examples of where games marked to niche audiences achieve great success but somehow it still seems like a battle for so many to create the most expensive game with the "broadest appeal" ever... :/
Games are hard to make and cost money. Look at the Skull Girls Kickstarter if you want to see exactly how much it cost. None of this stuff is easy, it all takes smart, talented people to make those games. People who claim game budgets are bloated, or that online sales should be cheaper(because CDs somehow got expensive to stamp) don't really have a firm understanding as to how hard making games is.
Its like people who thing making a website is easy and can happen instantly. Or that Game of Thrones could be sold to people on a per viewer basis at cost by HBO. People undervalue the cost making making things they can't hold in their hands.
Really?
Heard of a company called CD Projekt RED?
Guess what? They may not be a rich company but they created a great game called The Witcher series. You overvalue cost making things sometimes. And they have a good philosophy around games. Not charging for people for extra content.etc
Remember the EA 1990s era and Blizzard indie time? Their passion for games is what drove them to make great games. But now all they are more of a megacorporation whose end goal is profit instead of making money.
Thats a lot of evidence to your claim there. I like the part were you talked about the Witcher, which are great games. I have played both of them. Do you know how much they cost to make? I don't either, but I bet it was a lot. It looked like it took a shit ton of time.
The megacorporation argument makes it sound like Blade Runner or Neuromancer. Sure people make shitty games that are just shovel ware. But no one can argue that the folks who made Bioshock Infinite and Last of US don't have a lot of passion about making games.
Making the argument "Back in my day, we had real video games that were made with quality, but now you wipper-snapper don;t know that. You eat up your Duty Calls and Massy Effects, with their pretty shaders and alien hotties. You kids just don't know quality work"
Seriously, we can't all become video game hipsters.
On June 08 2013 00:57 maartendq wrote: I don't see the issue with having to be online every 24 hours. In all honesty, I can't imagine a gamer anno 2013 who does not have an internet connection. People who don't have internet connections are generally people who lack the money to buy expensive luxury products like consoles or gaming PCs anyway.
The fact that buying second hand games is going to be severely limited sucks though, even though we had it coming. Publishers aren't gaining anything from people who buy secondhand games, on the contrary. They've been lobbying against the second hand market for a while now.
I do find it a bit hypocritical that PC gamers are complaining about always-online requirements and the inability to resell a bought game. Steam, starcraft 2, diablo 3 and many other games require you to either log in online every few days or require you to be online at all times, and ever since steam became popular it's been downright impossible to sell PC games on the second hand market, unless they're 10 years old.
If the Xbone has this kind of DRM, you can be sure that the PS4 will have it as well. I'm actually a bit worried about the lack of communication by Sony. They probably want to ride the hate-wave a bit, but at the same time I feel like they're hiding something.
The issue is big companies creating restrictions that screw over the user just to save a few bucks on piracy, and it wont work anyway. Also im not sure where your getting that info from, but steams offline mode doesnt require you to go online at all, and i played WoL for about 2 weeks without connecting to the internet, never played D3 so cant comment on that.
Steam's offline mode works for 30 days and then shuts down. Microsoft will likely adjust the time required from 24 hours as things go on.
And lets be clear, the DRM isn't about pirated games. That was a problem with the Xbox and PS2, yet the 360 and PS3 didn't have super DRM. The DRM is about used games and the publishers being undercut by Gamestop. There is overwhelming data to back up that the used game market is crushing sections of the video game industry, causing studios to go out of business.
Microsoft does not give a shit about pirated games. But publisher do give a shit about used games being sold one day after the release of the 20 million dollar title.
Ever stopped to think why companies such as GameStop sell used games? It's because publishers barely share any of the revenue with distributors. It wouldn't have to if publishers weren't so greedy to take everything for themselves. If it was more profitable for GameStop to sell new games, then guess what? They wouldn't even waste time in the used game market.
Another way to confirm this point is the online prices of games. They cost exactly the same as in at the stores!!! This is insane! If distributors actually got a noticeable part of the revenue then this wouldn't make sense at all. Selling your product online is even much preferable because it's cheaper for publishers and offers them total control and yet somehow they still charge the full retail price for products online. It really goes to show the level of greed of these guys. Day one DLC with basic in game elements, games being released way before they are actually ready and lots of anti consumer features - the list goes on and on. These guys will do anything to squeeze every last bit of dime out of customers (and distributors) and they are not afraid to sacrifice the product's quality to do so. And now, in the midst of this, Microsoft is for some reason hell bent on helping these greedy ****
The used game issue is a problem created by developers and publishers themselves and so is it if they can't make ends meet. If they didn't all have these ridiculous bloated development cost to produce the next generic rip off of what is currently the most popular game they wouldn't be in this situation. EA for instance needed to sell 5 000 000 copies of Dead Space 3(which has become more and more generic as the series goes on) in order to find profit in continuing the series! And has this ridiculous production cost made it any more of a better game than so many others? If these are the criteria for success then of course some people are going to fail! We see many examples of where games marked to niche audiences achieve great success but somehow it still seems like a battle for so many to create the most expensive game with the "broadest appeal" ever... :/
Games are hard to make and cost money. Look at the Skull Girls Kickstarter if you want to see exactly how much it cost. None of this stuff is easy, it all takes smart, talented people to make those games. People who claim game budgets are bloated, or that online sales should be cheaper(because CDs somehow got expensive to stamp) don't really have a firm understanding as to how hard making games is.
Its like people who thing making a website is easy and can happen instantly. Or that Game of Thrones could be sold to people on a per viewer basis at cost by HBO. People undervalue the cost making making things they can't hold in their hands.
Really?
Heard of a company called CD Projekt RED?
Guess what? They may not be a rich company but they created a great game called The Witcher series. You overvalue cost making things sometimes. And they have a good philosophy around games. Not charging for people for extra content.etc
Remember the EA 1990s era and Blizzard indie time? Their passion for games is what drove them to make great games. But now all they are more of a megacorporation whose end goal is profit instead of making money.
Thats a lot of evidence to your claim there. I like the part were you talked about the Witcher, which are great games. I have played both of them. Do you know how much they cost to make? I don't either, but I bet it was a lot. It looked like it took a shit ton of time.
The megacorporation argument makes it sound like Blade Runner or Neuromancer. Sure people make shitty games that are just shovel ware. But no one can argue that the folks who made Bioshock Infinite and Last of US don't have a lot of passion about making games.
Making the argument "Back in my day, we had real video games that were made with quality, but now you wipper-snapper don;t know that. You eat up your Duty Calls and Massy Effects, with their pretty shaders and alien hotties. You kids just don't know quality work"
Seriously, we can't all become video game hipsters.
Well you don't give any argument except comparing his arguments to science-fiction movies...
Do you think the fact that companies nowadays focus too much on profit is science-fiction ? I guess you think every new Call of Duty, every new Iphone every 6 months is a technological revolution and we should be glad to lose privileges on products we buy ( to lend it for exemple ).
In my opinion, it is not because an industry has the power to forbid you to do something, that we should accept it peacefully. What i mean is that if you buy a keyboard, you can do whatever you want with it, in the video-game industry, thanks to the internet, they can limit you.
It seems obvious to me that if Toyota decides to forbid you to sell your used car, we shouldn't defend them, if you disagree I honestly think we are all doomed, but I'd respect your opinion.
On June 08 2013 00:57 maartendq wrote: I don't see the issue with having to be online every 24 hours. In all honesty, I can't imagine a gamer anno 2013 who does not have an internet connection. People who don't have internet connections are generally people who lack the money to buy expensive luxury products like consoles or gaming PCs anyway.
The fact that buying second hand games is going to be severely limited sucks though, even though we had it coming. Publishers aren't gaining anything from people who buy secondhand games, on the contrary. They've been lobbying against the second hand market for a while now.
I do find it a bit hypocritical that PC gamers are complaining about always-online requirements and the inability to resell a bought game. Steam, starcraft 2, diablo 3 and many other games require you to either log in online every few days or require you to be online at all times, and ever since steam became popular it's been downright impossible to sell PC games on the second hand market, unless they're 10 years old.
If the Xbone has this kind of DRM, you can be sure that the PS4 will have it as well. I'm actually a bit worried about the lack of communication by Sony. They probably want to ride the hate-wave a bit, but at the same time I feel like they're hiding something.
The issue is big companies creating restrictions that screw over the user just to save a few bucks on piracy, and it wont work anyway. Also im not sure where your getting that info from, but steams offline mode doesnt require you to go online at all, and i played WoL for about 2 weeks without connecting to the internet, never played D3 so cant comment on that.
Steam's offline mode works for 30 days and then shuts down. Microsoft will likely adjust the time required from 24 hours as things go on.
And lets be clear, the DRM isn't about pirated games. That was a problem with the Xbox and PS2, yet the 360 and PS3 didn't have super DRM. The DRM is about used games and the publishers being undercut by Gamestop. There is overwhelming data to back up that the used game market is crushing sections of the video game industry, causing studios to go out of business.
Microsoft does not give a shit about pirated games. But publisher do give a shit about used games being sold one day after the release of the 20 million dollar title.
Ever stopped to think why companies such as GameStop sell used games? It's because publishers barely share any of the revenue with distributors. It wouldn't have to if publishers weren't so greedy to take everything for themselves. If it was more profitable for GameStop to sell new games, then guess what? They wouldn't even waste time in the used game market.
Another way to confirm this point is the online prices of games. They cost exactly the same as in at the stores!!! This is insane! If distributors actually got a noticeable part of the revenue then this wouldn't make sense at all. Selling your product online is even much preferable because it's cheaper for publishers and offers them total control and yet somehow they still charge the full retail price for products online. It really goes to show the level of greed of these guys. Day one DLC with basic in game elements, games being released way before they are actually ready and lots of anti consumer features - the list goes on and on. These guys will do anything to squeeze every last bit of dime out of customers (and distributors) and they are not afraid to sacrifice the product's quality to do so. And now, in the midst of this, Microsoft is for some reason hell bent on helping these greedy ****
The used game issue is a problem created by developers and publishers themselves and so is it if they can't make ends meet. If they didn't all have these ridiculous bloated development cost to produce the next generic rip off of what is currently the most popular game they wouldn't be in this situation. EA for instance needed to sell 5 000 000 copies of Dead Space 3(which has become more and more generic as the series goes on) in order to find profit in continuing the series! And has this ridiculous production cost made it any more of a better game than so many others? If these are the criteria for success then of course some people are going to fail! We see many examples of where games marked to niche audiences achieve great success but somehow it still seems like a battle for so many to create the most expensive game with the "broadest appeal" ever... :/
Games are hard to make and cost money. Look at the Skull Girls Kickstarter if you want to see exactly how much it cost. None of this stuff is easy, it all takes smart, talented people to make those games. People who claim game budgets are bloated, or that online sales should be cheaper(because CDs somehow got expensive to stamp) don't really have a firm understanding as to how hard making games is.
Its like people who thing making a website is easy and can happen instantly. Or that Game of Thrones could be sold to people on a per viewer basis at cost by HBO. People undervalue the cost making making things they can't hold in their hands.
Really?
Heard of a company called CD Projekt RED?
Guess what? They may not be a rich company but they created a great game called The Witcher series. You overvalue cost making things sometimes. And they have a good philosophy around games. Not charging for people for extra content.etc
Remember the EA 1990s era and Blizzard indie time? Their passion for games is what drove them to make great games. But now all they are more of a megacorporation whose end goal is profit instead of making money.
Thats a lot of evidence to your claim there. I like the part were you talked about the Witcher, which are great games. I have played both of them. Do you know how much they cost to make? I don't either, but I bet it was a lot. It looked like it took a shit ton of time.
The megacorporation argument makes it sound like Blade Runner or Neuromancer. Sure people make shitty games that are just shovel ware. But no one can argue that the folks who made Bioshock Infinite and Last of US don't have a lot of passion about making games.
Making the argument "Back in my day, we had real video games that were made with quality, but now you wipper-snapper don;t know that. You eat up your Duty Calls and Massy Effects, with their pretty shaders and alien hotties. You kids just don't know quality work"
Seriously, we can't all become video game hipsters.
Well you don't give any argument except comparing his arguments to science-fiction movies...
Do you think the fact that companies nowadays focus too much on profit is science-fiction ? I guess you think every new Call of Duty, every new Iphone every 6 months is a technological revolution and we should be glad to lose privileges on products we buy ( to lend it for exemple ).
In my opinion, it is not because an industry has the power to forbid you to do something, that we should accept it peacefully. What i mean is that if you buy a keyboard, you can do whatever you want with it, in the video-game industry, thanks to the internet, they can limit you.
It seems obvious to me that if Toyota decides to forbid you to sell your used car, we shouldn't defend them, if you disagree I honestly think we are all doomed, but I'd respect your opinion.
That isn't at all what I said and your examples are hyperbolic. I was pointing out that there is a balance to be had in that and lumping every company and publisher into one massive group is a poor way to argue. There is good DRM and bad DRM. There are good publishers and bad. And we are not doomed.
Rare has to make a Banjo-Kazooie game that is the second coming of Jesus for me to consider getting one. I may get a PS4 down the line (I am a bit interested in Infamous: Second Son and Knack) but it'll probably be PC + Wii U for me at least for the next year.
I am already pissed off at the fee to play online on xbox360. There has been nothing but reasons NOT to invest in a console again.
Are the retards in charge of this trainwreck COMPLETELY oblivious to the overwhelming negative feedback? I've yet to see one person on the internet post positively about this...which makes me wonder about the troll potential lol
On June 08 2013 09:28 Ponera wrote: I am already pissed off at the fee to play online on xbox360. There has been nothing but reasons NOT to invest in a console again.
Are the retards in charge of this trainwreck COMPLETELY oblivious to the overwhelming negative feedback? I've yet to see one person on the internet post positively about this...which makes me wonder about the troll potential lol
And yet they make overwhelming profits on all of this. Every time.
The reviews on the internet are from an informed and vocal minority. Those words are important, because the rest of the world is the uninformed majority who know that all their friends are going to buy it. Why would the react to the negative feedback when it's clearly not going to matter?
Does it suck? Hell yes. Can we fix it? Maybe. Will posting on an internet forum do it? Nope.
The whole reason behind all of this I assume is because they literally have thousands of suckers people already paying for XBL Gold. Their consoles are essentially always connected. These are the players pumping thousands of hours into halo, call of duty.
Another reason they feel they can get away with their used game policy as well because of the 'yearly' updates to those games. Players will always be purchasing the new title, rather than waiting a year or two for bargain basement deals.
Regarding the steam comparisons. PC players put up with the steam model because the PC is inherently an antisocial platform. 1 PC, 1 user. Again with the growing cod/halo fanbase, you are seeing more and more of this on consoles, but there is still a huge demographic of people who use consoles for social games (sports, party games, etc), which is why the lending game policy is completely ludicrous.
The recent polygon article about the XB1 cutting out the financially less-inclined really hit it home for me. Let's be honest here, there's probably still a huge demograph of people out there who wait for consoles and games to become just a bit more affordable. And now with an internet connection requirement, they'll also have to invest in routers.
It's aggressively anti-consumer and anti-middle class, and it outright ignores underprivileged gamers. It's gross, despicable, greedy, pathetic, cowardly and out of touch with a growing global resentment for corporations.
Microsoft has designed a policy by committee, with that committee representing the interests of large video game publishers and retailers, and internet providers. "Participating retailers" have the privilege to be the exclusive resellers of games, torpedoing the consumer-to-consumer resale market, while third-party publishers have the option to restrict the resale of games entirely.
I am curious about the family sharing aspect. TB did a commentary on it just recently.
Basically the family sharing aspect allows a family member on another XBone to login and access your game library correct? He asks a legitimate question as to whether or not that family member can get access to a game you are currently playing simultaenously. I mean, it makes sense to me. Before, games have multiplayer option on one console. Now it's via an online multiplayer system for some games which defeats the purpose when you have friends/family over. So I am curious about that.
Another thing, is the family sharing city/region locked? Because say the game is cheaper/on sale in the US. And I have a brother/cousin in Asia/Australia. Can my brother essentially have me buy the game for him and basically he downloads a digital copy on his Xbone as an "authorized family member"?
I still do not favor the checking online though because internet reliablity isn't one of the strong suits of the connections here where I am. I do think it will be a developer optional thing later on so MS basically pushes it to the publisher should they want to have the option or not.
And as for the loaning/giving the game to a friend who has been your friend for 30days before you are allowed to give it to him. You can only give it to him once correct. Well, here's my question, since it is now with my friend, can he give it back since I am on his friend's list for 30 days? Or can he give it to someone else who has been on his friend's list for 30 days? Since the limitation of 1 time transfer for a game is based on account, wouldn't it be logical to assume that once transferred, that other person also has that 1 time transfer right given to him? This is basically to ensure that only 1 instance of said game purchase is existing throughout the world basically (digitally in this sense). But the 30 day restriction, is it 30 days as a friend min (regardless of when the game was purchased) or is it 30 days after you've basically registered the game to your account?
My only beef at the moment with XBone features is the 1 hour or 24 hour checkin and the kinect requirement at the moment. Used games are secondary to me because I really have a limited game library ever since so I don't tend to buy a lot of games and when I do, I don't sell them.
But I do think there should a benefit for the consumer should the system be in place, digital copies SHOULD BE CHEAPER by a significant margin now and no longer the same with retail physical copies. But if it doesn't pan out that way, then there is no benefit whatsoever to the infrastructure they are trying to create in terms of the checkin.
On June 08 2013 13:18 17Sphynx17 wrote: I am curious about the family sharing aspect. TB did a commentary on it just recently.
Basically the family sharing aspect allows a family member on another XBone to login and access your game library correct? He asks a legitimate question as to whether or not that family member can get access to a game you are currently playing simultaenously. I mean, it makes sense to me. Before, games have multiplayer option on one console. Now it's via an online multiplayer system for some games which defeats the purpose when you have friends/family over. So I am curious about that.
Another thing, is the family sharing city/region locked? Because say the game is cheaper/on sale in the US. And I have a brother/cousin in Asia/Australia. Can my brother essentially have me buy the game for him and basically he downloads a digital copy on his Xbone as an "authorized family member"?
People keep telling me if they log in on my xbox, download dlc, then leave and log on at their house, I will still be able to play the dlc... or even just giving me their login details.
ive yet to try it and don't understand why xbox would let it happen. family sounds legitimate and is something I wouldn't have thought of. Having no immediate-family on xbl...
On June 08 2013 13:29 Lu_e wrote:People keep telling me if they log in on my xbox, download dlc, then leave and log on at their house, I will still be able to play the dlc... or even just giving me their login details.
ive yet to try it and don't understand why xbox would let it happen. family sounds legitimate and is something I wouldn't have thought of. Having no immediate-family on xbl...
They wont let it happen. MS have thought about this, they will make sure there aren't any exploits and there are limitations.
They probably intentionally left the matter vague and with many questions left unanswered just so people might assume the best.
All PC games are basically the same way already, and I rarely see people complain about DRM like Bnet or Steam anymore. What is the big deal? I think you people just need something new to whine about. Seems like the gaming community just gets shittier with each passing year, or maybe its just TL.
On June 08 2013 14:56 iamho wrote: All PC games are basically the same way already, and I rarely see people complain about DRM like Bnet or Steam anymore. What is the big deal? I think you people just need something new to whine about. Seems like the gaming community just gets shittier with each passing year, or maybe its just TL.
- People complain about Bnet all the time (where have you been the past 2 years?), it's a piece of shit - On steam you are purely buying digitally. There is offline mode if you want to play singleplayer - Steam has ridiculous sales where you can get full AAA games for $2-10. When has Xbox Live or PSstore ever done that? - Steam is on PC, and computers tend to always be connected to the internet. - Consoles are still treated as living room entertainment devices that are "plug and play", where you buy PHYSICAL discs to play with. Basically that's usually the advantage of consoles. - It't not just TL that's whining, just look around the internet. Everywhere there is outrage. Microsoft is actively trying to limit what we can do with products we have purchased, constantly checking to see if what we are doing is "legit" in their eyes. I think it's pretty normal people feel angry. It's not a sense of entitlement. It's going against 30 years of how video game consoles work. The original Xbox shut down their Live service after 8 years. What happens to your Xbox One and games library 10 years down the track?
On June 08 2013 14:56 iamho wrote: All PC games are basically the same way already, and I rarely see people complain about DRM like Bnet or Steam anymore. What is the big deal? I think you people just need something new to whine about. Seems like the gaming community just gets shittier with each passing year, or maybe its just TL.
PC is: 1) Cheaper 2) Modable 3) Has a lot of free content 4) Steam doesnt charge a monthly fee 5) Has a huge number of other uses
If you go to sell a PC, people are interested in the PC itself, not the software. If you go to sell a console, people are interested in the software, not the hardware. DRM on a console means you cant resell a console with the games, only the console.
EPT
