Update: MS: GAF Share threads OK! Your library. Any 10 gamers. Dogs too!

[QUOTE="MonoSilver"][QUOTE="Sparky04"] I understand that. I'm just saying there are a lot of Sony fanboys that will take any Microsoft news, even very good news, and try to make it sound bad.alexwatchtower

Well I'm not a doctor, but I can without certainty say that at least as far as this thread is concerned. it's not your hearing that's the issue. It's reading comprehension.

Being able to share a game with othere is a good thing. To many gamers online services are something that a short term perk. There have been many online services that have gone away or reduced.

Second being able to share with 9 or 10 people is just too good to be real. I can see it being like that for a while but slowly it fades away after they get people to buy the system.

[QUOTE="Sparky04"][QUOTE="Pedro"]

You do realise that the hate towards MS stems from the DRM and the always online requirement? Free games would not change that fact. Until they change their policies the reaction of the public would differ. 

chrisrooR

Because you just provided "good news" about the Xbox One. Even if this stupid proposition of being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library (which makes NO sense), that one good thing is COMPLETELY overshadowed by the price, the online check-in system and having no used games. As much as you want to scream "EVERYONE HERE IS A SONY FANBOY!", that doesn't make the Xbone any better. When you get your Xbone, and you're online connection falters during the check-in, you'll only have yourself to blame. I've been through the SimCity fiasco. I've experienced FIRSTHAND what online requirements can do to a non-MMO (we're not even just talking about a single game here, mind you. We're talking about an entire console). It's wrong for Microsoft to shove these requirements down consumer throats, and they're going to pay dearly for these mistakes in their sales. chrisrooR

So now being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library is a STUPID proposition? There's little reason to even bother responding to the rest of that.

I don't believe FOR A SECOND that there's going to be access FOR FREE to 9 other people's game library. Then why would the other 9 people even BUY new games? If I can buy games for ALL of my friends, what's the point of the 9 people buying it when they can just play on my versions of the game. That equates to a ridiculous amount of lost sales. Not needing a disc to play complicates things unnecessarily. And the single Gold account was a given. Now, contrast ALL of that information with the good news provided by Sony on the PS4. -399 price tag -smaller, more powerful console (huge news) -The option of saving to the HD (offline), or having cloud saves (online) -No online requirement -No DRM that restricts selling used games And those are only the features I can think of off of the top of my head.chrisrooR

1. Do you believe your GOD SONY Is already doing it for movies?

How many people can share my UltraViolet account?
You may share your UltraViolet account with up to 5 other people (Account Members), and each Member can have their own username/password log-in information.

 

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/ultraviolet/faq.html#FAQ-2

See? Your GOD...SONY...does this exact thing for movies!

2. And they would because they would buy other games they could share as well or like the game so much they want to play it at the same time online. Why would I share my library with you if you don't contribute anything?

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Because you just provided "good news" about the Xbox One. Even if this stupid proposition of being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library (which makes NO sense), that one good thing is COMPLETELY overshadowed by the price, the online check-in system and having no used games. As much as you want to scream "EVERYONE HERE IS A SONY FANBOY!", that doesn't make the Xbone any better. When you get your Xbone, and you're online connection falters during the check-in, you'll only have yourself to blame. I've been through the SimCity fiasco. I've experienced FIRSTHAND what online requirements can do to a non-MMO (we're not even just talking about a single game here, mind you. We're talking about an entire console). It's wrong for Microsoft to shove these requirements down consumer throats, and they're going to pay dearly for these mistakes in their sales. alexwatchtower

So now being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library is a STUPID proposition? There's little reason to even bother responding to the rest of that.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I don't believe FOR A SECOND that there's going to be access FOR FREE to 9 other people's game library. Then why would the other 9 people even BUY new games? If I can buy games for ALL of my friends, what's the point of the 9 people buying it when they can just play on my versions of the game. That equates to a ridiculous amount of lost sales. Not needing a disc to play complicates things unnecessarily. And the single Gold account was a given. Now, contrast ALL of that information with the good news provided by Sony on the PS4. -399 price tag -smaller, more powerful console (huge news) -The option of saving to the HD (offline), or having cloud saves (online) -No online requirement -No DRM that restricts selling used games And those are only the features I can think of off of the top of my head.alexwatchtower

1. Do you believe your GOD SONY Is already doing it for movies?

How many people can share my UltraViolet account?
You may share your UltraViolet account with up to 5 other people (Account Members), and each Member can have their own username/password log-in information.

 

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/ultraviolet/faq.html#FAQ-2

See? Your GOD...SONY...does this exact thing for movies!

2. And they would because they would buy other games they could share as well or like the game so much they want to play it at the same time online. Why would I share my library with you if you don't contribute anything?

I think it is more about how many gamers can not see the service staying with that many people for a long time. I can see MS using it as a selling point in order to boost sales and then they reduce or remove it later.

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Because you just provided "good news" about the Xbox One. Even if this stupid proposition of being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library (which makes NO sense), that one good thing is COMPLETELY overshadowed by the price, the online check-in system and having no used games. As much as you want to scream "EVERYONE HERE IS A SONY FANBOY!", that doesn't make the Xbone any better. When you get your Xbone, and you're online connection falters during the check-in, you'll only have yourself to blame. I've been through the SimCity fiasco. I've experienced FIRSTHAND what online requirements can do to a non-MMO (we're not even just talking about a single game here, mind you. We're talking about an entire console). It's wrong for Microsoft to shove these requirements down consumer throats, and they're going to pay dearly for these mistakes in their sales. chrisrooR

So now being able to FREELY access another 9 people's library is a STUPID proposition? There's little reason to even bother responding to the rest of that.

Damn I didn't expect this kind of a meltdown. Lol. 

[QUOTE="Sparky04"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"] "even very good news" There hasn't been any good news coming from Microsoft. chrisrooR

A system of shared games wouldn't cut into sales that much for a couple of reasons. 

1. You probably have to share some sort of personnel information.(that's how steam keeps everyone from sharing the same account for free games)

2. The majority of people who use this feature will likely only be trading games with a few friends.

3. The game can't be played at the same moment between friends which means to play multiplayer with someone both players have to buy the game.

4. It will in some cases, such as multiplayer focused games, encourage someone to go buy a game to play with their friends because it could be like a try before you buy type situation.

Also how would not needing a disc to play a game complicate things innecessarily? Things like being able to swap between games instantly and being able to play a game while in the matchmaking of another game becomes possible.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I don't believe FOR A SECOND that there's going to be access FOR FREE to 9 other people's game library. Then why would the other 9 people even BUY new games? If I can buy games for ALL of my friends, what's the point of the 9 people buying it when they can just play on my versions of the game. That equates to a ridiculous amount of lost sales. Not needing a disc to play complicates things unnecessarily. And the single Gold account was a given. Now, contrast ALL of that information with the good news provided by Sony on the PS4. -399 price tag -smaller, more powerful console (huge news) -The option of saving to the HD (offline), or having cloud saves (online) -No online requirement -No DRM that restricts selling used games And those are only the features I can think of off of the top of my head.alexwatchtower

1. Do you believe your GOD SONY Is already doing it for movies?

How many people can share my UltraViolet account?
You may share your UltraViolet account with up to 5 other people (Account Members), and each Member can have their own username/password log-in information.

 

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/ultraviolet/faq.html#FAQ-2

See? Your GOD...SONY...does this exact thing for movies!

2. And they would because they would buy other games they could share as well or like the game so much they want to play it at the same time online. Why would I share my library with you if you don't contribute anything?

Firstly, I don't own a PS3 OR an Xbox 360. The PC is my preferred platform to game on. 

Second, you're missing the point. It's not about sharing your library with me if I don't contribute anything. It's about groups of friends that will pool their money to buy single versions of one game to split amongst themselves and play through it at different times.

Take Bioshock Infinite, and use this new (rumoured) MS technology with it in a hypothetical scenario. Bioshock was a game that, really, you play through once  or twice.

I buy one copy of Bioshock using my money combined with my other 9 friends' money. We split the game, but I share it with them. We each individually complete the game at different times, but only bought a single copy of the game.

That's why this is a bad idea, and I don't know how you can think it's going to even be a possibility. 

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I don't believe FOR A SECOND that there's going to be access FOR FREE to 9 other people's game library. Then why would the other 9 people even BUY new games? If I can buy games for ALL of my friends, what's the point of the 9 people buying it when they can just play on my versions of the game. That equates to a ridiculous amount of lost sales. Not needing a disc to play complicates things unnecessarily. And the single Gold account was a given. Now, contrast ALL of that information with the good news provided by Sony on the PS4. -399 price tag -smaller, more powerful console (huge news) -The option of saving to the HD (offline), or having cloud saves (online) -No online requirement -No DRM that restricts selling used games And those are only the features I can think of off of the top of my head.chrisrooR

1. Do you believe your GOD SONY Is already doing it for movies?

How many people can share my UltraViolet account?
You may share your UltraViolet account with up to 5 other people (Account Members), and each Member can have their own username/password log-in information.

 

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/ultraviolet/faq.html#FAQ-2

See? Your GOD...SONY...does this exact thing for movies!

2. And they would because they would buy other games they could share as well or like the game so much they want to play it at the same time online. Why would I share my library with you if you don't contribute anything?

Firstly, I don't own a PS3 OR an Xbox 360. The PC is my preferred platform to game on. 

Second, you're missing the point. It's not about sharing your library with me if I don't contribute anything. It's about groups of friends that will pool their money to buy single versions of one game to split amongst themselves and play through it at different times.

Take Bioshock Infinite, and use this new (rumoured) MS technology with it in a hypothetical scenario. Bioshock was a game that, really, you play through once  or twice.

I buy one copy of Bioshock using my money combined with my other 9 friends' money. We split the game, but I share it with them. We each individually complete the game at different times, but only bought a single copy of the game.

That's why this is a bad idea, and I don't know how you can think it's going to even be a possibility. 

Well first of all this isn't rumored. They went on record and said so and it's on Xbox.com as well. This guy just clarified it.

And yep! That seems to be the idea. And that's exactly what's going on with that Sony movie sharing service. People pool together and share their movie libraries. 

Obviously it works since Sony's been doing it for awhile for movies. Why would someone buy a movie if they've already watched it? That's worse, and yet it still works!

But I think some, could really benefit from this too. Because as I said, they still get nothing from you selling your used game and someone else buying it. They will get something if one of my friends likes the game enough to want to play it online with me simultaneously. For that they have to buy it themselves.

And who's going to be the ones waiting for me to share it with them and not buy it day 1? Probably a lot of the same guys that didn't buy Bioshock day 1 and bought it used or rented it.

But again, publishers have the right to opt out. So some games might not be a part of this. Some publishers who make games like Bioshock may opt out for that game. That's why I can see it being a possibility.

Calm down Alex. Accusing anyone who doesn't believe this of being a Sony fanboy, or a cultist on a level where they worship Sony as a god is shit that belongs in system wars. Shut it down right now. There are good reasons for people to be skeptical about this. Frankly, it doesn't sound like good business, even if it sounds like a dream come true for gamers. People are naturally a little wary. Doesn't mean they are fanboys.rragnaar

Come on man. It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another thing to say it's bad or no good, or they're just straight up lying.

How can anyone see this as a negative is beyond me.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Calm down Alex. Accusing anyone who doesn't believe this of being a Sony fanboy, or a cultist on a level where they worship Sony as a god is shit that belongs in system wars. Shut it down right now. There are good reasons for people to be skeptical about this. Frankly, it doesn't sound like good business, even if it sounds like a dream come true for gamers. People are naturally a little wary. Doesn't mean they are fanboys.alexwatchtower

Come on man. It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another thing to say it's bad or no good, or they're just straight up lying.

How can anyone see this as a negative is beyond me.

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Calm down Alex. Accusing anyone who doesn't believe this of being a Sony fanboy, or a cultist on a level where they worship Sony as a god is shit that belongs in system wars. Shut it down right now. There are good reasons for people to be skeptical about this. Frankly, it doesn't sound like good business, even if it sounds like a dream come true for gamers. People are naturally a little wary. Doesn't mean they are fanboys.rragnaar

Come on man. It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another thing to say it's bad or no good, or they're just straight up lying.

How can anyone see this as a negative is beyond me.

And what about all the people saying the same thing about me just because I'm repeating official information with a source? Don't have a problem with them? You're ok with stuff like this?

There's no way MS is going to make my game library accessible and playable to 9 other people without them having to pay for it.

If you believe that, you're fvcking stupid.

That's not one sided? Don't think I went near as far with anything I said. Funny you overlook the first 3 pages of stuff like that and you decide to tell me to calm down.

And what about all the people saying the same thing about me just because I'm repeating official information with a source? Don't have a problem with them?

alexwatchtower

At this point, I think I saw one post saying "If you believe this you are f*cking stupid." which is a bit far.  Unless I missed it, everything else is just people being skeptical.  You even have 'BELIEVE?' in your thread title, which is inviting people to express whether or not they buy into this idea.

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

And what about all the people saying the same thing about me just because I'm repeating official information with a source? Don't have a problem with them?

rragnaar

At this point, I think I saw one post saying "If you believe this you are f*cking stupid." which is a bit far.  Unless I missed it, everything else is just people being skeptical.  You even have 'BELIEVE?' in your thread title, which is inviting people to express whether or not they buy into this idea.

Yeah that was the same guy.

There's no way MS is going to make my game library accessible and playable to 9 other people without them having to pay for it. If you believe that, you're fvcking stupid. chrisrooR

I told you to calm down because right now you are lashing out and saying that anyone who isn't on your side is a Sony fanboy. I've moderated a fair number of people who've directly insulted you ever since the Xbox One reveal, so this idea that it is one sided is BS.

edit: In any case, this isn't the Mod Clarification Board, and it isn't my inbox.  Time for the thread to move forward.

It doesn't matter, the system is an overcomplicated cluster**** of a console.

None of this DRM nonsense is necessary and even if this turns out to be true, they have still managed to overcomplicate something that need not be complicated at all.

What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?

MS is in a strange place right now.

I told you to calm down because right now you are lashing out and saying that anyone who isn't on your side is a Sony fanboy. I've moderated a fair number of people who've directly insulted you ever since the Xbox One reveal, so this idea that it is one sided is BS.rragnaar

I'm not lashing out and I appreciate it. Don't think I've said anything to him that that I don't hear at least 10 times on a daily basis here. I just don't bring it to your attention cause it would be non stop work and because I didn't even think it was a big deal. But it is usually 1 vs 20 and I think I could really use your help more than they do in this case considering I'm not just going around throwing direct insults. I just think you picked on the wrong guy in this case.

What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I told you to calm down because right now you are lashing out and saying that anyone who isn't on your side is a Sony fanboy. I've moderated a fair number of people who've directly insulted you ever since the Xbox One reveal, so this idea that it is one sided is BS.alexwatchtower

I'm not lashing out and I appreciate it. Don't think I've said anything to him that that I don't hear at least 10 times on a daily basis here. I just don't bring it to your attention cause it would be non stop work and because I didn't even think it was a big deal. But it is usually 1 vs 20 and I think I could really use your help more than they do in this case considering I'm not just going around throwing direct insults. I just think you picked on the wrong guy in this case.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]sounds stupid as hell to meThe_Last_Ride

Why?

As Grammaton posted above, it makes ZERO sense that Microsoft would have such draconian DRM policies, yet allow this buy one game - nine other people can play it for free - model. They really overcomplicated this whole thing. Quote me on this if you would like, but I predict the PS4 (as it currently stands) will take 75% of the console market next generation.chrisrooR

It makes a lot sense to me. They are implementing a system in which the gamer feels they are getting a steal of a deal with the sharing system. However, this system is controlled and regulated by MS. They decide on when the rules would change and whether or not the feature would perpetuate or be killed. The entire system or ecosystem they are making is to have absolute control over content by removing the control gamers traditionally have. Just like EULA can easily change at anytime without warning or permission from the gamer, policies like this can also change. In addition to all of this you are at the mercy of MS Xbox Live policies. If for whatever reason you are banned, locked out or have some complication with your account all of your games would die with your account. License ownership is being offloaded to servers vs the actual owernship of the physical disc that allow for reselling and easy transfering from person to person. This would be MS gateway to acceptance. The success of this ploy would be seen in the coming years. 

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?rragnaar

It doesn't matter, the system is an overcomplicated cluster**** of a console.

None of this DRM nonsense is necessary and even if this turns out to be true, they have still managed to overcomplicate something that need not be complicated at all.

What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?

MS is in a strange place right now.

Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] As Grammaton posted above, it makes ZERO sense that Microsoft would have such draconian DRM policies, yet allow this buy one game - nine other people can play it for free - model. They really overcomplicated this whole thing. Quote me on this if you would like, but I predict the PS4 (as it currently stands) will take 75% of the console market next generation.Pedro

It makes a lot sense to me. They are implementing a system in which the gamer feels they are getting a steal of a deal with the sharing system. However, this system is controlled and regulated by MS. They decide on when the rules would change and whether or not the feature would perpetuate or be killed. The entire system or ecosystem they are making is to have absolute control over content by removing the control gamers traditionally have. Just like EULA can easily change at anytime without warning or permission from the gamer, policies like this can also change. In addition to all of this you are at the mercy of MS Xbox Live policies. If for whatever reason you are banned, locked out or have some complication with your account all of your games would die with your account. License ownership is being offloaded to servers vs the actual owernship of the physical disc that allow for reselling and easy transfering from person to person. This would be MS gateway to acceptance. The success of this ploy would be seen in the coming years. 

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] As Grammaton posted above, it makes ZERO sense that Microsoft would have such draconian DRM policies, yet allow this buy one game - nine other people can play it for free - model. They really overcomplicated this whole thing. Quote me on this if you would like, but I predict the PS4 (as it currently stands) will take 75% of the console market next generation.Pedro

It makes a lot sense to me. They are implementing a system in which the gamer feels they are getting a steal of a deal with the sharing system. However, this system is controlled and regulated by MS. They decide on when the rules would change and whether or not the feature would perpetuate or be killed. The entire system or ecosystem they are making is to have absolute control over content by removing the control gamers traditionally have. Just like EULA can easily change at anytime without warning or permission from the gamer, policies like this can also change. In addition to all of this you are at the mercy of MS Xbox Live policies. If for whatever reason you are banned, locked out or have some complication with your account all of your games would die with your account. License ownership is being offloaded to servers vs the actual owernship of the physical disc that allow for reselling and easy transfering from person to person. This would be MS gateway to acceptance. The success of this ploy would be seen in the coming years. 

I suppose so. It just seems to contradict their business model. I also don't like the prospect of: -having games on your console with no physical disc -the proof of ownership of a game is attached to your account -in 8 or 10 years, how will Microsoft manage the cloud-based system? Will they continue to support it for the next 20 years? -They aren't providing an alternative. No alternative offline play. No alternative disc-based game. And, to me, those negatives outweigh ANY other positives coming from the speculated 'game-sharing' features.chrisrooR

The longevity of the system is not going to be a problem. The move to x86 allows them the flexibility of the PC and longevity of the PC. Everything from this point onward would be 100% transferable once they stick to the x86 architecture. Their servers would go down when the entire PC world goes down and I don't see that in the forseeable future. They can release a system in the future that would be 100% backwards compatible because of this architectural move. This move is a long term strategy and as much as gamers my dislike it has a strong chance of succeeding. The incentives are going to grow as time passes and the same way many was anti steam you going to get the conversion of gamers overtime. This is the reality I anticipate.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I suppose so. It just seems to contradict their business model. I also don't like the prospect of: -having games on your console with no physical disc -the proof of ownership of a game is attached to your account -in 8 or 10 years, how will Microsoft manage the cloud-based system? Will they continue to support it for the next 20 years? -They aren't providing an alternative. No alternative offline play. No alternative disc-based game. And, to me, those negatives outweigh ANY other positives coming from the speculated 'game-sharing' features.Pedro

The longevity of the system is not going to be a problem. The move to x86 allows them the flexibility of the PC and longevity of the PC. Everything from this point onward would be 100% transferable once they stick to the x86 architecture. Their servers would go down when the entire PC world goes down and I don't see that in the forseeable future. They can release a system in the future that would be 100% backwards compatible because of this architectural move. This move is a long term strategy and as much as gamers my dislike it has a strong chance of succeeding. The incentives are going to grow as time passes and the same way many was anti steam you going to get the conversion of gamers overtime. This is the reality I anticipate.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] As Grammaton posted above, it makes ZERO sense that Microsoft would have such draconian DRM policies, yet allow this buy one game - nine other people can play it for free - model. They really overcomplicated this whole thing. Quote me on this if you would like, but I predict the PS4 (as it currently stands) will take 75% of the console market next generation.chrisrooR

It makes a lot sense to me. They are implementing a system in which the gamer feels they are getting a steal of a deal with the sharing system. However, this system is controlled and regulated by MS. They decide on when the rules would change and whether or not the feature would perpetuate or be killed. The entire system or ecosystem they are making is to have absolute control over content by removing the control gamers traditionally have. Just like EULA can easily change at anytime without warning or permission from the gamer, policies like this can also change. In addition to all of this you are at the mercy of MS Xbox Live policies. If for whatever reason you are banned, locked out or have some complication with your account all of your games would die with your account. License ownership is being offloaded to servers vs the actual owernship of the physical disc that allow for reselling and easy transfering from person to person. This would be MS gateway to acceptance. The success of this ploy would be seen in the coming years. 

It's not contradictory policy. Their business model is to go digital. So this doesn't go against it if that's what they want. The things you are giving up though is permanent lifetime ownership and control, but now they are finally showing some carrot in exchange for that stick. And if this is true, well now that carrot actually sounds pretty good.

I mean if they will really let me share games library with 10 hardcore gamers on Gamespot forums,  I would play more games than I would ever be able to afford even buying used or renting. And it's better than even lending out a physical copy. Especially since most of us don't have 10 hardcore gaming friends we can do that with.

I really wouldn't care about owning the game 20 years from now.  Not too many people keep their games that long. I never have. I'll just trade in my copy and make sure to get some value before they pull the plug I guess but I rarely care about that either. I just wanted a replacement for renting and cheap gaming that I don't normally buy new, but this sounds even better to me.

There's also no guarantee your physical disc games will work for 20 years either.  That sounds very idealistic. Your consoles aren't meant to last 20 years and they all get dropped at one point or another. So even if your disc is still fine, who knows how your console holds up. Whose 360 is going to hold up in 2025-2033 to play those disc games?

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I suppose so. It just seems to contradict their business model. I also don't like the prospect of: -having games on your console with no physical disc -the proof of ownership of a game is attached to your account -in 8 or 10 years, how will Microsoft manage the cloud-based system? Will they continue to support it for the next 20 years? -They aren't providing an alternative. No alternative offline play. No alternative disc-based game. And, to me, those negatives outweigh ANY other positives coming from the speculated 'game-sharing' features.Pedro

The longevity of the system is not going to be a problem. The move to x86 allows them the flexibility of the PC and longevity of the PC. Everything from this point onward would be 100% transferable once they stick to the x86 architecture. Their servers would go down when the entire PC world goes down and I don't see that in the forseeable future. They can release a system in the future that would be 100% backwards compatible because of this architectural move. This move is a long term strategy and as much as gamers my dislike it has a strong chance of succeeding. The incentives are going to grow as time passes and the same way many was anti steam you going to get the conversion of gamers overtime. This is the reality I anticipate.

Wow, you are really banking on the sytem being backward compatible. Given PC are not always backward compatible

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I suppose so. It just seems to contradict their business model. I also don't like the prospect of: -having games on your console with no physical disc -the proof of ownership of a game is attached to your account -in 8 or 10 years, how will Microsoft manage the cloud-based system? Will they continue to support it for the next 20 years? -They aren't providing an alternative. No alternative offline play. No alternative disc-based game. And, to me, those negatives outweigh ANY other positives coming from the speculated 'game-sharing' features.Pedro

The longevity of the system is not going to be a problem. The move to x86 allows them the flexibility of the PC and longevity of the PC. Everything from this point onward would be 100% transferable once they stick to the x86 architecture. Their servers would go down when the entire PC world goes down and I don't see that in the forseeable future. They can release a system in the future that would be 100% backwards compatible because of this architectural move. This move is a long term strategy and as much as gamers my dislike it has a strong chance of succeeding. The incentives are going to grow as time passes and the same way many was anti steam you going to get the conversion of gamers overtime. This is the reality I anticipate.

Wow, you are really banking on the sytem being backward compatible. Given PC are not always backward compatible

wiouds

Future backwards compatibility and lets not forget that its still a closed system.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

Wow, you are really banking on the sytem being backward compatible. Given PC are not always backward compatible

Pedro

Future backwards compatibility and lets not forget that its still a closed system.

There is no way to prove that there will be future backwards compatibility.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I suppose so. It just seems to contradict their business model. I also don't like the prospect of: -having games on your console with no physical disc -the proof of ownership of a game is attached to your account -in 8 or 10 years, how will Microsoft manage the cloud-based system? Will they continue to support it for the next 20 years? -They aren't providing an alternative. No alternative offline play. No alternative disc-based game. And, to me, those negatives outweigh ANY other positives coming from the speculated 'game-sharing' features.chrisrooR

The longevity of the system is not going to be a problem. The move to x86 allows them the flexibility of the PC and longevity of the PC. Everything from this point onward would be 100% transferable once they stick to the x86 architecture. Their servers would go down when the entire PC world goes down and I don't see that in the forseeable future. They can release a system in the future that would be 100% backwards compatible because of this architectural move. This move is a long term strategy and as much as gamers my dislike it has a strong chance of succeeding. The incentives are going to grow as time passes and the same way many was anti steam you going to get the conversion of gamers overtime. This is the reality I anticipate.

I agree if consoles are just like PC then there is no reason for the consoles. Also, steam offline mode has a time limit as well.

There is no way to prove that there will be future backwards compatibility.

wiouds

I was not trying to prove anything. I am speculating on their intentions. 

Damn sweet of them to let me do that with something I bought....:roll:LJS9502_basic

Rule of thumb: if you've had two hour-plus conferences and are still having to restate and re-clarify your stance on a selected policy, then your policy probably fvcking sucks.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Damn sweet of them to let me do that with something I bought....:roll:Randolph

Oh yeah Black Knight...one more thing. If Microsoft is so stupid for doing this how dumb is Sony for doing it with movies?alexwatchtower

It doesn't matter, the system is an overcomplicated cluster**** of a console.

None of this DRM nonsense is necessary and even if this turns out to be true, they have still managed to overcomplicate something that need not be complicated at all.

What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?

MS is in a strange place right now.

Grammaton-Cleric

I don't think it's that bizarre. Like Pedro said, it's all about control and with this model where everything is tied to your profile, they are always in complete control. Microsoft took away all the benefits that come with cIassic disc ownership - they single-handedly killed the used and rental markets which from what I understand are absolutely huge. But they HAVE to offset this somehow and create an incentive for the consumer. Steam does it with insane sales, for example. Microsoft is going with the sharing model.

I honestly don't think this is anywhere near as far-fetched as people are making it out to be. We'll see.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It doesn't matter, the system is an overcomplicated cluster**** of a console.

None of this DRM nonsense is necessary and even if this turns out to be true, they have still managed to overcomplicate something that need not be complicated at all.

What is truly bizarre is that if this turns out to be true, why are they so dedicated to such strict DRM while simultaneously allowing such liberal game-sharing?

MS is in a strange place right now.

UpInFlames

I don't think it's that bizarre. Like Pedro said, it's all about control and with this model where everything is tied to your profile, they are always in complete control. Microsoft took away all the benefits that come with cIassic disc ownership - they single-handedly killed the used and rental markets which from what I understand are absolutely huge. But they HAVE to offset this somehow and create an incentive for the consumer. Steam does it with insane sales, for example. Microsoft is going with the sharing model.

I honestly don't think this is anywhere near as far-fetched as people are making it out to be. We'll see.

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Why?

El_Zo1212o

I can't believe people are hating on this. You guys are trying too hard.

UpInFlames

Maybe I woke up in an alternate reality this morning, but I seem to remember MS held a conference at E3 a couple days ago in which they had the opportunity to explain all of this, but they just marched a bunch of casual friday, coffee house types up to the stage to show games. Meanwhile Sony countered with its host of corporate accountants, who painstakingly laid out a business model. It was very boring, but this is what I was getting at in the Sony thread - it was professional. I know what Sony's product is - I understand what I'm buying. I've had girlfriend's I understand better than MS's X1 strategy.

Watchtower sees this news and thinks, "that's great!" I see it and think, "what the f*** is going on?" Maybe if MS had spent Monday morning explaining this kind of stuff, Jack Tretton wouldn't have spent Monday night drying his balls off on their faces. You had a stage - this is what you use it for.

I want both, but I've only preordered a PS4. When MS wants to change its strategy to something other than "we're just making this sh** up as we go!" I'll think about putting some money down. But this? I like the sound of it, but after all that DRM stuff...it's like the sayng "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." What I am not seeing is what scares me away.

Maybe I woke up in an alternate reality this morning, but I seem to remember MS held a conference at E3 a couple days ago in which they had the opportunity to explain all of this, but they just marched a bunch of casual friday, coffee house types up to the stage to show games. Meanwhile Sony countered with its host of corporate accountants, who painstakingly laid out a business model. It was very boring, but this is what I was getting at in the Sony thread - it was professional. I know what Sony's product is - I understand what I'm buying. I've had girlfriend's I understand better than MS's X1 strategy.

Watchtower sees this news and thinks, "that's great!" I see it and think, "what the f*** is going on?" Maybe if MS had spent Monday morning explaining this kind of stuff, Jack Tretton wouldn't have spent Monday night drying his balls off on their faces. You had a stage - this is what you use it for.

I want both, but I've only preordered a PS4. When MS wants to change its strategy to something other than "we're just making this sh** up as we go!" I'll think about putting some money down. But this? I like the sound of it, but after all that DRM stuff...it's like the sayng "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." What I am not seeing is what scares me away.

Ish_basic

And you know whose fault that is? Microsoft. They listened to the publishers instead of the consumers, which is their main problem. Had they actually done the legitimate, professional thing here, they wouldn't have given themselves this much chaos and damage control to deal with.

I'm so glad that I pre-ordered a PS4 on Gamestop.com. It's going to take awhile for Microsoft to get their collective heads out of their asses and do the right thing in the end. As much as I would really want to play games like Ryse, Killer Instinct 3, and Titanfall on XBox One, what they are doing for the consumer is inappropriate and very harmful to the industry. With the "no used games" feature included, that means Gamefly and Gamestop, outlets like those, would be put out of business. Backwards compatibility? That's also gone from XBox One, leaving gamers like you and me to keep our 360. That's also a wrong move - to keep BC out. I don't understand why anyone in here thinks that BC is unimportant. It is important and it is a necessary feature.

Even if Sony does BC through cloud-gaming (if it ever happens), then it's another great feature for them, one that will win over gamers.

Simple truth...

And you know whose fault that is? Microsoft. They listened to the publishers instead of the consumers, which is their main problem. Had they actually done the legitimate, professional thing here, they wouldn't have given themselves this much chaos and damage control to deal with.

Metamania

It was microsoft who went to the Publishers with their Always online DRM, not the other way around. EA confirmed this.