Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

This is probably true. The company that doesn't want anyone without an Internet connection to play their games or trade them in probably didn't make it so no one has to pay full price for a game again if they can find one person to split the cost with.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

While I look at the "Game Sharing" part being really cool, my common sense tells me there is another side to this. As the saying goes..."What seems to be too good of a deal usually is".

As a gamer you've got to be excited and happy about this...buy one game, share with others, play their game and pay nothing...oh yea!. But if you are a DEV, Publisher or working for one...you've got to be scratching your head and saying to yourself, "We're spending a ton of money to make a game that will sell one copy but will be available up to nine of people and we're suppose to make money on this how?"

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

^ I think devs are likely split on the concept. For popular multiplayer games (COD, Battlefield, Halo), it won't be as big of an issue for them, because all those people will want to play immediately, so the game sharing limits it to one or two people per license. For single-player games, it also kind of depends how badly gamers want to play right away. Because if my buddies and I are all big Bioshock fans, and I buy Bioshock 4: Big Daddy's Breakdance Studio, we're not going to say, "okay, Dan and Joe can play on Mondays, Dan and Steve can only play on Tuesdays, Dan and Ewan can play on Wednesdays, etc." If we're all desperate to play the game on our own time, we're all going to buy it.

I really don't think achievements or challenges will be blocked to "family members," but maybe an online multiplayer restriction if the game owner is already online. So Bob and I can play COD against each other, but can't join a public game, if we're sharing the same license. I can go online alone, and Bob can go online alone, but not together. Something like that. Again, not totally unreasonable, considering it is a single copy, but maybe not as awesome as some of us (myself included) assumed at first.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

This was my thought as well except for two points:

1) Even multiplayer games will take a hit. If you and I are "family", I might buy Battlefield and you might buy CoD, and really, we're all set. In fact, I think there's probably more upside to having a tight-knit group of 2-3 family members than there is 10 because of only one player having access to your library at a time.

2) Very few single player games are "Bioshock", and publishers know this. What happens to the Metros or the Deus Exes? Based on the current rules of engagement, I think they take a huge hit.

There has to be a catch, because this sounds brutal for developers and too good to be true for gamers. I also have zero reason to think that MS has our best interest in mind.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Gamestop has stopped taking Xbox One preorders. Company line is they've reached their allotment. Conspiracy theory says that since Xbox One policies are potentially damaging to Gamestop, they're pushing back.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/19/444...ses-pre-orders

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Maybe some Xbox Live money starts going to publishers?

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Here's a short list of games that would have sold one copy instead of two if my brother and I could have done this:

Any of the Assassin's Creed games
Tomb Raider
Dishonored
Any of the Mass Effect games
Any Halo game (don't care about Halo multiplayer these days)
Any Gears of War game (see above)
Darksiders

This is a DUMB policy for publishers.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Sure it sounds laughable, but there had to be SOME kind of payoff for Microsoft to implement these DRM systems. They didn't just do it for the hell of it, and curbing lending/renting/used sales doesn't help Microsoft financially in the least.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Not even if they sell more consoles because "OMGFDUDE! You don't have to buy ANY GAMES!!!!"?

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

On Jimmy Fallon the other day, Phil Spencer said that the xbox one is 3 times more powerful than the 360. He took to twitter later to say that what he said was a mistake and that it's actually 8 times more powerful. He later added that it's 10 times more powerful, plus the cloud for local compute functions.

By the end of the year, it will be 50 times more powerful, I guess.

http://gamingbolt.com/phil-spencer-x...oud-gives-more

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Then: Judgement Day.
http://righteousmarketing.com/wp-con...terminator.jpg

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Well, he said that because the next night on Fallon, the PS4 guy said it was 10x more powerful than the PS3.

Facts: They're in the cloud and can be updated at-will now!

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Agreed. There's something that has to make the game sharing policy, as stated officially thus far, acceptable for publishers, or this policy simply wouldn't exist. It's not like MS just came up with it on their own (well... maybe... but I doubt it...).
More info will be available soon, I imagine.
I just don't think MS is doing all of this to screw everyone over for their own profit. They have a long history of partnerships with all sorts of organizations related to Windows, Office, servers, xbox, etc. I can't imagine they suddenly flipped the table over and said, "Fuck it. You're all doing it OUR way now." If they did, they'd have ZERO exclusives on Xbox One.

I'm disappointed that no one wanted to talk about community challenges (like kicking a million chickens). :( I think that stuff is going to be a great addition to the platform.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Haha, really? I only watched the xbox segment. I'll have to check the other one out.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Well if the PS4 is more powerful than the PS3, and the PS3 was technically more powerful than the Xbox 360 (albeit more difficult to program for), and the Xbox One is 50 times more powerful than the Xbox 360.

Crosseyed.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

I really don't think it is as big of an issue as some of you are making it out to be. For instance, if I go buy Halo on my 360 and play it for a week, then give it to my friend for a few days, they only sold 1 copy instead of 2. This is essentially the same thing, except that it's done digitally now and possibly simultaneously. The end result is the same, 1 sold instead of two.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

So I sent Major Nelson a nice long e-mail asking him to detail trade-ins and the family plan, including my assumptions and what info people would actually want to know. Hopefully he actually reads it and responds, but I doubt it :)

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Did you mention that you're basically doing his job for him already?

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

lol no

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

Do you do that now? Especially for a multiplayer game?

Now how much easier will digital distribution make sharing games with friends (who don't even need to be local), and add to this the capability of at least two people being able to play the title at the same time.

For single player games, friend 1 plays it and finishes it, well, now friend 2 can play it and finish it, and so on and so on. Speaking personally, I rarely lend out games, certainly not after a week, and I rarely sell games because it's such a hassle. And I buy a lot of games. But I would take advantage of a sharing program. So yeah, it is a big difference.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

There's also the possibility that maybe if friend B wants to play a shared game and friend A is currently playing a shared game from the same "family member", that friend A gets unceremoniously kicked from his game so B can play until he gets kicked by player C and so on. This could be a super frustrating way to share games if you have more than two or three "family members" to share with. Potentially.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

And this is the same company that implemented a system that a) doesn't allow you to do exactly that anymore for whatever reason and b) only lets the game get "lent" to a new owner one time.

So they pile on restrictions on one end and completely remove them for another? And using your example, in this case you aren't lending the game at all - you are duping the game (up to 10 times) so you can all play with only one person paying.

This is insanity.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

I don't think the game would even show up in the shared library for the third user to kick the second. It's like taking a book from the library. If I take it, you can't also take it and kick me...it's already gone until I return it.

Re: Xbox One: This Thread Requires An Always On Internet Connection
 

You are still only duping the game one time. Not all 10 people can play the same game. Yes, eventually all 10 people could play the game, but I could also lend my physical copy of Halo to 10 people, one at a time. It's still just a slightly better version of lending a disc to one other person. The X1 doesn't really allow discs to be lent, since they aren't traditional games, so they allow this instead. I guess it's just not that hard to understand for me. :shrug: