By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 09 June 2013
Edit Thread

JWeinCom said:

 Mach said
You the game owner select 10 people on your Friends list.  On your Family or Friend console, it will add an encrypted code within the cloud that you are a family member.  Each time you play a game that is owned by a family member it verfiy your account in the cloud and give you access to play.  To get around everyone being a family member chain type of abuse.  The person you select will also have to select you as a family member and each family member you have selected.

Do you have a link to that?  From what I read, Microsoft did not detail that aspect.  What they said was "Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One." I would be surprised if it works as you said because I would abuse the **** out of that and Microsoft probably knows that I would.  

You cannot abuse the system I mentioned because you missed the last part.  In order to add someone as a family member, each family member must be the same on all consoles.  Meaning if you have setup 10 family members on your console and one is a friend.  On your friend console he would need to have added all nine of your family members as his family.  This would restrict people abusing the system.  Now if you had 10 buddies and you form a family, then you all can just pool in and purchase one game and share it amoug each other ;)

Mach said:  Well that is an issue but then it plays 2 ways.  Probably by default, the majority of publishers will go by what MS game studios do.  There probably will be special cases where they sell you a game for a huge discount like Steam did with Batman Origins.  Something of that sort they probably want to restrict because you are getting something for basically nothing.  On Steam, you can only play that game from your account and you cannot distribute, loan, Gift or allow another family member to play the game unless they use your account.  Giving publishers control should allow for better control of prices and publishers deals where they are assured that the people that do bad stuff will not take advantage of them.

And, publishers will also use that to prevent people who are doing legitimate stuff from doing what they wish with their games.

Depends on the publishers.  If its EA or Activision then you could have that scenerio but then if you do not buy their games, they will get the message.  The thing is, consumers what publishers to show them they have their best interest at heath but consumers need to do the same thing.  Small scale pirating and game swapping will not cause publishers to bring out the restrictions but if large scale stuff start to happen, what do you think they will or even should do.

Mach said: Interesting enough, neither did I until about 2 weeks ago.  Even at my job they are giving out smartphones because thats where the industry is going.  For someone like you who do not own a smartphone, I would be interested to see how long you hold out.  Anyway, without a smartphone then your choices are limited.

Which is kind of BS.  I actually do own a smartphone.  I never used the mobile hotspot feature, but I checked it out after Kilter's post.  It's not included in my data plan and I'd have to pay extra for that feature.  So, kind of a no go for me.

Interesting, I just got the Nokia phone for Verison and the hotspot is active without any additional money.  Someone mentioned that that they would need to pay more money for this feature on the Iphone.  I wonder if this is isolated to just the Iphone.

Mach said: If games are installed on the HDD and backed up on the cloud, how else do you think they could do this without someone installing the game, giving it to their friends and pretty much continue to do this forever.  In such a scenerio, a group of people would just pool their money together and purchase a game.  This would be great for consumers but sure would be giving it to the developers/publishers who spent millions.  Lets not act like there are not people in the world who would abuse such a system

Can't I already install games on my 360?  And if I install them, I need the disc to play them.  Seems simple enough.  If I want to access a copy stored on the Cloud, then I would need to check in with Microsoft to make sure I have proper rights to access the content.  Obviously, if I'm playing it on the Cloud or while I'm online in general, I don't have a problem with having to be online... since I'm online... And if I want to play offline, they could require the disc.  Seems simple enough.

Probelm with the 360 end is that CD checks are the easiet thing to break.  It was the first thing to be cracked on the 360 so as a means of protection, it would be the weakest link in the chain and easily exploitable.  I do not believe anyone even uses CD checks anymore besides consoles.

Oh and btw, nobody asked for mandatory installs.  I could see the advantage of OPTIONAL installs or cloud storage, but I don't see how forcing installs benefits anyone.

The full install is there because MS does not want to have a system that splits between streaming from the Blu-Ray or retrieving from the HDD.  I agree it should just be retrieve from the HDD because the Blu-Ray is the weakest part in the chain when needing data.   Having everything streamed from the HDD means MS can optimized streaming from a much faster source and standardize their API calls that way.  Case in point would be Halo 3 and a few other games when installed on the HDD.  Halo 3 actually performed slower when running from the HDD then the CD because its cache scheme was designed for the CD.  Many games do not see any real performance difference when installed from the HDD because the 360 was not designed that way.