| killerzX said: i thought you could already share playstation games digitally? my brother owned a ps3 way before me, and when i bought my ps3, i put his account on my ps3, and have downloaded all of his digital games, and have played them too. |
Exactly. I have been posting this very fact every place I have argued with stupid people over this topic. For some reason they think MS came up with this type of thing and that for them to do it they absolutely had to give up physical discs and put up with draconian DRM. My family shares several PS3 and we shared CoD map packs, rockband tracks and games all the time over the last 7 years.
The best part for me is that people actually believe that after they went along withe the MS sharing deal for no discs no ownership that they'd actually get lower prices instantly and that the number would stay at 10. Sony reduced the number of systems you could share your digital purchses from 5 to 2 in 2011 and MS would inevitably have done the same with its plan at some point.
Sony has been doing this while supporting physical media without the heavy handed DRM so why can't MS? If the family share is so great (and I think it is a nice feature if it isn't saddled with provisos) then why scrap it just because they scrapped 24 hour check-ins?
This also begs the question, how is this different than having used games or rentals? If you network with a group of gamers you could between you conceivably purchse fewer games as a collective and just share games thus reducing the number of sales for developers. Yet somehow this is better than used games? The only difference is MS had control over it and could again, reduce the number of allowable shares at any time or reduce play time etc.
Glad it went down the way it did, otherwise gamers (consumers) lose. Screw Cliffy and his millionaire tears.
