By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft Clarify Family Sharing, Wasn’t Only Demos

Madword on 23 June 2013
slowmo said:

Madword said:

Don't want to come across as rude, but the only people who are coming across as silly as those who actually believed that MS would allow you to buy 1 copy of a game but share it fully with 10 other people. I know you are a massive MS fan (can tell by how you defend them regardless of what they do).... but you need to try and take the blinkers off.

Publishers would *NOT* have done this. There should be no argument on this point.... and if you agree with that point, then I'm afraid i dont see how this would have ever worked.

Perhaps taking your blinkers off might have helped then too.  Announcing a restricted way to share "demo's" was pointless, why restrict who you can entice to play demos of games, its stupid.  Time to face up, this was the real deal, hopefully they'll find a way to implement the feature on digital sales in the future to prove it was.

I'm guessing you know very little about game development? You do know that game demo's are actually very difficult, time consuming and expensive to produce (think about it for a moment, or do you want me to explain in more detail). So actually providing a limited time demo of a full (polished) game is actually a very sensible idea (and is great for publishers). I don't dismiss that as an actual idea, its actually quite smart...  but saying you can have a single game with 10 people accessing it fully with no restrictions... is not smart.

So actually you see, having restricted demos isnt actually pointless.... 



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

Around the Network
happydolphin on 23 June 2013
Madword said:

I'm guessing you know very little about game development? You do know that game demo's are actually very difficult, time consuming and expensive to produce (think about it for a moment, or do you want me to explain in more detail). So actually providing a limited time demo of a full (polished) game is actually a very sensible idea (and is great for publishers). I don't dismiss that as an actual idea, its actually quite smart...  but saying you can have a single game with 10 people accessing it fully with no restrictions... is not smart.

So actually you see, having restricted demos isnt actually pointless.... 

Why create a sharing mechanism for time-limited demoes when you can deploy them globally for free in the virtual marketplace?



Madword on 23 June 2013
happydolphin said:
Madword said:

I'm guessing you know very little about game development? You do know that game demo's are actually very difficult, time consuming and expensive to produce (think about it for a moment, or do you want me to explain in more detail). So actually providing a limited time demo of a full (polished) game is actually a very sensible idea (and is great for publishers). I don't dismiss that as an actual idea, its actually quite smart...  but saying you can have a single game with 10 people accessing it fully with no restrictions... is not smart.

So actually you see, having restricted demos isnt actually pointless.... 

Why create a sharing mechanism for time-limited demoes when you can deploy them globally for free in the virtual marketplace?

Don't recall they said they were restricting anything in terms of access.?



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

happydolphin on 23 June 2013
Madword said:
happydolphin said:
Madword said:

I'm guessing you know very little about game development? You do know that game demo's are actually very difficult, time consuming and expensive to produce (think about it for a moment, or do you want me to explain in more detail). So actually providing a limited time demo of a full (polished) game is actually a very sensible idea (and is great for publishers). I don't dismiss that as an actual idea, its actually quite smart...  but saying you can have a single game with 10 people accessing it fully with no restrictions... is not smart.

So actually you see, having restricted demos isnt actually pointless.... 

Why create a sharing mechanism for time-limited demoes when you can deploy them globally for free in the virtual marketplace?

Don't recall they said they were restricting anything in terms of access.?

huh?



Mr.Asif69 on 23 June 2013

It does not matter anyway since Family sharing is gone -_-



Around the Network
Just_Rocco on 23 June 2013

I don't understand when Microsoft became liars? They never "lied" about anything. They told the truth about their plans and people just didn't like it. That's not "lying". Now, for the people who just couldn't comprehend what they completely spelled out in writing, that's on you. They can only explain it for you, they can't understand it for you.



g911turbo on 23 June 2013
Just_Rocco said:
I don't understand when Microsoft became liars? They never "lied" about anything. They told the truth about their plans and people just didn't like it. That's not "lying". Now, for the people who just couldn't comprehend what they completely spelled out in writing, that's on you. They can only explain it for you, they can't understand it for you.

Doesn't matter, it's "gone" now.  But to be fair, they never explicitly spelled out every little detail and only used the term "unlimited" when describing the local sharing.

And it's not about Microsoft lying.  It's about Microsoft making more money.  This feature, if unlimited, seemed to enable the opposite, which is why many were skeptical about it.  



J_Allard on 23 June 2013
badgenome said:
J_Allard said:
Like I said when this rumor first appeared.. it makes no sense whatsoever. The only excuse the people bitching could come up with is MS wanted a feature to kind of make you forget about DRM. So how are they going to do that with a worthless demo share feature LOL. And that's after they'd spent weeks marketing and talking it up as if it's a full game share LOL. Yeah, people are going to be perfectly ok with the ability to share demos.

A more likely scenario is the one described on multiple websites since this rumor surfaced. You can share full games just like MS described, there are just restrictions. A limit on how long you can play a title per day. A limit on how much of it you can access. A limit on how much of it you can play before being prompted you buy it. Things that would make publishers happy. But demos.. LOL.

Too bad we'll never know since some gamers are afraid of change.

So, just to be clear, you are calling Greenberg and Whitten liars while mocking people for calling them liars? I believe that's called cognitive dissonance.

Accusing people of being afraid of change is always a cop out. People like change they perceive as good and hate change they perceive as bad, and the Xbone was almost universally perceived as bad. Even if you'd like to dismiss "some gamers" as if they were just a vocal minority, there is no way Microsoft is ripping out the heart of their new system to please some vocal minority. Whatever they saw in terms of preorder numbers and whatever Gamestop told them scared the bejeezus out of them.

Where did I say those guys were lying? What I described are not demos. They are saying it's not demos. MS never got around to announcing restrictions. A game could have all those restrictions I described and yet the service would still not be demos and work "exactly as described" or whatever Whitten said. I don't see where I am calling them liars.

Like I said, some gamers are afraid of change. You can qualify it or explain it away however you want, won't change facts.



badgenome on 23 June 2013
J_Allard said:

Where did I say those guys were lying? What I described are not demos. They are saying it's not demos. MS never got around to announcing restrictions. A game could have all those restrictions I described and yet the service would still not be demos and work "exactly as described" or whatever Whitten said. I don't see where I am calling them liars.

Like I said, some gamers are afraid of change. You can qualify it or explain it away however you want, won't change facts.

@lx_KillFace_xl There was no time limit, it was as we described. Team still investing in more digital features over time.

— Aaron Greenberg (@aarongreenberg) June 21, 2013



Figgycal on 23 June 2013
g911turbo said:
Figgycal said:

I feel like its Microsoft giving the middle finger to the consumer. "Oh you wanted this really awesome feature and you wanted us to take away DRM and let you play used games? Too bad- it was really going to be awesome too. I mean we didn't actually clarify anything about it, but believe us it was going to be great and thanks to you guys, we'll never see it."

If Microsoft really had any faith in this feature, they'd still allow it for digital downloaded games. It makes no sense to take this feature out because they gave up on a vision that most consumers didn't share.


Your post does have a point?  Why don't Sony and Microsoft try to drive us to all digital games  if that is what devs want?  Instead they give us no incentive to go all digital.  WEAK.

Exactly! I hate when publishers complain about the used game market as if it's the devil. You know how to get people to stop buying used games? Make downloading digital versions of that game cheaper. Why would I buy a game that came out a year ago for 40 bucks on psn when I can go to gamestop and get the same game for less than 20? There's no incentive to buy digital titles, but all the incentives to buy used.

That's also part of the reason the Xbox one bothered me at first. They wanted to limit my ability to buy used games- fine but if you're gonna do that , you have to make it so there's some kind of benefit to me. Maybe if they had been clear about family sharing (I believed them at first, but their lack of clarity points to it being BS) , or announced ridiculously low prices on downloaded games- I'd play along.