Do you regret that Microsoft reversed the "ALWAYS ONLINE" policy for XBOX ONE ??

@Reaper No it is not flawed. Its would simply be a license being removed from your console with whatever system MS gives the retailers to do so. Each disc had to have something unique otherwise 24 hours check-ins served no purpose and there wouldn't have
been anything to stop people from installing the same copy to multiple Xbox Ones and playing for free.

-

Transferring a game to someone else would've been over XBL so I fail to see how they would've caused any issues.

-

@Randver I already said the old policy limited peer-to-peer sales. Are you not following along again?

-

@D33dles And why exactly would a publisher not enable resale of their game when publishers have been wanting to break into the used market for years? I guess online passes, disc locked content and all those other so called shady business practices never
happened. You're right though, let's pretend breaking into the used market is just a drop in the bucket LMAO. I'm glad we agree about the common sense thing.

-

@voteDC Except with your unique code idea and no check-in I would have a separate, completely offline console with a bunch of games I no longer have. Probably some I even paid $0 for thanks to borrowing games and GameStops return policy. All while employing
zero hacks to do so,

-

@Pyramid Did Steam offer a way to break into the used game market? Didn't think so lol.

-

I find it hilarious when people compare Steam's situation when they weren't offering anything nearly as beneficial at what MS was but whatever. Y'all can keep looking at bits and pieces to makes your individual arguments....You know what. Let's agree to
disagree as I'm done with this thread entirely and I won't be replying.

 

I don't understand what your point is. The whole point of the program is to let people play games they didn't pay for.

 

What had the 28th amendment got to do with your sales act. 109a. Which states that you as a consumer can sell your physical based media without the copyright holders permission.

.

You are not allowed to copy, reproduce, alter, or otherwise change any code that is upon the physical disc without the copyright holders permission.

.

That is why digital media and physical media had different copyright laws. Gamer.... You might not own the rights. But you own the right to sell.gift.trade the physical media with the software on it. As you are giving the disc away once you have sold.gifted.traded
the item. The license transfers with it.

 

[quote user="Burst Axe"]

@Reaper No it is not flawed. Its would simply be a license being removed from your console with whatever system MS gives the retailers to do so. Each disc had to have something unique otherwise 24 hours check-ins served no purpose and there wouldn't have
been anything to stop people from installing the same copy to multiple Xbox Ones and playing for free.

-

Transferring a game to someone else would've been over XBL so I fail to see how they would've caused any issues.

-

@ I already said the old policy limited peer-to-peer sales. Are you not following along again?

-

@D33dles And why exactly would a publisher not enable resale of their game when publishers have been wanting to break into the used market for years? I guess online passes, disc locked content and all those other so called shady business practices never
happened. You're right though, let's pretend breaking into the used market is just a drop in the bucket LMAO. I'm glad we agree about the common sense thing.

-

@voteDC Except with your unique code idea and no check-in I would have a separate, completely offline console with a bunch of games I no longer have. Probably some I even paid $0 for thanks to borrowing games and GameStops return policy. All while employing
zero hacks to do so,

-

@Pyramid Did Steam offer a way to break into the used game market? Didn't think so lol.

-

I find it hilarious when people compare Steam's situation when they weren't offering anything nearly as beneficial at what MS was but whatever. Y'all can keep looking at bits and pieces to makes
your individual arguments....You know what. Let's agree to disagree as I'm done with this thread entirely and I won't be replying.

[/quote]

Steam tried to do what Microsoft was promising and they failed because of lack of publisher/developer support. You can go on Steam and see what they were able to accomplish with the Family Share plan.

There are a number of you that believe that because Microsoft had a "vision" that it would become reality. This mentality that if Microsoft says it, it must be true is disturbing.

The people that are complaining about losing the original DRM would have been here throwing fits if it hadn't been reversed because 99 percent of the promised features wouldn't have been available at launch. We can't even get an eta on a battery power meter
from Microsoft. How long do you think it would have taken for them to negotiate a plan with developers and publishers and then implement it? At some point hopefully some of you will wake up and realize we won this round.

 

[quote user="Burst Axe"]@ Except with your unique code idea and no check-in I would have a separate, completely offline console with a bunch of games I no longer have. Probably some I even paid $0 for thanks to borrowing games and GameStops return
policy. All while employing zero hacks to do so,[/quote]And you'd never be able to take that console onliine to play a game again or play any new ones on it.

Because as soon as you did the games would be deactivated. Remember these require a one time onliine activation. GameStop would not take the game unless the code was in the box.

You'd have an offline console with an extremely limited number of games to play, that couldn't get system or title updates, and would be unable to play any new games beyond those you already had.

So assuming that the vast majority of gamers would at some point want to try new titles, the unique code would be working very well indeed. No 24 hour check-in required.

 

To the people who are stating Microsoft never said game sharing with friends wasn't ever said:

.

.

“Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for
at least 30 days, and each game can only be given once.”

.

.

This WAS going to happen. The "10" user restriction came AFTER the reversal, and the NEW SHARING limitations was "9 family members". This was later updated AGAIN to say ALL family members, no limit at all.

.

.

As far as licensing goes, this was going to be allowed if the developer chose it (which would be stupid they wouldn't).

.

.

Now, for some insider details on how this was going to work: Firstly, the game wasn't going to be "shared" to the point a person would never have to pay for a game again. LIKE DEMOS, full game sharing had a limited life span, which varied based on publisher
request. It could be 24 hours or it could be 3 days.

.

.

Once the game's limit was up, gamers would have the choice to either purchase the game or allow it to uninstall. Catch is: it wasn't going to uninstall completely. The goal here was that if you played the game well enough to like it, but didn't/couldn't
pay for it at the expiration, you'd eventually come back to wanting it and it'll already be set up for you (license then granted for the console to use).

.

.

Microsoft had also the plans to sell digital games, and this was all built on the premise of requiring the once-a-day check in. This is because Microsoft had to ensure that you weren't trying to pawn off your disc copy while trying to cash in your digital
copy. The ONLINE CHECK-IN WAS REQUIRED for this to be offered.

.

.

DRM swings both ways and Microsoft was looking to take the lead to allow new ways to use digital files. All that's gone now, and people applauded Sony's "sharing" program without even realizing THE GAME DISK IS DRM, PEOPLE!

.

.

Now, we're stuck with another generation of buying digital things without any true ownership of being able to share or sell them.

.

.

Thanks, gamers.

 

[quote user="VLT034 Violynne"]

To the people who are stating Microsoft never said game sharing with friends wasn't ever said:

.

.

“Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for
at least 30 days, and each game can only be given once.”

.

.

This WAS going to happen. The "10" user restriction came AFTER the reversal, and the NEW SHARING limitations was "9 family members". This was later updated AGAIN to say ALL family members, no limit at all.

.

.

As far as licensing goes, this was going to be allowed if the developer chose it (which would be stupid they wouldn't).

.

.

Now, for some insider details on how this was going to work: Firstly, the game wasn't going to be "shared" to the point a person would never have to pay for a game again. LIKE DEMOS, full game sharing had a limited life span, which varied based on publisher
request. It could be 24 hours or it could be 3 days.

.

.

Once the game's limit was up, gamers would have the choice to either purchase the game or allow it to uninstall. Catch is: it wasn't going to uninstall completely. The goal here was that if you played the game well enough to like it, but didn't/couldn't
pay for it at the expiration, you'd eventually come back to wanting it and it'll already be set up for you (license then granted for the console to use).

.

.

Microsoft had also the plans to sell digital games, and this was all built on the premise of requiring the once-a-day check in. This is because Microsoft had to ensure that you weren't trying to pawn off your disc copy while trying to cash in your digital
copy. The ONLINE CHECK-IN WAS REQUIRED for this to be offered.

.

.

DRM swings both ways and Microsoft was looking to take the lead to allow new ways to use digital files. All that's gone now, and people applauded Sony's "sharing" program without even realizing THE GAME DISK IS DRM, PEOPLE!

.

.

Now, we're stuck with another generation of buying digital things without any true ownership of being able to share or sell them.

.

.

Thanks, gamers.

[/quote]

I could see your version of how sharing would work being what we would have actually got. It's basically an extended demo and achievements would have likely been disabled. PS Plus already does something similar, play the full game with a time limit but I believe
it's no more than a few hours for any game. I don't see it ever being "days", most SP games can be finished in 10-12 hours some as few as 5 or 6. A Gamefly account is much better in my opinion.

I just don't see an upside to anything in the original plan. I can do more now than I could had it been implemented. The only thing that people can honestly say we lost is the ability to bind a physical disc to our console and avoid swapping disc. I have absolutely
no problem getting out of my recliner and swapping a disc considering what I got to keep.

 

[quote user="DuFFuL"]

Hahaha! That's all!

[/quote]

I need something to do while I drink my coffee ;p

 

Violynne - Can ask?

-

In one paragraph you say (insider Info) that the game sharing was like a timed Demo situation, and the person who has borrowed would have to pay after a set time. 24hours or 3 days. Your words. And that Digital Games were going to be allowed to be re-sold.
Again, this was not one of their major sellers, as they only said this after the reversal

-

And then you go on to be sarcastic about how Gamers, have destroyed that vision. But tell, me you would be willing to remove all your rights to physical games, And everything that pertains too, That quite a lot of people have fought for, for many years to
achieve. And remove them in a single blow, for a Demo'd game sharing facility.

-

Now i can understand that Digital Resale would be a good idea, and a lot of people would be willing to go down that route. But again, no details.

-

Details, details, details. They are everything when you are trying to sell a new concept to people. People do not just buy into a concept because a company says so. It takes years to build that up. Heck. Gaming was considered geek-ish for years before it
was mass marketed. First Tablets weren't very well received, but now look, They out sell PC's.

-

All of these systems could have been introduced slowly, and eased the consumer into it. Gradually showing how good they were going to be. Consumers do not like being strong armed into stuff. You must sell your goods to them, Not force them

 

Well at least you know what I'm laughing at. Not laughing at you buddy, laughing with you! Was gone for 15 hours and it's still going. Well, nothing wrong with persistence I guess. Once again, good luck.

 

[quote user="Randver"]

[quote user="VLT034 Violynne"]

To the people who are stating Microsoft never said game sharing with friends wasn't ever said:

.

.

“Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for
at least 30 days, and each game can only be given once.”

.

.

This WAS going to happen. The "10" user restriction came AFTER the reversal, and the NEW SHARING limitations was "9 family members". This was later updated AGAIN to say ALL family members, no limit at all.

.

.

As far as licensing goes, this was going to be allowed if the developer chose it (which would be stupid they wouldn't).

.

.

Now, for some insider details on how this was going to work: Firstly, the game wasn't going to be "shared" to the point a person would never have to pay for a game again. LIKE DEMOS, full game sharing had a limited life span, which varied based on publisher
request. It could be 24 hours or it could be 3 days.

.

.

Once the game's limit was up, gamers would have the choice to either purchase the game or allow it to uninstall. Catch is: it wasn't going to uninstall completely. The goal here was that if you played the game well enough to like it, but didn't/couldn't
pay for it at the expiration, you'd eventually come back to wanting it and it'll already be set up for you (license then granted for the console to use).

.

.

Microsoft had also the plans to sell digital games, and this was all built on the premise of requiring the once-a-day check in. This is because Microsoft had to ensure that you weren't trying to pawn off your disc copy while trying to cash in your digital
copy. The ONLINE CHECK-IN WAS REQUIRED for this to be offered.

.

.

DRM swings both ways and Microsoft was looking to take the lead to allow new ways to use digital files. All that's gone now, and people applauded Sony's "sharing" program without even realizing THE GAME DISK IS DRM, PEOPLE!

.

.

Now, we're stuck with another generation of buying digital things without any true ownership of being able to share or sell them.

.

.

Thanks, gamers.

[/quote]

I could see your version of how sharing would work being what we would have actually got. It's basically an extended demo and achievements would have likely been disabled. PS Plus already does something similar, play the full game with a time limit but I believe
it's no more than a few hours for any game. I don't see it ever being "days", most SP games can be finished in 10-12 hours some as few as 5 or 6. A Gamefly account is much better in my opinion.

I just don't see an upside to anything in the original plan. I can do more now than I could had it been implemented. The only thing that people can honestly say we lost is the ability to bind a physical disc to our console and avoid swapping disc. I have absolutely
no problem getting out of my recliner and swapping a disc considering what I got to keep.

[/quote]

It's a big issue with swapping discs if you have several consoles are all over the house - or you sometimes login to a console at a different location (i.e. family members house).

Also there's the benefit of having the ability to sell our digital copies back to MS. For me that was priceless and worth any "risk" with trusting MS.

Everyone has different priorities I guess....

 

[quote user="HairyLoveSpuds"]



All of these systems could have been introduced slowly, and eased the consumer into it. Gradually showing how good they were going to be. Consumers do not like being strong armed into stuff. You must sell your goods to them, Not force them

[/quote]

I think that is one thing we can all agree on...(surely?)

 

[quote user="Randver"]Steam tried to do what Microsoft was promising and they failed because of lack of publisher/developer support. You can go on Steam and see what they were able to accomplish with the Family Share plan.

[/quote] Not according to his logic, because something about Used Games......

 

[quote user="Randver"]

[quote user="HaloJolly"]

[quote user="Randver"]

[quote user="HaloJolly"]

[quote user="xenomorph v1"]

And I get 1 starred for two completely logical, non-aggressive questions, and a wholly truthful statment (via a.sort of question/statement hybrid thingy).

.

Makes sense.

[/quote]

Are you stargazing again?

Well I hope I can choose one day if I want a online check in or not.

I game online so why can´t I get advantage out of it?

[/quote]

What advantage?

You want to have to go online once a day so Microsoft can check your game licenses?

Currently you can do everything you could have done with the policy. Don't want to swap disc then buy all your games digitally.

The 24hr check in was never something that was going to give us anything, it was the means that Microsoft was going to use to confirm game licenses. Their policy regarding the game licenses ( selling, trading. sharing ) is what in theory would have given us
something. They could have made it weekly check ins, monthly check ins, only check in when you activate or de-activate a license, etc.

The discussion is about whether Microsoft was going to ever be able make good on their selling, trading. sharing promises once the policy went in effect.

[/quote]

Because I would most likely not deal with cheaters and modders since this will be hard for people to do when their Xbox get checked ones a day.

I am pretty sure that was the main reason for the 24 hour check in and a fast Xbox One.

ANd NO I can NOT have the same advantage right now.

Pure stubborness of people is why we lost this feature

[/quote]

Your gaming activity is hidden but I'm assuming you're talking about cheaters and modders in CoD or some other FPS.

The 24hr check in was a license check, it had nothing to do with catching cheaters and modders. If your gaming with cheaters and modders it means they are online probably for hours on end, it's the only way they can be impacting your gameplay. I'm not understanding
the logic of why going online once a day would catch these people that aren't getting caught playing online hours everyday.

How it was going to make the One fast is even more of a head scratcher.

[/quote]

Cause you don´t understand it.

Your Xbox would go through a fast check and would always be updated to make sure there can´t be mods on your console.

My history is not showing for you, for my friends it is

I don´t play Call of Duty. I never did.

It´s more about modded content not just games.

Xbox would safe a ton of money and could use that to make Xbox Live better if they get rid of system tampering.

That´s what I saw in the 24 hour log in.

Sure they could have change it to 48 hours or something but in general I like that log in idea.

 

[quote user="HaloJolly"]

Cause you don´t understand it.

Your Xbox would go through a fast check and would always be updated to make sure there can´t be mods on your console.

My history is not showing for you, for my friends it is

I don´t play Call of Duty. I never did.

It´s more about modded content not just games.

Xbox would safe a ton of money and could use that to make Xbox Live better if they get rid of system tampering.

That´s what I saw in the 24 hour log in.

Sure they could have change it to 48 hours or something but in general I like that log in idea.

[/quote]

I have no idea what modded/hacked content your referring to if it's not FPS related. That's the most widespread.

Achievement hackers are around but they are easy to catch just by looking at their profile. Only other thing I've ever heard of content wise were people modding/hacking avatar items and again they were easy to catch. If it's not game related I don't see how
it impacts any of the rest of us.