GS News - Microsoft ditching Xbox One family sharing plan
"We won't be delivering that," Xbox boss Marc Whitten says after yesterday's policy reversal.
by Andy Bauman on
Has it occurred to anyone that family sharing was the reason they did the DRM?! Frankly, I am glad to see family sharing gone because it means the DRM is truly gone.
Everyone was and is so busy accusing Microsoft of doing this just to rape gamers that no one has thought about what the real reason for the DRM was. They had to be looking for SOME sort of deal from publishers, so dropping it means something HAD to go. In the end, the DRM would have sucked for gamers, but no matter what you think about why they did it, they did it to get special treatment. Not just to screw people over (that was just a side effect).
No doubt, Microsoft thought they could make more money if they offered all digital sales and family sharing. The publishers wanted stronger DRM to accept that.
Microsoft's mistake was believing that stuff mattered at all to gamers, but digital sharing is never going to happen without insane DRM. That's what publishers require to accept digital sharing.
I just don't see the f*%#ing complication behind doing exactly the same thing but without DRM and without 24-hour checkins. It's just like "AlwaysRunning" says in his/her comments below "this was just a carrot to try and tempt people into their DRM trap"
To all of the XBoneR fanboys (added the R) that complain about not sharing their digital contents, if Microsoft really wanted to give you that option, it'd still be available, that has nothing to do with mandatory DRM or checkins, this was just Microsoft trying to grab the gamers by the balls.
Wow this Xbox one will tank so hard.. I think microsoft should just pull the damn console.. The negative press is just too much..
@anigmha Microsoft can offer that same sh!t without DRMs and 24-hour checkin, you know? try to find out how internet and communications work kiddo, Microsoft just wanted to squeeze ever single penny out of your (mother's) pocket.
@anigmha Yep. My power to dominate the policy at a Billion Dollar corporation is a force of nature! Are you truly that stupid? M$ and only M$ is responsible for canceling the family plan - which allowed yo to share content with ONE other person at any one time for 45 minutes (read policy). M$ could have easily left this in place for digital download content. Donnie simply throwing a temper tantrum. After he is fired, this policy will be renewed. And you're welcome for protecting your rights even if you lack the capacity to understand the consequences.
@anigmhaGood thing! You know what would be worse than the "evil" used game market with which everyone was justifying the Xbox One DRM? How about giving away 10 free copies of every game to every purchaser! I don't see how that could impact sales in any way....
Seriously, though, this was just a carrot to try and tempt people into their DRM trap. There is absolutely no reason that they could not still follow through on sharing and discless, by allowing you to opt-out by requiring a disc in the drive. But with their golden goose of total control over your digital life crushed, there is no reason to continue the charade. Family Sharing was going to go away anyway, due to "unforeseen abuse" of the policy, and then every Xbox One owner would be up **** creek without a paddle.Thank the Internet whiners! Thank them good!
P.S. I did. I am one myself and I work with hundreds within a multinational company. Now I am not going to argue that its impossible, but there is no way Microsoft can rework this without a major overhaul in their infrastructure. I don't expect sharing to make a return anytime soon.
Are you a computer scientist? If not, did you consult one?
Where in the policy besides that unconfirmed, anonymous posting in pastebin did it say 45 minutes?
Also, you're speculating on the library sharing's engineering dependency on the DRM just as I am. So neither of us should enter this line of argument.
"How about giving away 10 free copies of every game to every purchaser!"
You won't be giving away 10 free copies since they won't be able to be played simultaneously. It's suppose to be exactly like lending a game to your friends, but instead of mailing the copy back and forth to your buddy on the other coast, you're transferring a license through the interwebs. That's the future.
"allowing you to opt-out by requiring a disc in the drive."
I like this. This could work.
Okay, now I'm not convinced you've actually released a commercial software used by tens of thousands of users or business enterprises where crypto-security actually matters, or worked on the code that dealt with licensing. Sharing requires frequent authentication calls to ensure other instances of the game are disabled, otherwise it is called duplication where 10 copies of a game can be used simultaneously. Don't be naive into thinking that your method, the "opt-out by requiring a disc in the drive" method or the "opt-in by converting the disc-license to a cloud-license" method is not going to have a lot more exploitable security holes than Microsoft's original policy without some form of periodical authentication. Safer for them to just disable everything and follow what Sony is doing. Otherwise they risk the same fate as the Dreamcast where piracy without needing additional hardware was a major contributor it its demise.
I do agree, however, that Microsoft isn't going to bring sharing back unless they see a potential positive ROI. But that's obvious for any company with share-holders.
@anigmha Of course it will not return, it will only return if Microsoft sees any penny-milking opportunity there. There's just nothing wrong with installing the on-disc game on the xbone and shared it with your family (the same way they were going to do before). If they were going to do it anyway, I don't see the mega-structure change you are talking about, in fact it would be even simpler.