I'm not saying the logistics aren't different or more annoying in one case than another - but the end result is the same, which is the point. Sure it's more/less convenient but it's the same bits for free. And so progress is made. Just because you don't have 10 friends in real life doesn't mean that a lot of others don't - and 10 is still reasonable considering you could also just sell the game and it could be sold/bought 10 more times with no money going to MS or the game creator for those instances either.
I still shake my head at the whole digital "what about game sharing" thing. There is no fucking way they were going to let you freely share a game with 10 friends. It doesn't make any sense.
as much sense as a disc you can share with 10, 20, 30 friends.
Which isn’t realistic. There’s no way I have 30 friends.
I still say 10 free shares is a bad deal for third party pubs and that the sharing program may never have become a reality, at least not in the form in which it was presented. But I thought we decided 4 or 5 pages ago that without having stats regarding the typical travel patterns of the average game disk, neither one of us has a clue.
Logistics may also matter. I think 10 shares can happen faster digitally than 10 traditional shares or resells with a disc. Keeping the gamer engaged long enuf to be interested in DLC is already (allegedly) a challenge. That may become more challenging for digital. In fact if I was a bean counter, I’d say 10 free shares is likely to be 10 less gamers who might buy DLC. Unless you’re also going to give DLC away for free. Either way sounds like a loss.
you're saying people who play a game for free wouldn't pay for DLC? Because I'm the opposite already. If I borrow a game I'm much more likely to buy DLC because the initial purchase was $0 so everything else is still super cheap.
And I say, 10 people "borrowing your game online digitally might lead to more purchases if the games good enough that they like it. It's nothingmore than try it before you buy it.
In my case, if it was fun, I'd probably get my own, and if it wasn't, I'd probably never look at it again.
Calcualte that into your travel of the game. Where as, if you have the disc in your hand, your not gonna buy another one.
10 devices at a time, but not every game can be shared.
by Mitch Dyer
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Valve has announced a Family Sharing system for Steam, allowing users to share their entire game libraries with family and friends. Users may only access a shared library one at a time -- so if you're playing something, anyone who wants to access your games has to wait. The library owner will always take the priority, so if someone's in your library and you want to play Peggle, they'll have a few minutes to quit playing or purchase the game they're running.
Many may remember the prospect of family sharing on Xbox One, which recently vanished in favor of Gold Sharing, but could return to the console.
Well, this is about to get fun. Steam does it and people rejoice and Microsoft does it and folks bitch and complain.
As pertinent to the conversation as the Steam stuff might be, it'll almost certainly derail things. I'd appreciate it if we spun that off into its own thread. Won't someone think of that poor serviceman that's in the submarine at the bottom of the ocean?
Well, this is about to get fun. Steam does it and people rejoice and Microsoft does it and folks bitch and complain.
Most people weren't against the sharing plan that m$ was vague about. They were against the DRM and restrictions m$ imposed to make the sharing plan (again, which m$ was very vague about) possible: DRM, 24-hour online check, etc. Also, reading the fine print of Steam's plan, you will not only kick your friend out of the game you're sharing whenever you decide to play the same game, but anytime you log onto your Steam library. So if you're a frequent Steam user, your sharing will be limited anyway.
When I authorize a device to lend my library to others, do I limit my own ability to access and play my games?
As the lender, you may always access and play your games at any time. If you decide to start playing when a friend is already playing one of your games, he/she will be given a few minutes to either purchase the game or quit playing.
And
Can a friend and I share a library and both play at the same time?
No, a shared library may only be accessed by one user at a time.
As was mentioned before, PS3 has been doing this for quite some time. However, they had to reduce the number of possible shared machines to 2 due to people exploiting the system. Forums were set up and groups were formed specifically so that only 1 out of the group would ever have to buy the game in question. Theres no reason to think it won't happen again.
As was mentioned before, PS3 has been doing this for quite some time. However, they had to reduce the number of possible shared machines to 2 due to people exploiting the system. Forums were set up and groups were formed specifically so that only 1 out of the group would ever have to buy the game in question. Theres no reason to think it won't happen again.
sharing your login/password is hardly the same thing as getting to officially borrow a game digitally. One is theft and one is endorsed.
the PS3 option was so if you had multiple boxes you could put your games on all of them, same as with the 360 - only difference is you didn't have to be logged into PSN to use them.
The difference between Steam and M$ is that steam is already digital and on the PC you can't share games anyway, so this is new. With the Xbox you could always share games and they were going to take it away. This was how it was represented to us since there was not a lot of information about the friends sharing.
The difference between Steam and M$ is that steam is already digital and on the PC you can't share games anyway, so this is new. With the Xbox you could always share games and they were going to take it away. This was how it was represented to us since there was not a lot of information about the friends sharing.
This may be true, but I think a lot of folks, particularly the physical media folks, aren't seeing the point in the near future where the convergence happens. Physical media will be here for a little longer because it has to be, but digital is going to be king for a very long time.
Most games that are going to be played, even on co-op, are going to be played online. People crying about the 24-hour check were crying about games that they were going to be playing online anyways. You know, Don Mattick was clearly not giving any PR polish when he said that folks that didn't like that should stick with their 360. That was a horribly delivered line that pissed off a lot of folks, but its also probably 100% accurate.
The biggest thing I took from the article wasn't the difference between the speeds, but the politics of the business. How the console companies are once again pushing these peripherals onto the developers, trying to force integration. I think the developers know that most of the customers aren't interested in waving their arms around like jack asses or playing smart phone style finger gestures on their controllers. It's sad to see the devs being pushed into incorporating all of these moronic devices instead of putting that time and energy into making the actual content of the games better.
The biggest thing I took from the article wasn't the difference between the speeds, but the politics of the business. How the console companies are once again pushing these peripherals onto the developers, trying to force integration. I think the developers know that most of the customers aren't interested in waving their arms around like jack asses or playing smart phone style finger gestures on their controllers. It's sad to see the devs being pushed into incorporating all of these moronic devices instead of putting that time and energy into making the actual content of the games better.
I have to agree on this. The only Kinect game I've ever played that was any fun at all was silly Fruit Ninja, and that's it. Hardly the vehicle to launch a thousand ships metaphorically speaking...
So why do the console makers keep trying to add these peripherals? Is it to stand out from one another? I really don't see an advantage to pushing these gadgets over simply making a good solid controller that will outlast and outperform the competition.
MS is trying to get the lead in voice/gestural interface we'll all be using in 10 years. Minority Report style (some TVs are already implementing a crude version of this). PS3 was copying the Wii gimmick with the Move, which sold a lot of Wii's but no PS3's. On the other hand, MS sold 25 Million Kinects.
I feel like there will be less "kinect only" mini games and more "gestures and voice could be in any game" since every system comes with one.
I know the "kinect" head movement feature where you could look left or right some as into a turn seemed like a plausible use, and turned out to be an annoyance...
And I'm not into Dance Central sooo....
Cooter was playing with the Kinect on Tiger Woods PGA 14 a few nights ago but I didn't get any feedback from him. Maybe he could elaborate on his experience with it. I know the kinect / microphone use between him and I online was NOT enjoyable, he had to go get his headphone/mic...I was getting a severe echo of myself...
In 1975 the PET ROCK was first marketed. Rocks have come a long way since then. I mean, just look at them. They're everywhere now. All shapes and sizes. Cheap too.
In 1975 the PET ROCK was first marketed. Rocks have come a long way since then. I mean, just look at them. They're everywhere now. All shapes and sizes. Cheap too.
What a great observation. But why did that contractor charge me an arm and a leg for the rock wall he put up? I knew I was getting screwed over!
In 1975 the PET ROCK was first marketed. Rocks have come a long way since then. I mean, just look at them. They're everywhere now. All shapes and sizes. Cheap too.
What a great observation. But why did that contractor charge me an arm and a leg for the rock wall he put up? I knew I was getting screwed over!
In 1975 the PET ROCK was first marketed. Rocks have come a long way since then. I mean, just look at them. They're everywhere now. All shapes and sizes. Cheap too.
LOL
Oldschool 2o4f wrote:
I know the "kinect" head movement feature where you could look left or right some as into a turn seemed like a plausible use, and turned out to be an annoyance...
And I'm not into Dance Central sooo....
Cooter was playing with the Kinect on Tiger Woods PGA 14 a few nights ago but I didn't get any feedback from him. Maybe he could elaborate on his experience with it. I know the kinect / microphone use between him and I online was NOT enjoyable, he had to go get his headphone/mic...I was getting a severe echo of myself...
The problem with this analogy and every other one involving the Kinect is that the One isn't using the old Kinect, it's 2.0 and a ton more precise with many other funcitons. It can see your heartbeat, for pete's sake.
It's like saying "well I didn't care for the origina iPhone, so the 5S must suck too". It's a new product.
Why would I buy content if there was already other content available for free?
I am guessing your point is, when tired of the free content you move on to another game? My wife and I practice this on our SURFACES. Truth is though, eventually a game will come along that we would be willing to pay for.
I'm not saying the logistics aren't different or more annoying in one case than another - but the end result is the same, which is the point. Sure it's more/less convenient but it's the same bits for free. And so progress is made. Just because you don't have 10 friends in real life doesn't mean that a lot of others don't - and 10 is still reasonable considering you could also just sell the game and it could be sold/bought 10 more times with no money going to MS or the game creator for those instances either.
Which isn’t realistic. There’s no way I have 30 friends.
I still say 10 free shares is a bad deal for third party pubs and that the sharing program may never have become a reality, at least not in the form in which it was presented. But I thought we decided 4 or 5 pages ago that without having stats regarding the typical travel patterns of the average game disk, neither one of us has a clue.
Logistics may also matter. I think 10 shares can happen faster digitally than 10 traditional shares or resells with a disc. Keeping the gamer engaged long enuf to be interested in DLC is already (allegedly) a challenge. That may become more challenging for digital. In fact if I was a bean counter, I’d say 10 free shares is likely to be 10 less gamers who might buy DLC. Unless you’re also going to give DLC away for free. Either way sounds like a loss.
you're saying people who play a game for free wouldn't pay for DLC? Because I'm the opposite already. If I borrow a game I'm much more likely to buy DLC because the initial purchase was $0 so everything else is still super cheap.
Yup. If there were more shared games available to play for free, there would be very little (if any) incentive to pay for extra content.
And I say, 10 people "borrowing your game online digitally might lead to more purchases if the games good enough that they like it. It's nothingmore than try it before you buy it.
In my case, if it was fun, I'd probably get my own, and if it wasn't, I'd probably never look at it again.
Calcualte that into your travel of the game. Where as, if you have the disc in your hand, your not gonna buy another one.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/11/steam-family-sharing-announced-enters-beta
Steam Family Sharing Announced, Enters Beta
10 devices at a time, but not every game can be shared.
Valve has announced a Family Sharing system for Steam, allowing users to share their entire game libraries with family and friends. Users may only access a shared library one at a time -- so if you're playing something, anyone who wants to access your games has to wait. The library owner will always take the priority, so if someone's in your library and you want to play Peggle, they'll have a few minutes to quit playing or purchase the game they're running.
Many may remember the prospect of family sharing on Xbox One, which recently vanished in favor of Gold Sharing, but could return to the console.
Well, this is about to get fun. Steam does it and people rejoice and Microsoft does it and folks bitch and complain.
As pertinent to the conversation as the Steam stuff might be, it'll almost certainly derail things. I'd appreciate it if we spun that off into its own thread. Won't someone think of that poor serviceman that's in the submarine at the bottom of the ocean?
Most people weren't against the sharing plan that m$ was vague about. They were against the DRM and restrictions m$ imposed to make the sharing plan (again, which m$ was very vague about) possible: DRM, 24-hour online check, etc. Also, reading the fine print of Steam's plan, you will not only kick your friend out of the game you're sharing whenever you decide to play the same game, but anytime you log onto your Steam library. So if you're a frequent Steam user, your sharing will be limited anyway.
And
Hot Dog!
Steam is like "I like that idea"
Well what could have been.
As was mentioned before, PS3 has been doing this for quite some time. However, they had to reduce the number of possible shared machines to 2 due to people exploiting the system. Forums were set up and groups were formed specifically so that only 1 out of the group would ever have to buy the game in question. Theres no reason to think it won't happen again.
sharing your login/password is hardly the same thing as getting to officially borrow a game digitally. One is theft and one is endorsed.
the PS3 option was so if you had multiple boxes you could put your games on all of them, same as with the 360 - only difference is you didn't have to be logged into PSN to use them.
You can do this with the PlayStation. Holy duck :0
The difference between Steam and M$ is that steam is already digital and on the PC you can't share games anyway, so this is new. With the Xbox you could always share games and they were going to take it away. This was how it was represented to us since there was not a lot of information about the friends sharing.
This may be true, but I think a lot of folks, particularly the physical media folks, aren't seeing the point in the near future where the convergence happens. Physical media will be here for a little longer because it has to be, but digital is going to be king for a very long time.
Most games that are going to be played, even on co-op, are going to be played online. People crying about the 24-hour check were crying about games that they were going to be playing online anyways. You know, Don Mattick was clearly not giving any PR polish when he said that folks that didn't like that should stick with their 360. That was a horribly delivered line that pissed off a lot of folks, but its also probably 100% accurate.
Sharing is caring.
The pros and cons of both the consoles hardware as it stands now told by developers.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/power-struggle-the-real-differences-between-ps4-and-xbox-one-performance/
The biggest thing I took from the article wasn't the difference between the speeds, but the politics of the business. How the console companies are once again pushing these peripherals onto the developers, trying to force integration. I think the developers know that most of the customers aren't interested in waving their arms around like jack asses or playing smart phone style finger gestures on their controllers. It's sad to see the devs being pushed into incorporating all of these moronic devices instead of putting that time and energy into making the actual content of the games better.
I have to agree on this. The only Kinect game I've ever played that was any fun at all was silly Fruit Ninja, and that's it. Hardly the vehicle to launch a thousand ships metaphorically speaking...
So why do the console makers keep trying to add these peripherals? Is it to stand out from one another? I really don't see an advantage to pushing these gadgets over simply making a good solid controller that will outlast and outperform the competition.
MS is trying to get the lead in voice/gestural interface we'll all be using in 10 years. Minority Report style (some TVs are already implementing a crude version of this). PS3 was copying the Wii gimmick with the Move, which sold a lot of Wii's but no PS3's. On the other hand, MS sold 25 Million Kinects.
I feel like there will be less "kinect only" mini games and more "gestures and voice could be in any game" since every system comes with one.
I know the "kinect" head movement feature where you could look left or right some as into a turn seemed like a plausible use, and turned out to be an annoyance...
And I'm not into Dance Central sooo....
Cooter was playing with the Kinect on Tiger Woods PGA 14 a few nights ago but I didn't get any feedback from him. Maybe he could elaborate on his experience with it. I know the kinect / microphone use between him and I online was NOT enjoyable, he had to go get his headphone/mic...I was getting a severe echo of myself...
In 1975 the PET ROCK was first marketed. Rocks have come a long way since then. I mean, just look at them. They're everywhere now. All shapes and sizes. Cheap too.
What a great observation. But why did that contractor charge me an arm and a leg for the rock wall he put up? I knew I was getting screwed over!
LOL
The problem with this analogy and every other one involving the Kinect is that the One isn't using the old Kinect, it's 2.0 and a ton more precise with many other funcitons. It can see your heartbeat, for pete's sake.
It's like saying "well I didn't care for the origina iPhone, so the 5S must suck too". It's a new product.
That makes no sense at all. Why would getting most of the game free stop people from paying a small amount for more content?
Why would I buy content if there was already other content available for free?