The Better Move Microsoft should have made....

I felt the family share and game gifting was a great idea and having the disc being a install and have a backup in the "cloud" was a great way to help bring console gaming into a new digital age... If that meant a 24hr check with a server no biggy....

The better would've been for MS tp print and sell 2 types on game disc.... 1st would be a regular must be in drive to play like current consoles, you can trade, sell back, do whatever at a $59 price point sold at gamestop and stocked in redbox, etc... 2nd would be a SN# disc that would install and needed an 24hr check to play, could be shared with family under the same circumstance and could be gifted once to a friend on your friends list at a price point of $49 or less and could be sold at bestbuy or amazon....

I would like MS to do this and maybe they still can down the line...... what do you think?

What would've made more sense is for Microsoft to keep discs exactly as they have been like the PS4 was doing but continue to offer Family Share or any of these other programs for digital downloads as an incentive to get you not to buy the disc. That would give literally everyone in this situation what they want. But that requires them to not essentially be throwing a temper tantrum and saying that if we didn't like a couple features we can't have any of them.

Firstly, I just imagine that this would lead unnecessary confusion. Secondly, Microsoft obviously want to do away with discs altogether. I can't see them forming some strategy that involves them making even more discs. It would be a less clumsy solution to just have the scenario of your second disc just be things applicable to the digital version.

I don't really get this 'family share' I heard it means you can offer the game to up to 10 family members to play on your account.

That still means only one person playing at once yeah? Though if the game runs off the disk why do you even need that limit? It's essentially the same as having a current-gen games console in the living room that everyone plays. It doesn't seem that fancy or new to me.

Also the 24hour check-in was one of the worse policies bashed because it only covered 21 countries and servicemen and women in the military would struggle to meet it.

It all sounds cool but isn't it essentially what we already have offline plus limitations?Also double-producing disks seems like a very-costly procedure I doubt they'd go for.

It could just have been as a simple as.

- Buy disk in store

- Put in xb1

- System says: Hey, would you like to add this game to your digital library (applying all of the DRM polices / "benefits".)

- If you chose not to do that the disk remains un-assigned and is required to be in the system to play.

Boom.

MS: Listen up.

The point of family share was that it didn't have to be on the same console and it didn't literally have to be family. So you could be one of the ten on the list of my xbox family and have digital access to any of my shared games on your system, unless another member of that family group (except the owner) was playing.

Smart, I like it.

Another way to do it that's not quite as simple would be to have saved states of your last time online. If you choose to have a game be part of your digital library, you have to validate it online once (like how Steam gives access to games in offline mode provided they've been started while online at least once) and so the your most recent online state would have that game as active an playable even if you aren't online. That doesn't work with the ability to have other accounts having free access to your stuff, but that could be handled differently too. It could be something like pull up your list of games, find the game you want to share, press Y and pick share from a context menu or something, pick the person on your friends list to share it with and your online state now has that game disabled for you until you take it back or they return it and you connect online again. That seems like a way to stop the system being exploited without requiring a daily online check-in. If Steam do add in this sharing that was supposedly found in beta source code, I can see it working like that.

I guess we'll see how much the argument even matters if a lot of games end up needing to be online anyway to make use of cloud features.

That would be the perfect way of doing it, I would've like that better, but how would the ppl who were complaining about gamestop and redbox so much if some would opped in then sell back or return the rental then what?

@maddman60620: I guess the retailers would still need to check each disk before they accepted the trade in. Rental would be a problem though but we don't really seem to have game rental in the UK anymore, they took all of our blockbusters away.

Hahahah it's funny to see people come around to the value prop of non-transferable licenses on their own. Without even realizing it.

Right, the serial code disk would necessarily be worth less when offered side by side with a transferable license.

I use Lovefilm and that works out great for me.

Multiple disks would just make the games cost more money, no?

It would make more sense to include a code in the box to download the digital version since games would be released day one digitally. You would just need to have the disk in the console to initiate the download or unlock a key to have access to a digital version without additional charges (kinda like with Blizzard's games). You'll still have the disk if you want to lend it to a friend but then they would need to use the disk to run the game like you would have to do now with the current consoles.

I think MS was right thinking that the world is moving into digital only but not right in being connected every 24 hours. Take music for example. There are very few people that buy physical CD's. You purchase a digital song these days but you can also take it with you and do not need to re-connect to the internet again after the purchase. Unless of course the music is licensed to only play for a specific period of time. This is how Zune from guess who (Microsoft) works for the monthly subscription. Once a month you must check in to update the DRM license for the music you are leasing. If the internet existed like it is now when game consoles, music, videos were being introduced to the world we would probably be in an almost digital only world for media now without questions. The problem with trying to do anything in this world to move forward is you will always leave people behind. You cannot do anything to please everyone and you can always find scenarios where you would have to drastically change your vision to meet those demands. I feel some of the vocal dislike for how Microsoft was going to implement DRM would not even effect those those gamers but they were voicing for the people that could be left out.

This is my ultimate hope at this point. They didn't need to remove all of the promised features on the digital side. It still sucks that now if I want to have my entire library disc-free, I will have to pay whatever price Microsoft asks. Consumers don't understand that now the market is once again split into "disc version" and "digital version." Retailers will compete to undercut each other on prices, but this will be for the disc-version only. Microsoft, just like on the 360 and PSN, now has a monopoly on the digital version and can price as they see fit. I can either get the best deals and be stuck with at least some discs or pay more to go all digital: far more complicated (and expensive) than their original vision.

but unlike Blizzard you'd have 2 copies of a game, you'd play online with your friend on disc offline or vice versa... Blizzard fail safe with against that is BattleNet where you'd need to be signed in to play the game.... Its a small way of cheating that system, that I dont think publisher would go for without atleast one check every 24hrs...

Clearly they are not going to give away two games for the price of one on every purchase. Vocal people on the internet would rather have one disc that can be lent to one friend at a time. Personally, I would prefer to share my entire library with 10 of my friends and family members across the country. That's just me though.

Edit: Apparently family sharing was just a glorified demo service. In that case, why the hell would they eliminate it for digital purchases?

@mattf87: Give this man a job at ms

If they want digital media to be a viable choice, price it below retail discs, it doesn't make any sense that I have to pay 60$ for a game digitally as it doesn't have any manufacturing costs, there is no retail cut, and server costs are probably what my Gold subscription is funding (I have to assume, otherwise it's a scam).

I don't get why people love the 'family sharing' feature so much. They weren't clear at all as to how it actually worked, and it had to have a weird catch, otherwise they'd be undercutting their sales on a factor of 10:1 which seems to be in direct opposition of their anti used game tendencies, it just doesn't make sense.

And how many "My kid accidentally DRM'd his new game permanently" complaints do you think they'd have to deal with.

Maybe an op out system is the answer then, you'd have to connect or when you connect online you'd have to choose "not too" option and then the disc would only work in drive....

As said before, keep all the game collection features for downloads, I can't imagine someone who is really into the digital future, but is against downloading their games. (Assuming prices are comparable).