I wanted to be able to share my games with my family/friends; I wanted to be able to access my library from any console; I wanted to be able to send or sell game licenses digitally; I did not care about the 24 hour restriction because there are numerous ways to deal with it. It was a tradeoff for truly next-gen features that I was willing to live with.
Now, because of all the complaint from people who were probably unaffected by the 24 login issue, none of those features will make it. It is basically just an Xbox 360 with new hardware. Would an online requisite effect some people? Yes, but they could have implemented a feature to disable those sharing abilities if the host console did not check in every 24 hours. Meaning, military folks could play games with their disks and MS wouldn't have to worry about them letting 10 people install the game while they run it locally, offline, with the disk, because after 24 hours of silence from the host's console, those features would be inactivated.
English
-
Edited by Vgnut: 6/20/2013 3:20:54 AMIt was never going to be as simple as just sharing a game with ten friends. You never lost that because it was never going to happen like that.
-
It was. You choose 10 people on your friends list, and they have access to that game at any time they are logged in. Nobody else on the list can play it while they're playing it. That is exactly how it was going to work.
-
The sharing was only a 1 hour demo, M$ was just -blam!-ing everyone over with it.
-
I'm genuinely angry that I've been defending them when they concealed that information.
-
There were going to be more restrictions. When they announced that they were desperate for any kind of positivity. They were not going to give out the full details of the game sharing plan given how horrendous their situation was (and still is to a bit of a lesser degree).