Top
400°

Xbox One Reverses DRM! Angry Rant Pt.3

Angry Joe Reacts to the surprising news that Xbox One has Reversed its DRM Policies

Read Full Story >>
angryjoeshow.com
The story is too old to be commented.
dedicatedtogamers1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Love your videos, Angry Joe!

Glad he doesn't give Microsoft or the apologists a free pass.

xHeavYx1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Can't wait to see his PS4 exclusive reviews.
By the way, Question, when he interviewed Major Nelson and he was explaining the family sharing, he used the word "check" many times, like he can call someone on his family list and "check" the game, is there any confirmation that your family members can play the whole game?

Lovable1074d ago

Forget about the family sharing thing since it's already been scrapped!

AhmadCentral1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

It's been confirmed that the family sharing was more like a glorified demo. Basically you buy the game at $60. Get home and install it. Add the game to your library.

Any one of your 10 friends can check it out by going to you library and downloading it. However, here is the catch MS never told anyone, you can only play the game for 60 minutes. After that time you get redirected to the Xbox marketplace to download the full version at RRP.

So MS even misled us on their family share system. People were saying they would have wanted this but i don't see why. This is just a solution to the problem they caused. On PS3 and 360 this is called rentals or loaning your game.

I'm glad the DRM is gone, back to free demos, renting and loaning as it should be.

This is a win for gamers.

Edit: for those who disagree all the evidence is at neogaf and confirmed by CBOAT.

GenericNameHere1074d ago

I know he said he's not buying PS3, but he should definitely play The Last of Us. He's from Texas, and Joel is from Texas. Not that big of a deal, but I think he would kinda like it.

Bzone241074d ago

Lol. If it was just a glorified demo ahmad, why was it dropped with the drm changes? It was dropped because that was the way for you to share games because of the drm. It was basically a trade off for you not being able to loan the physical disc. It was one of the better features. It's sad that you believe every negative rumor that you ever hear about the xbox and you can't really think for yourself.

AhmadCentral1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

I don't know why it was dropped Bzone24. I'm just reporting the facts. Please don't insult me and say i can't think for myself.

Do you really think publishers would have let microsoft get away with people sharing their games with 10 other people? You can't do that on the Xbox 360 or PS3. Hardly a trade off when it's a system you can exploit wide open. There was always bound to be some kind of catch and we finally have evidence that the family sharing was limited to just 60 minutes.

Makes sense really. Like i said no way publishers would agree. Especially when they made Sony drop their game sharing policy from five consoles to two.

Bzone241074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

I was only saying you can't think for yourself because you take a rumor on the internet as fact without any proof. You aren't reporting the facts, you are reporting the rumors under the lie of it being fact. There is no real 60 minute proof. Just a lot of anonymous postings. That's not really proof.

It's a moot point anyways. Family sharing is gone.

SilentNegotiator1074d ago

Major Nelson was a major windbag in that interview and was very belligerent towards the hard questions.

Dir_en_grey1074d ago

So all Xbone was trying to do is just to do what PS3 and PS+ is already doing, just re-marketing the same idea.

360 only users never even knew these services already exist on PS3 and thought it was amazing, but now MS can't even deliver.

Oh well sad for people who only fall for marketing ploy and have no clue what's going on outside of the well they live in.

Death1074d ago

Man, that is awseome! I had no idea I could rip all my games to my PS3 HDD and share them with 2 people. Oh, wait. I can't. Thanks for showing me things from outside my walls genius.

indysurfn1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Am I the only person that caught this?
Okay at the start of this Microsoft fooled people by using terms. Like LEND(should have been check out/check in) lending. Now they are being successful by using the term:
"offline game". Did you catch that, if you install a "OFFLINE game" then you will not have restrictions, that is the condition.

What defines a "OFFLINE game" What if only one game has the label of offline game on it? Most likey candidate would be a turned based rpg.
Heck what percent of games don't have a component of online on 360 games right now? Microsoft almost required it with few exceptions.
If there is a term "OFFLINE game" as a condition. for you to not have to get online.

Then that is a out, for Microsoft to change nothing! Don't trust a company that keeeeeeeeeps making pot shots at your rights. And keeps adding names like "OFFLINE xbox one games", to fool you, otherwise they Fooled you twice! Are you going to let that happen?

Microsoft qoute:An internet connection will not be required to play OFFLINE Xbox One games....If they where not trying to fool you it would

read:An internet connection will not be required to play (any) Xbox One games. see the difference? I don't care if it drops to 199 It is still

taking away my used games rights!!! plus as I pointed out the DRM issue is conniving explained to fool us? This is what Microsoft meant by

they will make this CLEAR. (MORE TRICKY)
This could just be a feature on the back of the box. so if they dont make a offline box like they have a 'online multi player' capable box on the back of the disc it is okay to still drm you to there hearts are content!!!

Digital-Devil1073d ago

Here is part of a post from an Xbox 1 employee:
"When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour"

Read the full post here:
http://www.heyuguysgaming.c...

Wh15ky1073d ago (Edited 1073d ago )

@bzone24

Gutted about the family share feature being dropped. Myself and my 9 gaming buddies had already decided on the one game each of us was buying at launch so we had 10 different games each for the price of one.

That was sarcasm btw.

It amazes me that some people take marketing speak at face value without applying some common sense.

mewhy321073d ago

this guy wasn't afraid to put nelson on the spot!!!!! ROAR!!!! PS4 all the way.

mewhy321073d ago

Micro$oft listened to Gamestop NOT the forums. The pre orders were 4 to 1 in favor of PS4. They had to do something and they did. It was all about them losing their butts on their investment.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1073d ago
NeXXXuS1074d ago

I want to touch his magnificent beard.

Veni Vidi Vici1074d ago

Only if you let him touch yours.

onyoursistersback1074d ago

lol....they took away...."Shamily share?!?!"

hahaha..ahahah.a.a.a..a.....

CoolBeansRus1074d ago

Yes. Yes they did. Why is that so funny? Does the PS4 have it?

People need to grow up around here.

NextGen24Gamer1074d ago

One thing about this guy that I can respect is that he is completely honest and is clearly not a fan boy! I hope he is right about Microsoft giving us family sharing still! That would make me so happy!

Let some of us decide to do digital & family share!

iceman061074d ago

Actually, he's a HUGE self-admitted fanboy of MS. However, he is also not blind about how detrimental the policies were. I just love how excited he gets AND how honest he is. Gotta love his Major Nelson interview because he was pushing the limit with his questions. He was even worried about the PR lady because it looked like she was in trouble after that interview.

Aceman181074d ago

everything he said is right on the money. i especially loved when he told off those people who are crying about something we didn't take away which microsoft did.

Delive1074d ago

He keeps referring to the family share plan. Must not have heard it was for a demo purpose to get your family to buy the game too.

FamilyGuy1074d ago

lmao @ the major nelson part

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1073d ago
KillrateOmega1074d ago

LOL

This guy is f*cking awesome XD

Septic1074d ago

Haha yeah he is entertaining to watch.

SpinalRemains1381073d ago (Edited 1073d ago )

Watch his walking dead survival instinct review.

I nearly pissed myself laughing the first time I watched it.

Yeah Angry Joe is a class act when it comes to gaming.

He loves Xbox and he was personally hurt by the DRM crap. He was not like the usual suspects here who would give their first born to MS to play Halo for an hour.

He says it straight and he says it with humor and he says it for all of us.

KUV19771074d ago

That guy is so annoying. Please explain how family sharing with digital titles would work without online verfication.

abc12331074d ago

It's verified at the point of download. How exactly can it NOT work?

Mystogan1074d ago

Yes but what if I install the game and never go back online? Do I keep the game and the owner loses his game?

Or do we both keep the game resulting in a free game for me.

KUV19771074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Family Sharing meant that 10 people could share the game but only one person at a time could play it. On the owners console every 24h would be checked if someone else is playing at the same time and the system would react accordingly. At the Friends/Familys console the check would even happen every hour. So suppose I buy a game and 9 other people download it and go offline. Now 10 people could play the same game at the same time while only one person payed for it. That's certainly gonna have publishers scream in delight.

Also, he later on says that it would be a feature SONY wouldn't have. Well guess what: SONY had a similar feature for years for digital content for up to five persons without 24h-check. However it was abused without end and so some games created a 24h lock and later on the system was even cut down to a 2-person-sharing plan.

Without online-check the sales would be terribly low, because everyone would cheat. I would however be grateful if you could give me a version that would work without online-check - not just for gamers but also for developers and publishers. That is what Major Nelson ment in the interview with 'it's not gonna be this easy'...

abc12331074d ago

How about making family sharing into an online only feature? As in the game isn't installed to the system's hard drive but is streamed over the cloud, similar to Gakai. Allows for the necessary verification without imposing a universal 1/24 hour online check which can lock the system's offline component.

Besides, I don't see how family sharing was realistic in its original form. Surely if we're talking about single player games, one person can buy the game, finish it, then allow each of the 9 others to play it in turns, effectively meaning that 9 people got the game for free. It was most likely a glorified demo sharing feature anyway.

KUV19771074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

First of all that would put an enourmous strain on their infrastructure. I don't think they have the tech to stream complete games to millions of customers.

Also even while the family member would stream the game the owner would have to be online to verify that noone else was plaining.

If they really just had demos then the whole family-sharing-plan would have to be a giant lie to begin with. I think that would have been even worse for MS than their DRM-pr.

SilentGuard1074d ago

@mystogan. It doesn't matter if you ever go back online because your ten friends would have to go online to play the game from your library. So you could play it offline while one of your friends could play while online.

abc12331074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

If Sony can stream a catalogue of PS3 titles to millions of its customers then I'm sure MS with its endless pockets can do it too. As for the second point, only way around that would be to allow for the owner to play whilst a family member is playing, but not extending this to those who don't own the game (aside from if its the owner playing offline obv). If it was a giant lie to begin with then that could be the actual reason for removing it - pretend that this was the fault of the gamers not wanting DRM rather than them feeding us BS.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1074d ago
NihonjinChick1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

You have to be Online to share the game, right? So why not have the console do a one verification check before the game is launched?

Easy.

I also read that the sharing was just timed trials. So a friend couldn't play it for too long.

KUV19771074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Yes but after sharing you could go offline now and 10 people could play it at the same time while only paying once... which is not as it was intended. Also they clearly said it was the full library not just trials.

If it really was just demos that would have been a stupid feature to begin with. One-Hour-Trials is something the PSN also has had for some time - granted not for all titles - but that would certainly not have been worth protecting and the Online-Checks for demos would have been damn stupid.

Death1074d ago

The one hour clock was for accessing your library remotely. If you went offline with a shared game, you would need to go online after a set time period for verification. The proposed plan had no other restriction other than only one person could play at a time. The original purchaser only needed the 24 hour check if they remained "connected". All thedetails were not hammered out,but the shared game needed to be connected or the timer would lock out the game.

None of this is relevant since the people afraid of this new technology set gaming back another generation for the rest of us. I am sure when Sony comes up with the same idea in the future they will be credited with inventing it and it will be ok. Kind of like the morons who are saying Sony does this already and Microsoft is copying them. Stupid can only be so funny before it's aggrevating.

Jayjayff1074d ago

Yeah, especially during interviews. He makes them awfully uncomfortable.

NihonjinChick1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Yes, they said you had access to your family members full library. But they never said you had full access to the content inside the games. Think about it. They had to limit the game some way. Or else that system would have been a bigger loss of money to publisher and developers than the used games they were trying to get rid of.

If they didn't limit it, publishers would have seen sales drop because everybody would have bought 1 game for 10 people.

Aceman181074d ago

exactly that was my line of thinking. they have to limit this or this would be bad for devs/publishers

KUV19771074d ago

I actually agree on this to some degree. SONY tried it with 5 people but couldn't hold it up because people where abusing the system. Maybe the idea was that people would try more games, be annoyed that they couldn't play it when the original owner played it and then buy it because they liked it.

Some sort of limitation would make sense but not telling people about that would be a terribly heavy lie. However it may explain why it took them so long to mention it at all.

So the only 'advantage' of always-online/DRM would have been disc-less play of all titles and the hope of lower prices in the future (aka steam-analogy) but that would really have been very week for the imposed restrictions.

Death1074d ago

The online component is what would have brought in sales. It's no different from sharing today. If I loan a disc to a friend to play and he likes it, we both need a copy to play together. When he goes to get it or even download it from Marketplace, used copies will be less of an issue meaning publishers and developers will see more revenue.

SpinalRemains1381073d ago

You download the game, then play it whenever you want. Online or off. Just like PS3

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1073d ago
ltachiUchiha1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Hes definitely a real gamer & I just want to point out to those who were just going to let microsoft ram them, the things that angry joe said is basically what we were fighting for. He doesnt even own a ps3 so this is a gamer u guys should listen to because were all in this together. Its not just about 1 console. Everything microsoft was trying to do would have affected the whole gaming industry & like angry joe, im proud of all the ppl who fought for gamers rights. Great video angry joe & game on everyone.

Death1074d ago

Gamers "rights" don't exist. There is currently no way to enforce the User Agreement on a physical copy. Gamer "rights" are enforced with digital downloads.

The so called "rights" we think we have are killing the gaming industry. Developers have been fighting piracy and used sales for quite some time. When it gets to the point developers can't afford to stay open, at least we will have our "rights" still and sit proudly while we stare at our worthless consoles.

Think about it, the biggest loser in all of this is the developers and publishers. Gamers lost out on some great features and Gamestop still gets to rape stupid people who pay $40+ dollars to rent a game for a week.

The irony here is the amount of "gamers" that use mp3's as their format of choice for music since it is better than lugging around CD's where ever we go. Everyone is ok with the current setup since you can steal music from all your friends with an easy one time rip of their CD's or sharing of mp3's without restriction. We would have had the same convenience, but the big bad DRM would have kept us honest.

It's sickening to see so many be proud of holding back something they were too blinded by ignorance to even see without taking in to consideration what others wanted. On top of this, how many of you "proud" so called gamers went and pre-ordered an Xbox One now? Still not buying it, never planned to get it, but proud you changed it for the rest of us.

Thanks.

Why o why1074d ago

You care way too much for their bottom lines over your fellow gamers rights death. That's obvious now. If you feel that way you can simply buy DD only and stop whining about those who were actually pissed, including many of the pro360 crowd. I want to own what I buy. Comparing it to music is just deflecting from the point and bigger picture. I still have gamecube games, amiga games, ps 1 games. No server shutdown can kill them.

If dd was substantially cheaper, more would flock to it. The problem here was you were basically buying physical media but it was licensed like dd. Sorry you care more for mismanaged and unlucky developers. It happens in all industries but I'm not diving into youror Microsoft's drm future mate. The people have spoken...move on

TheFallenAngel1074d ago

Hes cool but hes a huge xbox fanboy. I think sony had more to do with MS reversing DRM but gamers had their voice heard too.

Imalwaysright1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Sony gave us the option to choose between freedom or DRM. We chose their product over MS product and that was the deciding factor. It was a "joint venture" between Sony and consumers that forced MS to bendover which ironically it was exactly what they wanted us to do!

Why o why1074d ago (Edited 1074d ago )

Definitely a collaboration. Ms were getting hit from every angle. I'm so glad aj reiterated what I believe to be the fact which is ms are the ones who are to blame for the removal of the less than clear family share feature, not those who didn't want to get bent over.

The irony is I didn't see many people from the other camp praising ps+'s worth when its REAL game sharing limit was at 5 separate consoles. Its version also had no time limit or player count restrictions......strange, but not surprising

Well done joe.... well done to all who stood up to the bs.

AnteCash1074d ago

He says hes passionate about games yet he never owned a sony console .

iceman061074d ago

True...but he was smart enough to see through the BS that MS was trying. That makes him, in my mind, at least not a blind fanboy. Plus, from what I have seen, he IS fair when reviewing games...no bloated scores just because it is on the 360.

TheGrimReaper00111073d ago

I really think it was about pre orders
They knew they'd lose alot of money
They wouldn't care about the consumer, they showed that plenty of times!
And yea, money is important to a company, but whats in it for us?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1073d ago