Xbox Series X

[Aikouka]

I’m not sure if Microsoft changed the rules, but way back when, the game would only work if it was being played on the console that it was purchased on or the purchasing account was signed in. I believe they replaced the purchasing console method with the home console method (an account sets its main Xbox).

That also includes Game Pass games. I’m the only one with Game Pass on my console, which means I have to sign into it if any other accounts want to play the games. (They just have to switch accounts.)

 

[purbeast0]

Just finished Gears 5.

THAT is how it ends?

Pretty disappointed with the ending and more so as to where it ended. There is a lot left with Kait that I wanted resolved in this game but I guess not. The game was awesome though.

Has anyone played the Hollow Storm DLC? How long is it if so and is it good?

 

[purbeast0]

The fact that I have to make a Bethesda.net account to play Doom Eternal single player on Xbox Series X is the epitome of what I hate about all the direction of console gaming right now, and I own the disc version of this game and don't have Xbox Live Gold.

That said, once I started playing, I didn't really like the game because it felt like such an old school fast paced PC shooter.

But then about 10 minutes later, I liked it, because it felt like such an old school fast paced PC shooter.

The game is beautiful too and the performance is top notch.

 

[quikah]

Just finished Gears 5.

THAT is how it ends?

Pretty disappointed with the ending and more so as to where it ended. There is a lot left with Kait that I wanted resolved in this game but I guess not. The game was awesome though.

Has anyone played the Hollow Storm DLC? How long is it if so and is it good?

Yeah, 4 ended pretty much the same way. It looks like they plan to do a trilogy with these characters to match the original trilogy.

The Operation 5: Hollow Storm is a multiplayer update. The single player DLC is Hivebusters. It is a standalone story with new characters. I just started it. So far it is pretty good. I heard it is around 3-4 hours, not sure it would be worth $20 (it is included in gamepass).

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Xbox Live was down for 3+ hours and my brother called me because he's a total noob about gaming, and he was asking me why can't his kids play their games they own that are digital.

Here is a perfect example of why I will always go physical over digital when I can, and once it goes all digital, I'll probably be out on that console unless the whole DRM crap changes somehow.

Wow that's garbage that Microsoft does that. Remind me to never buy a digital game if/when I get a Series X. I hadn't connected my PS4 to the internet in probably six months since I figured I was going to sell it when I got a PS5 and knew lower firmware would be worth more, and I still was fine playing all my digital games the entire time and just stopped playing it a week ago when I beat my digital copy of Yakuza 4.

 

[purbeast0]

Yeah, 4 ended pretty much the same way. It looks like they plan to do a trilogy with these characters to match the original trilogy.

The Operation 5: Hollow Storm is a multiplayer update. The single player DLC is Hivebusters. It is a standalone story with new characters. I just started it. So far it is pretty good. I heard it is around 3-4 hours, not sure it would be worth $20 (it is included in gamepass).

Oh okay I got the names mixed up.

I hadn't played Gears 4 so I didn't realize it ended similarly.

For 3-4 hours I will be passing on that DLC unless it goes to like $5 or $10.

 

[Aikouka]

Wow that's garbage that Microsoft does that. Remind me to never buy a digital game if/when I get a Series X. I hadn't connected my PS4 to the internet in probably six months since I figured I was going to sell it when I got a PS5 and knew lower firmware would be worth more, and I still was fine playing all my digital games the entire time and just stopped playing it a week ago when I beat my digital copy of Yakuza 4.

Honestly, I think we could really use some (government) intervention over the idea of digital ownership. It seems like the consumer has received the raw end of the deal in a bid to boost confidence in anti-piracy measures. A good example of this is how I have a computer in one room and another in the room next door. I had someone using my machine for VR, and I wanted to play a co-op game on the other computer, but I couldn't since Steam only allows for one program/game executing at a time. Oculus has been having issues lately since the release of the Quest 2, because Facebook doesn't allow you to run two headsets at the same time with the same account. (This is regardless of attempting to run the same software on a single license.) What made this worse is that Facebook started banning accounts without warning, and the process to get it fixed hasn't been that great.

I understand that digital media is a different beast from physical media, which has an inherent license built into the media. This physical nature also provides a sharing limitation that doesn't really exist with digital media. However, I think we can come up with some solutions that allow for things to be a bit more fair for the consumer. For example, with Steam, why not let me assign three machines to my account, and those machines can launch any game so long as that license isn't being used (i.e. I can't play GTA V if someone else is already playing it off my account). These accounts would be considered separate from all other restrictions meaning that if someone were to start playing a game from my account through Family Sharing on an unassigned machine, it is unaffected by the three assigned machines and the three assigned machines are unaffected by it. (...so long as they don't try to use the same license/game.) However, if a fifth machine tried to come in, it would be restricted due to the fourth machine (the other unassigned one).

 

[simas]

Honestly, I think we could really use some (government) intervention over the idea of digital ownership. It seems like the consumer has received the raw end of the deal in a bid to boost confidence in anti-piracy measures. A good example of this is how I have a computer in one room and another in the room next door. I had someone using my machine for VR, and I wanted to play a co-op game on the other computer, but I couldn't since Steam only allows for one program/game executing at a time. Oculus has been having issues lately since the release of the Quest 2, because Facebook doesn't allow you to run two headsets at the same time with the same account. (This is regardless of attempting to run the same software on a single license.) What made this worse is that Facebook started banning accounts without warning, and the process to get it fixed hasn't been that great.

I understand that digital media is a different beast from physical media, which has an inherent license built into the media. This physical nature also provides a sharing limitation that doesn't really exist with digital media. However, I think we can come up with some solutions that allow for things to be a bit more fair for the consumer. For example, with Steam, why not let me assign three machines to my account, and those machines can launch any game so long as that license isn't being used (i.e. I can't play GTA V if someone else is already playing it off my account). These accounts would be considered separate from all other restrictions meaning that if someone were to start playing a game from my account through Family Sharing on an unassigned machine, it is unaffected by the three assigned machines and the three assigned machines are unaffected by it. (...so long as they don't try to use the same license/game.) However, if a fifth machine tried to come in, it would be restricted due to the fourth machine (the other unassigned one).

For that reason I try not to buy from Steam in particular or any platform where login is required. If I have to, I rather spend few more dollars to buy from GOG or equivalent. I bought, I installed, I can launch without any entitlement setting. I can play one game on one computer and another game on another computer zero issues. Steams allows none of that even for the products I supposedly 'own'.

 

[JujuFish]

For that reason I try not to buy from Steam in particular or any platform where login is required. If I have to, I rather spend few more dollars to buy from GOG or equivalent. I bought, I installed, I can launch without any entitlement setting. I can play one game on one computer and another game on another computer zero issues. Steams allows none of that even for the products I supposedly 'own'.

There are lots of games on Steam that are DRM-free.

 

[simas]

There are lots of games on Steam that are DRM-free.

so do you know how it works? can you launch a 'Steam DRM-free' game simultaneously on more than one computer from single Steam account? Or will it log you out from one of the computers?

if the answer is second, then DRM or not, Steam IS the problem

 

[JujuFish]

so do you know how it works? can you launch a 'Steam DRM-free' game simultaneously on more than one computer from single Steam account? Or will it log you out from one of the computers?

if the answer is second, then DRM or not, Steam IS the problem

DRM-free games don't require Steam to be launched at all. You can run the executable directly.

 

[MrSquished]

Honestly, I think we could really use some (government) intervention over the idea of digital ownership. It seems like the consumer has received the raw end of the deal in a bid to boost confidence in anti-piracy measures. A good example of this is how I have a computer in one room and another in the room next door. I had someone using my machine for VR, and I wanted to play a co-op game on the other computer, but I couldn't since Steam only allows for one program/game executing at a time. Oculus has been having issues lately since the release of the Quest 2, because Facebook doesn't allow you to run two headsets at the same time with the same account. (This is regardless of attempting to run the same software on a single license.) What made this worse is that Facebook started banning accounts without warning, and the process to get it fixed hasn't been that great.

I understand that digital media is a different beast from physical media, which has an inherent license built into the media. This physical nature also provides a sharing limitation that doesn't really exist with digital media. However, I think we can come up with some solutions that allow for things to be a bit more fair for the consumer. For example, with Steam, why not let me assign three machines to my account, and those machines can launch any game so long as that license isn't being used (i.e. I can't play GTA V if someone else is already playing it off my account). These accounts would be considered separate from all other restrictions meaning that if someone were to start playing a game from my account through Family Sharing on an unassigned machine, it is unaffected by the three assigned machines and the three assigned machines are unaffected by it. (...so long as they don't try to use the same license/game.) However, if a fifth machine tried to come in, it would be restricted due to the fourth machine (the other unassigned one).

Agreed. The consumer is definitely getting convenience with digital media but has definitely lost ownership and control at the same time. It should be regulated better.

 

[simas]

DRM-free games don't require Steam to be launched at all. You can run the executable directly.

so how many games on Steam are 'DRM-free' vs total number of games Steam sells? 1% ? significantly less?
why bother with DRM platform at all if you are concerned about ownership and control, especially if there are alternatives (like GOG) ?

 

[JujuFish]

so how many games on Steam are 'DRM-free' vs total number of games Steam sells? 1% ? significantly less?

How could I possibly know?

why bother with DRM platform at all if you are concerned about ownership and control, especially if there are alternatives (like GOG) ?

Nice moving of goalposts, I guess? I never expressed any concern about ownership and control. I pointed out a misconception you had about Steam.

 

[simas]

How could I possibly know?

Nice moving of goalposts, I guess? I never expressed any concern about ownership and control. I pointed out a misconception you had about Steam.

In my opinion, Steam is, and never will be, equivalent to platforms like GOG in terms of what they offer to me, as consumer, in terms of control over my purchases - stating the opposite is a lie. An exception here or there (aka unicorn of 'DRM free game on Steam' ) just proves that point. . I own hundreds of things on Steam (because they were the first in the market and had no real alternative) and yes, for each and every one of them that I own, Steam is required to run before they launch . It is ok for single player. It is not ok when I want to let my kids play something that I already own and I want to play something else, it logs one of us out.

on the subject of XBL and its issues, finding out that the games I fully 'bought' are not available to play on the very console I bought them to and from the very account I bought the games on, was not a good experience in terms of trust building for Xbox and its brand.

 

[JujuFish]

In my opinion, Steam is, and never will be, equivalent to platforms like GOG in terms of what they offer to me, as consumer, in terms of control over my purchases - stating the opposite is a lie. An exception here or there (aka unicorn of 'DRM free game on Steam' ) just proves that point. . I own hundreds of things on Steam (because they were the first in the market and had no real alternative) and yes, for each and every one of them that I own, Steam is required to run before they launch . It is ok for single player. It is not ok when I want to let my kids play something that I already own and I want to play something else, it logs one of us out.

on the subject of XBL and its issues, finding out that the games I fully 'bought' are not available to play on the very console I bought them to and from the very account I bought the games on, was not a good experience in terms of trust building for Xbox and its brand.

This entire post is irrelevant. I never said Steam was equivalent to GOG, nor did I ever say DRM is acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that you can get DRM games on Steam that function identically to ones on GOG, something you don't seem to want to accept.

Looks like PCGamingWiki has a list: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games_on_Steam

 

[quikah]

Hmm, there is some curious rebranding going on. There are some places which used to say Xbox Live that now say Xbox Network.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1373458474898706433

Start the rumor mill again.

 

[simas]

Hmm, there is some curious rebranding going on. There are some places which used to say Xbox Live that now say Xbox Network.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1373458474898706433

Start the rumor mill again.

Sorry, I am slow on this - this (the name of their branded product) matters to people why? people really care about these things??

 

[purbeast0]

Sorry, I am slow on this - this (the name of their branded product) matters to people why? people really care about these things??

I think it is more that it could mean they are getting rid of Xbox Live Gold. They kind of tried that a few months ago when they removed the ability to get a year, and doubled the price of the 6 months, and backtracked very quickly when there was an immediate uproar.

This could be a sign they are going that direction again and rather trying to get people on Gamepass and kind of start pushing out XBL Gold. Or it could mean they are getting rid of Xbox Live Gold and playing online will be free. Who knows though.

But "Live" is synonymous with Xbox at this point. It's also synonymous with playing online. I think from a branding point of view it's a bad idea. When my buddies and I used to talk about gaming online we'd say "you play on Live or PSN?"

 

[simas]

I think it is more that it could mean they are getting rid of Xbox Live Gold. They kind of tried that a few months ago when they removed the ability to get a year, and doubled the price of the 6 months, and backtracked very quickly when there was an immediate uproar.

This could be a sign they are going that direction again and rather trying to get people on Gamepass and kind of start pushing out XBL Gold. Or it could mean they are getting rid of Xbox Live Gold and playing online will be free. Who knows though.

But "Live" is synonymous with Xbox at this point. It's also synonymous with playing online. I think from a branding point of view it's a bad idea. When my buddies and I used to talk about gaming online we'd say "you play on Live or PSN?"

Got it. Yes, I think that would eventually happen - every conference, every presentation, every 'share' they do , all they talk about is GamePass being their future. Why keep previous (and in their view inferior ) product of XBL when they already went to GamePass centric view of the world?

It is all about money - get people hooked and then raise the prices as much as market would bare (aka 'Netflix model' that went from 7.99 to 17.99 over years..). Stable 20 million subscribers, 15 dollars a month is a lot of dollars per year -> you can own entire gaming entertainment industry in few years alone and/or release dozens of triple A titles each year if you want.

They can also let you keep XBL and just raise prices on that , not sure how this is a 'win' for consumer in any form..

and for free online gaming - back in PS3 vs Xbox times, that was the reason pushing me to PS3 as I did not understand why am I expected to pay monthly to be able to play products i 'own' online that were sold to be (already) to be played online..

 

[purbeast0]

And it's official - XBL is dead.

RIP, Xbox Live (2002-2021)

The name “Xbox Live” is dead. You’ll still be able to play Xbox games online, but the suite of Xbox’s online services will now be known as “Xbox network,” Microsoft confirmed today to The Verge.

kotaku.com

 

[Aikouka]

While I think Xbox Live has become rather entrenched as a name, I don't think it's a particularly good name. If I hadn't heard of it and you started talking to me about it, I'd think you were talking about a TV service or a new streaming service from Microsoft. The problem being that "Live" as a moniker is too synonymous with TV/video.

I saw that @purbeast0 brought up services earlier, and I think one important aspect there is that we've been seeing a decent push toward platform-agnostic multiplayer lately. Frankly, I think it has been long since overdue, but hopefully, there won't be a need to ask which platform you're playing on as much in the future. Although, I have heard the retort that some people prefer creating parties/groups via the console, and of course, that requires the same online service.

 

[purbeast0]

While I think Xbox Live has become rather entrenched as a name, I don't think it's a particularly good name. If I hadn't heard of it and you started talking to me about it, I'd think you were talking about a TV service or a new streaming service from Microsoft. The problem being that "Live" as a moniker is too synonymous with TV/video.

I saw that @purbeast0 brought up services earlier, and I think one important aspect there is that we've been seeing a decent push toward platform-agnostic multiplayer lately. Frankly, I think it has been long since overdue, but hopefully, there won't be a need to ask which platform you're playing on as much in the future. Although, I have heard the retort that some people prefer creating parties/groups via the console, and of course, that requires the same online service.

The problem with cross platform play is that you have to have competitors agree to it and then implement it. I think that is probably the main reason it's never happened before. But times are changing and you see how pretty much all mobile apps are cross platform. The same could be done for games just as easily, but again, you have to get over this hump of competitors agreeing to this and working together.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The problem with cross platform play is that you have to have competitors agree to it and then implement it. I think that is probably the main reason it's never happened before. But times are changing and you see how pretty much all mobile apps are cross platform. The same could be done for games just as easily, but again, you have to get over this hump of competitors agreeing to this and working together.

There is also the issue of performance parity. For the most part between ps5 and series x it’s evenly matched. For series s and others maybe not so cut and dry. Depending on the game in question it may present a disadvantage to one platform.

 

[quikah]

Multiplayer in F2P games, Looking 4 Groups and Party Chat no longer requires Live Gold on the Alpha Skip Ahead Insider build. Should come to everyone in a month or 2.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374776344052072450