Microsoft Explains Digital Game Sharing On Xbox One

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

synobal:
If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

Sony isn't doing it so why should Microsoft?

Wait, I was fairly certain I could play the games I have on my PS3 regardless of which one of the accounts bought the game. Also it isn't restricted to 10 users. also it doesn't require a PS+ subscription.

Also, if I log into my account on a friend's PS3, I still get access to all of my digital games and they do as well.

Why is microsoft advertising this as a new feature?

TomWiley:

synobal:
If Microsoft wanted to win this generation, or at least compete better they should make Live free, and do away with all this gold nonsense.

Sony isn't doing it so why should Microsoft?

Well there is suppose to be this strange thing in business called competition, in which companies compete for your business and money. Now Microsoft is selling a console, which has few advantages over the PS4, and is 100 dollar more. Now one way to help mitigate these things they could make Xbox Live free, also it will allow to them to more aggressively push F2P titles which I expect we will see much more of in this next generation of games. Plus it will attract people who are looking to make F2P games, and they can get a nice cut of that revenue stream.

Sadly there isn't much competition in any market place these days, with companies often colluding together to price fix and such.

Johny_X2:
Wait, I was fairly certain I could play the games I have on my PS3 regardless of which one of the accounts bought the game. Also it isn't restricted to 10 users. also it doesn't require a PS+ subscription.

Also, if I log into my account on a friend's PS3, I still get access to all of my digital games and they do as well.

Why is microsoft advertising this as a new feature?

To be fair, Sony advertised this as a feature of the PS4 last month. xD So if nothing else, this at least puts them back on parity when it comes to that specific capability. I'm thinking it might be less of a announcement of a brand-new capability, and more a confirmation of how certain aspects of both consoles would work. Considering the initial confusion surrounding game sharing, probably good that they set the record straight once and for all.

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

You can do that with the 360

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

You mean just like how you currently can do so on the PS3, and how you can do it on the 360 as well? The only difference in this is that you don't have to be signed into your friend's system for them to play it, and now you need to Gold in order to do it. Again, this isn't new, it's just the same thing but advertised as being "new".

As I first read the article I could help but wonder if the word share was depicted in quotes, more out of irony than quoting from someone else. After reading the article I pretty much feel like it's ironic.

So anyone from my house can play my games while I'm away. I'm sorry but was I supposed to make cartwheels over this announcement?

Also if I pay an added fee I can take my game and be allowed to play it somewhere else. Sorry, but this just seems much easier.

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

The reason why I'm not amazed about this is the fact that I was able to do the exact same thing back in 1983.

Oh, thanks for all the responses. Does this mean that this was up in the air previously? Could other accounts on the same box not have played the games if they were members of the family?

Neronium:
So...basically it's what the PS3 lets you do now then? Okay, nothing special really then.

Lightknight:
Wait, I thought this was how things already work. If you buy something digital from your account, everyone on the console you've installed it on can play it. That's how it works on the ps3 too.

It sounds like the difference is the ability to easily peruse another user's library and install it while they're not around.

For the XBLA titles you had to be signed into your account in order for the other person to play it, and if your account gets disconnected then they put a time limit, I think like 10 or 15 minutes, on the top of the screen and if you don't sign back into your account that person gets booted off the game. For PS3 it's you have a limit to 2 downloads on digital products and don't have to be signed into your account in order to access it. So basically you can go to another person's house, sign into your PS3 on their console, download some games for them, and then they can play them without having to be signed into your account.

That's what I always found funny about it, it's basically like PSN or Steam but it's more limited, and costs money to have...

Atleast their starting to clear the misconceptions, and about time too.

so .... in order to use ANY of the advertised features, I'd have to KEEP, giving them money, on top of it costing more then both its competitors?

really?

Wow .... they must REALLY be counting on the Gear/CoD/Halo junkies ....

squid5580:

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

You can do that with the 360

You got a link for that? Because to the best of my knowledge, the 360 only supported cloud based save games, meaning that if your friend owned the same game you own, you can use your cloud saves to start playing where you left off at home. You could also transfer or download your profile on another console, but then that'd be your main console and you can't be signed in anywhere else.

With the Xbox One, you can reach your entire profile at your friends plays, download and play games that your friend doesn't own with your friend, even do things like co-op and multilayer, as well as "entertainment apps" - take your entire library with you, basically.

Sounds like a big difference to me.

To the people who don't understand this generation. You can share games on a current console, but when you port your gamertag over to another console, you lose the benefits of the first console. You can't just sign in on any other console and play. You have to xfer your gamertag.
So in other terms, right now you can sign into a console that is not yours, play your games and DLC (provided you download it all) but at home a person who has a separate account on your console cannot access your games while playing their gamertag on your machine because your gamertag has been moved to the console you're playing on.

TomWiley:

squid5580:

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

You can do that with the 360

You got a link for that? Because to the best of my knowledge, the 360 only supported cloud based save games, meaning that if your friend owned the same game you own, you can use your cloud saves to start playing where you left off at home. You could also transfer or download your profile on another console, but then that'd be your main console and you can't be signed in anywhere else.

With the Xbox One, you can reach your entire profile at your friends plays, download and play games that your friend doesn't own with your friend, even do things like co-op and multilayer, as well as "entertainment apps" - take your entire library with you, basically.

Sounds like a big difference to me.

You can download all your digital games onto your friends console without making it the main console. As long as your profile is signed in you can play all your games and I am pretty sure you can play co op and everything else. I know for sure you can play your DLC with your friend on theirs in split screen with both signed in. So other than the all gold on 1 box there is nothing else there that the 360 does that the 1 doesn't thanks to cloud saves.

Neronium:
So...basically it's what the PS3 lets you do now then? Okay, nothing special really then.

Lightknight:
Wait, I thought this was how things already work. If you buy something digital from your account, everyone on the console you've installed it on can play it. That's how it works on the ps3 too.

It sounds like the difference is the ability to easily peruse another user's library and install it while they're not around.

For the XBLA titles you had to be signed into your account in order for the other person to play it, and if your account gets disconnected then they put a time limit, I think like 10 or 15 minutes, on the top of the screen and if you don't sign back into your account that person gets booted off the game. For PS3 it's you have a limit to 2 downloads on digital products and don't have to be signed into your account in order to access it. So basically you can go to another person's house, sign into your PS3 on their console, download some games for them, and then they can play them without having to be signed into your account.

No you are a bit mistaken. You can access all the stuff on any profile on the home console. Without time limits or anything like that. If you are using a secondary console then what you described happens

squid5580:

Neronium:
So...basically it's what the PS3 lets you do now then? Okay, nothing special really then.

Lightknight:
Wait, I thought this was how things already work. If you buy something digital from your account, everyone on the console you've installed it on can play it. That's how it works on the ps3 too.

It sounds like the difference is the ability to easily peruse another user's library and install it while they're not around.

For the XBLA titles you had to be signed into your account in order for the other person to play it, and if your account gets disconnected then they put a time limit, I think like 10 or 15 minutes, on the top of the screen and if you don't sign back into your account that person gets booted off the game. For PS3 it's you have a limit to 2 downloads on digital products and don't have to be signed into your account in order to access it. So basically you can go to another person's house, sign into your PS3 on their console, download some games for them, and then they can play them without having to be signed into your account.

No you are a bit mistaken. You can access all the stuff on any profile on the home console. Without time limits or anything like that. If you are using a secondary console then what you described happens

Then why won't it let me access my Worms game on my 360 when that's the one I bought and it's the home console if I were to go onto my second account? It tells me that I have to rebuy the game to access it. Happened to my friend too when he tried playing his copy of Banjo Kazooie when on his other account on his home console. I don't mean to sound condescending if I do, I'm just wondering why it is doing that.

Microsoft has actually confirmed that most of these features DON'T require gold. The only one - to my knowledge - that does require gold is the gold sharing feature and that feature would make no sense if you didn't have gold. This means that if I have gold and someone comes over to play on my home console they could access gold features with their own account regardless of whether they themselves have a subscription. That sounds like a pretty awesome feature to me.

The other stuff is there in some capacity on the 360 already, but these features seem to expand on the existing ones for the better so I don't understand the complaints. For those that compare it to the way physical copies work, keep in mind that are certain titles (especially XBLA and XBLIG) that are digital only (XBLIG games especially cost probably the same amount as a game case so it would not even make sense to sell them as physical copies) and many platforms didn't allow digital game license transfer until fairly recently. From what I heard, for example, the Wii was a nightmare for transferring eShop licenses.

Digital is pretty young still and it will take time for systems to match certain perks of owning physical copies (if they ever will), but this is certainly a step forward. Adding valuable features to a system does not make them any less valuable if another system already implements them. Then again, I'm not sure that any certain system has the same features currently - Steam has the whole 'access library anywhere' perk, but it doesn't allow anyone else on my PC to play those games unless they're signed into my account. It might be an unnecessary luxury but it's still an added perk.

That's what Microsoft had planned for game sharing?!

So the whole, people in your family thing being able to play shared games was a carefully worded ruse?

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

Except on Steam it's free.

You lost me at "xbox live gold membership" I'm afraid.
Now that publishers have caught on that offering their titles as exclusives is just cheating themselves out of entire demographics, consoles can't rely on them too much anymore, so while you're still trying to convince us that we shouldn't roll out eyes with irritation while what is essentially a standardised format remains artificially split into three camps, you need to offer the best console capabilities outside what games they can play, and this is just one more area where the 180 is nipping at the heals of the PS4.

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

The ability to share games would be nice, I mean that's the carrot they tried to offer in exchange for killing the used market. With a physical game I can lend the disc to my friend, he can play it then I can get the disc back (well, in theory). Here I can play it at my friends house... yay?

Now I can see why letting people trade and lend games digitally could be more problematic than people physically passing discs about. But if that's what we give up when we go digital then there needs to be a better carrot than "you can pay us to let you play your game at your friends house."

Do4600:
That's what Microsoft had planned for game sharing?!

So the whole, people in your family thing being able to play shared games was a carefully worded ruse?

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

Except on Steam it's free.

See Rex's post above. Seems like most of these features do not require gold, although I'm not gonna read that two-page long article to find out what requires gold and what doesn't. Not going to buy this console after all, you're trying to understand the hate.

Oh and Steam is way more restrictive than Xbox One's system so it's not even a relevant comparison.

Rack:

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

The ability to share games would be nice, I mean that's the carrot they tried to offer in exchange for killing the used market. With a physical game I can lend the disc to my friend, he can play it then I can get the disc back (well, in theory). Here I can play it at my friends house... yay?

Now I can see why letting people trade and lend games digitally could be more problematic than people physically passing discs about. But if that's what we give up when we go digital then there needs to be a better carrot than "you can pay us to let you play your game at your friends house."

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

TomWiley:

Rack:

TomWiley:
Are people just not reading the post are am I the only one amazed by the fact that I can access all my games on my friends console?

That's everything that makes Steam great in one feature. If I can take my entire game library to my friends, I don't know what more in terms of digital sharing anyone could possibly ask for.

The ability to share games would be nice, I mean that's the carrot they tried to offer in exchange for killing the used market. With a physical game I can lend the disc to my friend, he can play it then I can get the disc back (well, in theory). Here I can play it at my friends house... yay?

Now I can see why letting people trade and lend games digitally could be more problematic than people physically passing discs about. But if that's what we give up when we go digital then there needs to be a better carrot than "you can pay us to let you play your game at your friends house."

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

Tom, I'm legitimately curious about the first point you made, do you have a link to where they discussed their plans to create a used digital marketplace? The last time I had found any details about their plans, it has mostly been some nonspecific hints about how, sometime eventually in the future, The transfer to fully digital could lead to different forms of liscencing. But the interviews I found that even mentioned it never really went into anything specific, nothing about selling used digital titles at least, and any remote possibilities about what could be done weren't mentioned by Microsoft, but were suggestions by whatever media outlet was reporting at the time. I do grant, though, most of the interviews I found where directly in the wake of all the backlash, before they made the reversals.

SeventhSigil:

TomWiley:

Rack:

The ability to share games would be nice, I mean that's the carrot they tried to offer in exchange for killing the used market. With a physical game I can lend the disc to my friend, he can play it then I can get the disc back (well, in theory). Here I can play it at my friends house... yay?

Now I can see why letting people trade and lend games digitally could be more problematic than people physically passing discs about. But if that's what we give up when we go digital then there needs to be a better carrot than "you can pay us to let you play your game at your friends house."

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

Tom, I'm legitimately curious about the first point you made, do you have a link to where they discussed their plans to create a used digital marketplace? The last time I had found any details about their plans, it has mostly been some nonspecific hints about how, sometime eventually in the future, The transfer to fully digital could lead to different forms of liscencing. But the interviews I found that even mentioned it never really went into anything specific, nothing about selling used digital titles at least, and any remote possibilities about what could be done weren't mentioned by Microsoft, but were suggestions by whatever media outlet was reporting at the time. I do grant, though, most of the interviews I found where directly in the wake of all the backlash, before they made the reversals.

You are probably right about that actually. I remember watching an interview where they spoke about a digital used games hub with participating retailers, but now I can't even find it. It's not factual to say it was planned to be digital, but I certainly think that Microsoft would have, and might still, want to implement some kind of online-based used games system.

Anyway, everything else I said about it is indeed true; Microsoft's Xbox One did allow for used games via official platforms such as Gamestop, without adding any fees of their own. It just wouldn't be digital.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

TomWiley:

SeventhSigil:

TomWiley:

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

Tom, I'm legitimately curious about the first point you made, do you have a link to where they discussed their plans to create a used digital marketplace? The last time I had found any details about their plans, it has mostly been some nonspecific hints about how, sometime eventually in the future, The transfer to fully digital could lead to different forms of liscencing. But the interviews I found that even mentioned it never really went into anything specific, nothing about selling used digital titles at least, and any remote possibilities about what could be done weren't mentioned by Microsoft, but were suggestions by whatever media outlet was reporting at the time. I do grant, though, most of the interviews I found where directly in the wake of all the backlash, before they made the reversals.

You are probably right about that actually. I remember watching an interview where they spoke about a digital used games hub with participating retailers, but now I can't even find it. It's not factual to say it was planned to be digital, but I certainly think that Microsoft would have, and might still, want to implement some kind of online-based used games system.

Anyway, everything else I said about it is indeed true; Microsoft's Xbox One did allow for used games via official platforms such as Gamestop, without adding any fees of their own. It just wouldn't be digital.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

It's understandable, there was a whole bunch of reports, rumors, so on and so forth zipping about left and right. I still occasionally get the urge to throttle people when they bring up steam sales, considering the nature of the source that brought them up was literally the same as the one that's discussed family sharing being a timed demo. Anyway, while I agree there is definitely potential for a used digital market, I am admittedly uncertain as to whether it would be, or perhaps more accurately when it would be, implemented. I suppose if they determined that the number of people swayed to digital distribution would outweigh the base loss of revenue that comes from not having everyone using sent distribution method purchasing full price new copies. Which strikes me as the kind of analysis that would need an army of accountants and enough coffee to sink the Titanic.

That being said, I found some very interesting information while I was looking for any articles about what you had mentioned. Apparently that European union has ruled that individuals have the same right to sell used digital licenses as they would disk-based media. If this sort of declaration ever spreads as far as North America, Then used digital games may indeed be on the horizon, Regardless of what any company would plan to do about it. Here's a link to the story if you're interested.

http://m.digitaltrends.com/gaming/eu-court-decision-on-sales-of-used-digital-games-means-big-changes-for-steam-origin/

Anyway, the thing is that there was actually a fair market for the sale of used games over such things as eBay, and other relatively unofficial channels. Now, while the disc games had a user-based 'transfer liscence' code would allow an individual to make an unofficial sale, or gift their game to a friend outright, the last I heard that code could only be used once for a game copy, and then never again. At one point I even heard that a game that was given using the code could not then be sold to an official retailer, though that was awhile ago, it could have been either mistaken or even changed before the outright reversal. I'll see if I can find any corroborating links, and if I do I'll put them in a fresh reply.

TomWiley:

SeventhSigil:

TomWiley:

That's not entirely true, is it? Microsoft never planned to "kill" the used market. Quite the opposite, they planned to give players the right to sell any game they bough, but they would offer this service digitally as well, and make sure a small percentage of each sell goes to the developer.

This in turn would convince developers to stop messing around with online passes, DLC, micro-transactions and their own on-disc DRM to stop used games. Why would they when they can actually make money on used games as well? I wouldn't call that "killing" the used market. If anything, that's saving it.

Oh, did I mention that Microsoft would enable the system for developers, retailers and consumers, without adding any fees of their own?

Seems like few people knew how Microsoft's original policies actually worked. I admit they are complicated and Microsoft did a piss-poor job of communicating the advantages, but most of their policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as gamers seemed to assume they were.

Tom, I'm legitimately curious about the first point you made, do you have a link to where they discussed their plans to create a used digital marketplace? The last time I had found any details about their plans, it has mostly been some nonspecific hints about how, sometime eventually in the future, The transfer to fully digital could lead to different forms of liscencing. But the interviews I found that even mentioned it never really went into anything specific, nothing about selling used digital titles at least, and any remote possibilities about what could be done weren't mentioned by Microsoft, but were suggestions by whatever media outlet was reporting at the time. I do grant, though, most of the interviews I found where directly in the wake of all the backlash, before they made the reversals.

You are probably right about that actually. I remember watching an interview where they spoke about a digital used games hub with participating retailers, but now I can't even find it. It's not factual to say it was planned to be digital, but I certainly think that Microsoft would have, and might still, want to implement some kind of online-based used games system.

Anyway, everything else I said about it is indeed true; Microsoft's Xbox One did allow for used games via official platforms such as Gamestop, without adding any fees of their own. It just wouldn't be digital.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Actually, the irony is that the proofing link for the issue about giving games being done only once is the very same link you yourself provided. XD Derp. In any case, I haven't been able to find any proof that confirms or denies the aspect of not being able to trade given games, so unless I dig up something later, going to toss that part in the rumor bin as well. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that the quote you made on trading games specified that it allowed Publishers to 'enable' their games to be sold or traded to approve retailers. That might just be my innate paranoia, although in my defense our last discussion did involve the distinction between lying and misleading, but would that mean that publishers would also have the right to completely disable the function?

This generation there are of course existing measures meant to discourage used game reliance; online passes, DLC of course, but it would still be a far cry from the ability to completely block out every aspect of a used game. In fact, if I remember the methodology properly, used game transactions would involve the official retailer removing the license from the seller's account, freeing the game to be added to someone else's later on. I suppose the implication is that publishers would have been capable of restricting this transfer of licenses entirely?

That being said, I can't imagine what publisher would have been insane enough to be the first one to do it, but even the option is a bit troubling.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here