That whole friends becoming family and sharing online games would have been cut after the first few months. Why would any 3rd party company agree to such policies if that would cut their sales by a decent amount? I believe it was just some made up bs to try and get people to still like the DRM/used game policy they were trying to introduce. I don't think that would have ever happened because anyone can see the potential abuse of such system.
So now you just need to have friends in real life to borrow/exchange discs.
Some people actually think the whole family sharing was going to work out exactly like MS described. Either there were more caveats involved (which is why they pulled such a "revolutionary" system before it even launched) or there was a mass exodus of 3rd parties shunning the feature en-masse.
I think it was a combination of both. We have been seeing more and more conditions attached with the family sharing as days go by: people need to be on your list for 30 days, only SP games can be played simultaneously, conflicting info, etc. Just from common sense you can also see that if 3rd parties are already against you reselling your game even once, they would in no way, shape or form ever be happy with you being able to essentially share with 10 people where one person plays a SP game with you at the SAME time. SP game sales would pretty much be cut in half with his feature. 3rd parties would go insane.
This all seemed like MS's last ditch effort to calm the storm with some shallow fix, but it obviously didn't work.