I don't think it's selfish to not want to sacrifice for things I don't want. Would you put up with policies that restrict you as a gamer in order to enable games you don't want?

its not the same thing and you know it. People like these games that you dont, and thats a fact. the sales numbers prove it. Now they dont like ALL of them and thats the real issue. Moderation, not every game needs to be AAA movie quality, but companies see COD and wants that, which is ironic cause its not like COD costs that much to make anyway. Less AAA development, but dont scrap entirely.

So if I don't like these games, why should I make sacrifices so devs can keep making them? That's not selfishness, it's common sense.

Couldn't even bring myself to read the whole thing.

Message: before you develop something make sure (as much possible) that people actually want it. Product Development 101.

hehe :p the problem with sarcasm in text, no obvious way of tellig if it is.

Lipstick on a pig.

That's what family share would be even if it was going to work as people claim (i.e. full access). I would not trade the freedom of being able to lend, swap or sell my games discs to ANYONE in the world for 10 pre-selected people being able to play my games on the fly. The extra convenience is not an acceptable trade off,to me, for the loss in freedom. 

Also MS is just being petulant and pissy for not affirming that they're retaining it from day 1 for games purchased through XBL.

Seems to me like family share was a bit of an afterthought, because you normally lead off with the new and exciting feature to get people all hyped, then tell them the trade off that's required for that feature. Some people would have been sucked in by the tactic of being given the good news first, but many still wouldn't have bought taken the bait. But MS probably would have gotten away with it, just.

because there are people who do like those games, but screw them right? That is the meaning of selfishness.

Refusing to sign away my freedoms or let corporations penny-pinch me isn't selfishness, it's self-respect.

I have my doubts about this even being legitimate to begin with, but assuming that it is, here's a real quick way to get over the "used games industry killing publishers" issue:

Stop making games with ridiculous budgets to begin with.

Nowhere else in business is it the consumer's fault when a producer creates a product that is too expensive in its production costs to make profit off of. It shouldn't be here, either. People have the right to do whatever they want with whatever they purchase; no ifs, ands, or buts (so long as it's not being used for criminal means, of course). The fault lies squarely with companies here.

how are they penny-pinching you? If you dont like those kinds of games dont buy them. ITs that simple, and wanting them to stop being made becasue YOU dont like them is selfish.