I love how people will believe anythign anti-MS, even if ONLY ONE PERSON ever said it, even though every ad and announcement never said anything about only sharing demos.

You're smart enough to understand how corporations talk.

Because its about accessing the full game and not a tradditional demo (which is a different product).. that's a massive difference. I've already stated i thought with the right developer API hooks in it, its a good idea.. the reason it could be limited is because you can access any game in someones library. The last of us demo is less than 20 minutes, in fact most demos don't last very long at all... we're talking upto an hour.

On a slightly different note...Nothing has been heard about this system from any major gaming website, so it's probably not even been mentioned at the developer level... we can only guess what it was they were considering but hadnt actually got past anyone. 

Regardless, this system is currently dead, it's not being implemented for the moment.... you know what If it was *ME* and it was *really* that awesome, I certainly wouldnt be putting it on hold for some lame ass reason that "it's the users fault". But regardless of that, unless they do something in the future, its not even worth debating.. because your getting all excited about something they seem to now not want to implement.

Others are being overly negative because of how great the features potentially was too, the door swings both ways.  The difference is the positive aspects came from the official source while the only negative came from a blog post and assumptions.  As I said before, we will know if they do implement this feature in the future, you can be assured this thread will be bumped on that day one way or another.

Some people were being overtly negative...but then some were being overtly postiive (as you say the door swings both ways). Considering there was little information about this feature from MS, you can understand hopefully that people were skeptical. Additionally it seemed pretty obvious to many people that if publishers were complaining about used sales, why would they be happy with 10 new users using their product. They wouldnt. 

I understand if people are massive fans of a product, and its all been bad news and it seems like its getting hit from all directions, people want to latch onto some good news. But sometimes doing so creates a situation where other people are thinking "WTF".

Common sense should prevail, and that until its spelt out, no one should get overltly defensive/defending a product about anything... especially around the launch window of a console.

But hey, I am happy to be proven wrong.., but if it is any good it shouldnt be a difficult decision to make in the first place. When you are getting hit from all directions, removing *Good* features is never a sensible business plan.

I think their entire reasoning is that the business model doesn't work if they're unable to provide other income streams back to the publishers which was the entire point about the DRM and ensuring some of the sale of a used game made it's way back to the publisher.  The control they possessed of your library under the old proposal would certainly have allowed them more leverage to create a policy like this.  I doubt it can be done anymore for obvious reasons as you don;t have the extra revenue streams to encourage publishers to accept it, although I do hope they may be able to look at this for digital purchases in future as that would be quite cool.

As for defending a product, the same applies for not attacking a product or its features based on purely rumour and speculation which seems to be going on more often on here and in far less reasonable manner.

If MS had done a good job PR wise there would certainly be a lot less people giving them grief online/irl. I think a lot of fault lies with their team who have been practically incapable of putting out a coherent message.