@ bolded, I don't think it's anyone in the group can share each other's games just because they are in YOUR group. They would also have to be in each other's groups. The rest of that paragraph seems to be wrong too.

It is the future....in a sense of Apple (which then you would be correct)....problem is this is the gaming industry and not Apple where casuals want the all in one solution. Enthusiasts have mostly moved onto Androids that are less restrictive, which is also another proper analogy. I also wrote something after this last post. Theres no doubt that this is my opinion, but I am also analyzing what MS is saying.

Acording to reports PS3 is leading pre-order 2 to 1 in the USA wich actualy means its probably completely dominating worldwide. And even if pre-orders were 1-1 itd still be a victory for PS3 as the curent gem (360/PS3) have been largely dominated by Microsoft on the USA.

This sahre policy cant realy work letting 1 ppl buy a game and share it with 10 diferent ppl, no Publisher would back this cause this would efectively cut sales by 10, its pretty clear to me that your 10 group can share your library and play anything youre not playing, wich is pretty much the same thing you cna do with a physical disc or a downloaded game nowadays with the added fact that you cna only do it with 10 ppl on the XBone

I disagree with you. You see the gaming industry as a big block who cannot change...
Microsoft sees it differently and like any changes it is not welcomed at first but I think it is the right path.

It is a bet Microsoft is taking and while these self-proclamed "only-true-real-hardcore" gamers do not like it; many others do and if you add to that the casual market and even those who are not interrested into games; the Xbox One strategy may pay off.

I also disagree with your Android exemple; the majority of people buying android devices are buying them because they are just cheaper.
I think it is really a minority who want an "open/less-restrictive" system and the other majority does not really care or even know about this.

They have to like the games offered before the all-in-one process can commence. Kinect better deliver because a lot of gamers might be jumping ship based on price point. The PS2 proved that third party titles are the gold of the industry and having them makes you attractive. If your competition has 90% the same games outside of exclusives then the majority of the work is already done and the Xbox 360 did this to segment the former PS2 crowd with a cheaper price point. Third parties are the gold, not Xbox Live nor are the exclusives on the PS3. The only company with that type of power is Nintendo. Enjoy disagreeing.

I think this is the crux of the whole issue and why a lot of people are confused. MS has made quite a few statements over the past few months talking about how used games hurt the industry and how publishers are missing out on revenue on these sales which is leading to an unsustainable situation for the industry. However this family sharing feature, if interpreted as favourably as some here are, who have a far greater negative impact to sales than the used game market ever did. If I can play any game from my families library, remotely, and others in my family can also play the same games remotely on different consoles at the same time, then why on earth would a family group of 10 buy more than one copy of a game between them? Why would I buy forza if my mate 500 clicks away has it already, why would anyone  else in the family of 10 buy forza? You've just cut your potential sales down by a factor of 10, which is far more damaging to the publishers than used game sales ever were.

With physical disks, only one person can play a game at a time, and for someone else to play it you need to bring or send the disk to them. This creates a soft barrier to this type of behaviour where one person buys a game and just continually shares it with all his mates/family, as you have to wait for your friend to be finished with the game before you can play, and eventually people get sick of waiting for their turn and go out and buy the game themselves. With how some people are interpreting ms' policy, this soft barrier doesn't exist as the need to wait and the resources/time required to hand the game across are removed. 

I just can't see how this marries up with ms' original intent of having a fairer system of revenue share with publishers for used games. And in my experience if something is too good to be true then it usually is, and I guess this is why a lot of people are scratching their heads as well.

Exactly. MS is back peddling and stumbling on their words. The problem is people cannot see the hypocrisy in it. They are doing this to save their collective asses.

They keep saying one thing and then saying another the next day. LOL

Do not be arrogant if you want to debate on forums, I'm enjoying debating, not disagreeing.

You replying with arrogant comments like that just make me want to do the same, too bad, it was good discussion so far.

So now, exclusives are not that important? Kay ;)

I guess it is the same than having to pay now for online multiplayer pn PS4, not a big deal? Expected?

You always provide a good argument. It wouldnt be fun otherwise....trust me theres other arguments where I just move on and some where others are just too sensitive and yes it is my opinion. We're all giving opinions based upon what we're being told.