Used game policies aren't the reason for stagnation. There is a reason indie games are becoming more popular. They actually try different concepts and prove that you don't have a massive budget for every game. Publishers have a blockbuster mentality and every game can't be a blockbuster. Especially when you continually tread down the same path with each title you release.

How can anyone call it innovation when the gaming console will only work on certain countries because of the restrictions and how is Cloud computing and Family Sharing not possible without the restrictions?

He said that...

"^_^ onlingamingpayo.w.-allklk for Sony? ahha nope.noconfirm"

Translate: "No online paywall for PS4? Unconfirmed."

He believed there would be no paywall and he was wrong. He also said in that same GAF post you just quoted that Mirror's Edge 2 and a new Prince of Persia would be at the MS E3 conference and neither were. Moral of the story is the guy has said a ton of shit and not all of it was right. End of discussion on my end.

So, besides the 60min thing... what else was there? (or still is?) Cboat mentioned Gamescom too...

Damn, all of these rumors... this is quite fascinating.

EDIT: Do you guys imagine what would have happened had this news been revealed before they decided to pull the 180? Judging from the way many people were excited about family sharing, I could only have expected a massive meltdown, actually, I can't even think of a proper word that wouldn't still be an understatement of what would have happened.

What kind of real advantages did you see on the DRM and used games policy, for the customer? Cause I ain't seen any.

How is that? Working for a bullshit PR agency?

NOBODY sane can agree with it, mainly because it's totally wrong.

There are plenty of people on here responsible for stifling innovation too. Unfortunately most lack the capacity even realize it.

The whole thing was strange. It seems that the biggest mistake MS did this entire Xbone reveal was being ambiguous. They tell us one thing then say something slightly different somewhere else, one PR man says something, another says something slightly different.

Even this sharing thing was like it was made up as they go, they had a vision for it but it didn't make sense. They wanted to control used game sales but were happy to allow people to just share games freely with pretty much anyone. It was a contridiction. Then only after they remove it, do they reveal it was only a 'demo' as such, to give a friend/family member a chance to see what the game is like. Can you imagine this second option in a household? A father buys his 2 sons a game, the first son registers it to his account and they think they can both play it. But the 2nd son can in reality only play it for an hour before it times out and wants him to buy an entire new version of the game. It's the same house with the same game, you'd have to buy 2 copies of a game for 1 machine.

But this makes me wonder, at one point I heard a rumour that MS was allowing XBoxLive to be done much like a parent child system, where by the main account pays the subscription and any (up to 5 I heard) users attached to that main account (child accounts) could access Xbox Live without paying a fee, unlike the current generation which is based on each user paying. So a dad could pay the subscription and each of his children, including if they aren't even living in the same house (away at Uni for example) could access and play on Xbox Live. Anyway, was this part of their sharing vision? If so is that now removed? So in order to make up for the fact they are allowing used games, they will now charge every user who wants to use XboxLive a fee, which could mean 3 people in a household or more?

Oh cmon... so we should all aceept expensive prices and thank our Microsoft overlords for the kindness of letting us play games. Maybe next you tell me i should stick to the 360? :P