I don't get it. If it was such a great innovation, couldn't they implement it as an optional thing? As in, you can buy a game either as a "standalone version" or a "license version". The standalone version would work just like games on other platforms do. The license version would install onto your system (as in, no disc required after installation), and would require authentication to play. And then the license version would be sharable as a library, etc.

Then the market would demonstrate which one people preferred.

Indeed, the market would also adjust the prices of the two versions in order to bring things into balance, and we'd find out the true value of each type - perhaps the license version would be judged to be worth 30% less than the standalone version.

You're welcome!

They can but I publishers didn't like that.

So the PR spin doctoring begins. Try to convince gamers to ask for all that bull crap back. Good luck with that Microsoft.

There is absolutely no reason at all to remove family share for digital download titles, none. Removal of the DRM policies has zero impact on game sales off XBL. And family share would encourage more peop[le to buy digital and thus have a DRM-like effect without pissing off people who still like to buy, swap and trade discs.

Those people lamenting the loss of, as it turns out a gimped, family share bloame MS for getting all pissy about removing disc DRM. And given family share was actually only family demo it's no great loss anyway.

There's a lot you could talk about here but suffice to say you aren't giving MS enough credit if you think they would let the direction for their new console be decided by "a vocal minority".

MS did not make this decision lightly and didn't do it without evidence to justify it, of that you can be sure.