Either the post is a fake or MS empoyees really are out of touch with reality.

MS should never made these always online and drm policies mandatory in the first place. Making it a CHOICE is what the consumer wants. I mean ffs if your internet had cut for long periods it was basicall a $500 blu ray device.

I'm sure ms could make the cloud and game sharing optional for digital titles. CHOICE is important , not lack thereof .

Has to be fake. If it is real there was nothing revolutionary in any of the things they were doing. The 10 family share plan sounds horrible and is already available on PS3. Try the game for 1 hour before you buy etc.

This makes Microsoft or atleast their xbox division seem out of touch with reality and downright condesending. I have no problem with the over all company as i prefer their products over competitors by using windows 7 and windows phone 8.

If true it actually makes me very happy ms changed their plans. The only good thing about the drm was the family share option, but if it was only a freaking demo share, then who cares? No wonder microsoft didnt talk about it that much or go into detail on it.

Could we move on at some point....??? Do we really have to still debate something that has been debated for weeks... got traction... got heard.... got changed.....
Or could we keep it to one post....??? I'd like to see more game chatter is anyone with me on that??? Let's talk games??? Heck I'd rather have a pissing contest between Ms fans and Sony fans on screenshots... than those endless now useless debate polluting every game forums on the interweb

I was under the impression that your friend would have to login to your account to access your games, and, once logged out, he'd lose all access. Is that not the case?

This just make me question their recent reversal on DRM. Can we really trust MS to actually deliver on the DRM reversal after this, what other restrictions are they hiding?

No.

Here's one example: I bought a game on my PS3 with my PSN Account, downloaded and installed it on my PS3.

Since my friend wanted to have the game as well, I logged into PSN with my own account on his PS3, redownloaded the game and it was installed on his PS3. As soon as this happened, I simply logged out. From now on, he can play the game on his PS3, with his own account, even though he even only has a local/offline account.

So its your assertion that because developers can't find ways to continue to squeeze profits out of cunsumers they should strip us of our right to resell the things we buy?

Car manufacturers profit margins are around 6%. Game developers costs etc. cover about 45-50% of a games price. So they get anywhere from $25 - $30 dollars from every $60 game sold. Thats quite a cut. How much they profit off that I don't know (can't find any real hard data) but thats a significant cut of the cost and if they can't stay profitable then perhaps they should be taking a look at their business model.

And if we really cared about developers we should ALL be preordering PS4s to rewrd Sony for dropping publisher requirements for developers and not requiring extra costs associated with game patches.

But we don't really. We care about getting more games for cheaper prices. ANd restricting used game purchases/resales won't accomplish that. In fact all the while we have had used games on consoles and yet the prices have remained very stable at 49.99 and 59.99 for over 15 years! Anyone else remember when new console games could retail for hundreds in some cases? I remember buying Streets of Rage 3 for $80 bucks.

This^. People have been acting as if MS was pioneering some grand new feature. PS3 users have been able to do this for years and though it has been reduced to 2 activated consoles from 5. It is possible to have a sharing plan that doesn't require you to give up your consumer rights. MS simply does not HAVE to drop its sharing program because they can't chek-in on you and brick your console when you don't phone home every 24 hours.