Well, here's the thing. cboat got a grand total of two things wrong (Sony doing a paywall, Ubisoft not showing a new Prince of Persia), for which he apologized. He got so much right that there's no way he just made up everything out of thin air, and if the GAF mods didn't know who he was, he wouldn't be allowed to play forum prophet. His track record is pretty stellar, so he has credibility with me.

Meanwhile, Thurrott is a fucking shill and not some kind of authoritative source on anything. If you read the post where he drops this amazing information, he completely misreads what Microsoft even said. "Look, fellers! UNLIMITED! They said it's unlimited, that makes it not demos!" But he is conflating what MS said other people can do on YOUR console ("unlimited access") with what they said about other people sharing your games (which was merely "access"). Timed trials would be technically be access, so he isn't debunking anything.

I'm on the MS hate train, that's true enough. But I'm not trolling or poking fun for once. This shit is alarmingly bad. So much so that, if the industry as a whole adopted it (which it eventually would have if MS had won here), I would be done with it. It would be retro gaming from here on out for me. I'm not going to give one thin dime to people who treat me like a criminal and a moron, and I'm pretty disappointed at how many people are okay with this because of sheer brand loyalty.

I will miss you then, when the inevitable all digital future arrives in thr next 10 years or so.

And based on this stance one would have to conclude that you never have (at least not in the last decade) and never will play games on PC? correct?

I think most people question this or write it off because it is MS. There wasn't an uproar anywhere like this when PS offered 5 copies of digital games. Even when they lowered the limit to 2; many people were defending it. We do not know exaclty what their plan was, other than to limit the number that can access the game at one time.  Most of the big game draws are multi-player, when people want to play with their friends. They may have been expecting that people would be buying their own copies so that they would be able to play with friends at the same time. If this didn't work, they would probably lower the limit from 10. Again, this is just conjecture as we do not know exactly how they would implement this.

What we do know is that MS has come out to clarify that the family plan was for full games. I mean,the State of Decay demo lets you play the first area of the game and then there is a time limit for you to experience the what else the game offers. If it is already offered in demos, what is the need for the family plan. CBOAT, or whomever, deals in rumors. Sometimes he is correct, other times he is not. Basing claims on a random post by a unconfirmed source and a person who reveals rumors is not a good point of argument. Considering he didn't reveal this at anytime himself should make it more questionable.

The big thing is, the family sharing plan is currently dead. Because of the removal on online checks they cannot verify the information required. I think the question should be why are some people still so focused on crapping on a feature that is no longer even part of the system anymore, much less a system they never intend to own.

Um, I have spent thousands on digital games. My favorite game from this generation is a digital game. Is that really what you think this is about?

That appears to be. Digital games require DRM and you are 100% against it from what I see. You obviously have nothing wrong with no resale if you buy lots of digital content.

Granted MS could do better than a 24 hr/1 hr time limit.

Hahaha. Yeah, right. Apparently the "Team" is now "working" on something that was scrapped.

Microsoft doesn't lose anything by saying what they are not going to give us. Regardless of what they were proposing it is not here.

A very good time to lie. But even if they were saying the truth it is not here, so really. Pointless.

The funny thing about this is the fact that they want you to be able to share your games with 10 people, but then disable used games. Ha. Lolworthy. As if people give around their discs to more than 10 people to play anyway. Even without DRM there is a limit to how many people a person gives his copy to. I highly doubt it is anywhere close to 10 unique people.

Selling your game to one person is killing the industry but letting you share it for free with 10 person is totally not gonna hurt anyone, I can't believe people actually think that bullshit is true

Well, then you can't see very well. My problems are with:

1. Microsoft ostensibly doing retail the same as last generation but turning the physical disc into a mere vehicle for a registration key. This is just a worse experience for the customer than the previous one without anything of value being added.

2. Controlling the resale of said discs by limiting it to approved retailers, which shuts out any non-chain mom & pop type game stores and all private sellers. Again, with nothing of value being offered to justify this inconvenience. (Except for this phantasmal "game sharing" nonsense.) Also, good bye, rental services!

3. Your console acting as your parole officer, forcing you to check in every single day to make sure you're not up to no good.

4. The pattern of every single decision Microsoft made with the 'bone breaking in their favor and not a single one of them breaking in favor of the consumer. It shows a corporation that is dangerously out of touch with the needs and wants of the consumer, and if there hadn't been this massive pushback, I cringe to think how far they would take it down the line.

5. The larger argument by many in the industry that because they have decided that every game has to cost more to develop than they can actually afford to spend on it, your consumer rights have to go out the window. That things that every other industry on the planet has to deal with - like first sale doctrine - don't apply to them because their business model is so broken. It's both unethical and disgustingly stupid. Just as the savings from the lower cost of manufacturing after the move to optical media was eaten up by exploding budgets, the same will happen from whatever financial benefits arise from the move to digital. And when the bugbear of used games is eliminated, what rights will they have to stamp out next to keep from coming to grips with the fact that you cannot sustainably double your budget, then double it again, then double it again, forever and ever?

Digital is perfetly fine. It has some upsides and some downsides, but Microsoft's all sticks and no carrots approach is patently offensive.

You don't game on PC. Digital games don't require DRM. Contrary to what is being portrayed on this forum and many others, Steam is not the only source for digital content on PC. GoG sells DRM free games for example.

I agree some "concerns" are probably because it is Microsoft, however there are legitimate concerns besides that. You say there wasn't an uproar when PS did this with 5 games. Well they actually did it with 5 games an It didn't work! They quickly cut it down to 2. That is the very reason that many people don't think it's 10 complete games. If publishers wouldn't allow 5 free copies, then why the heck would they allow 10?!

And I don't believe the only 1 copy at a time thing would deter most people. Maybe those that just play COD or only 1 or 2 games, but most people, here at least, have dozens of games that they play. I'm sure they would go without playing a specific game for a little while to not have to spend as much money.

Finally, your last paragraph, I completely agree. However, I'm personally curious as to what exactly it was and how they expected it to work. I don't believe it is a feasible business plan and would have liked to see what actually happened with it.