1. That's just your theory. There was and is no evidence of this, especially what the cut would actually be.

Reason for my theory is there was not outcry from the industry. Face the logic, there HAD to be a cut going to the publishers. Publishers/devs bitch to no end about second hand sales. There would be a massive amount of bitching had both the end user and MS made money and not the devs. Shortly after this came to be knowledge EA dropped online passes, another sign of them believing that both Sony and MS were going to follow suit in going hybrid digital.

2. That was announced afterwards, if you recall, and again, it's one time. Still not physical ownership (which every other company offered)

Well the whole program never got announced(not that I think they would win people over with their "vision"), tbh. But this was announced at some time validating what I said

3. If you recall, Gamestop was extremely pissed off. So, that strategy didn't work so well. Gamestop even halted preorders. Again, online check didn't have to be required. An online check whenever the system went online however, would have sufficed. Sure maybe someone would be able to go a couple months before their game was deactivated from the system, but how much of a problem would it have caused, really?

I dont recall Gamestop bing that pissed off. I can only find articles about how they were concerned cause they werent given full details on how it worked and I cannot find anything about halting preorders except it "selling out" at gamestop. Onine check would be required because people would buy games register and install, go back the next day trade the game in, unplug from the internet and beat the game while getting back maximum trade value. It would have caused a major problem. I dont know if you hand around on deal websites but many people game the system as much as possible. This would leave major space for exploits.

4. Yes, I actually wrote that in the paragraph, and also addressed it. You couldn't play YOUR account with a different game on your home xb1 while your friend was borrowing and playing your game. Not very smart.

I think the family share plan was supposed to address that, but I think the whole family plan thing was an afterthought. Steam only recently added this feature after being around for like 11 years.

5. MS tried to use xb1 as a trojan horse. I've written several threads about this already, and just how many shoestrings tied this boot together. They were pushing to integrate azure into every major retailer. They were trying to get all businesses onto the azure cloud. They wanted to get into the ratings (like nielsen) business. They wanted control and profit off of the secondary market. They wanted control of imports (remember they disallowed importing based on IP addresses. This was actually in their plan until they abandoned it). They wanted tv control. They required devs to make content for windows phone if they wanted to make xb1 games until the id# program. They required games to be equal or better on xb1. They didn't allow indies to make games on xb1 if they made the ps4 one first...they both had to come out at the same time. They wanted control of the servers for every game. They bought out exclusive sports packages.

That's just your theory. There was and is no evidence of this(you might be right about the W8 phone thing). They still have the parity thing for indys, how disappointing that they didnt kill it publicly during E3. They kind of have since Sony has been using the term "console first/debut" as opposed to console exclusive for most indy games. The tin foil hat wearing parity theory of games having to be the same resoultion/framerate makes more sense than what MS is doing with release date parity.

It's really amazing everything they tried to control with this system. Making devs and businesses happy was an afterthought. They didn't sit at a table and say, "what can we do to improve the industry", they said, "How can we make more money, and keep everyone else happy enough to eat the scraps from our table".

I firmly dont believe that. I dont think they said "what can we do to improve the industry" but "what can we do to bring more money into the gaming(=our) ecosystem." The whole system was set up to give gamers/retailers a similar experience to what they were used to as well as to allow game publishers(potentially themselves) to get a cut of used sales. In the end it was really all for themselves(more happy devs=more games, more profit/retailers still give them shelf space/moves consumers towards digital future that the industry wants), but that is what every business does.  No company says "what can we do to improve the industry" it will always be "how can we get the most money into our ecosystem." Nintendo and Sony are no more noble than MS.

uhmmm.. no.  Xbox division hardly a milking cow and is the least profitable division at MS.  "Microsoft makes more than 75% of its profits from Windows and Office.  Less than 25% comes from its vaunted servers and tools.  And Microsoft makes nothing from its xBox/Kinect entertainment division, while losing vast sums in its on-line division (negative $350M-$750M/quarter). " (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/01/20/sell-microsoft-now-game-over-ballmer-loses/)  Judging by this and the rumors of shareholders wanting to sell off the xbox divison makes it the most riskiest product.

Also, MS wanting to take the console to the next level of maximizing money pocketing is more like it.  MS went back the "status quo" because that's what the gamers wanted.  They voiced themselves and at the thought of losing sales, they had no choice but to go the "status quo".

And noone says that the PS4 lead will save Sony.  The playstation division is one of Sony's most successful division.  Uhmm.. yea.  And Sony's phenomenal launch is already trailing behind the Wii back in 2007.  So I wonder where that puts the X1?

Google.. it's not hard to do.