A interview with Phil spencer states that MS knew people would as none family members to your "Family list" and has gone to confirm that no "Birth certificate" would need to be sent in *Joke haha*. Then went into confirm that TWO people can in fact play the same game at the same time.

To me this reeks of damage control. It's a small step but a step none the less at all. No reports of their will be conditions for games that can be added to your shares game library.

Source: http://m.oxm.co.uk/56411/your-xbox-one-games-library-can-be-shared-with-non-family-members/

Post made from my iPhone when I was force to get up and take my sister to work.

@jaytow: nah it's kinect eye scanning.

This was already mentioned a bit ago in an arstecnica story a few days ago http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

@tescovee: Sadly this is the issue MS has been having. They have botched explaining none stop as of late. They needed to state from the start " Shares game library. For 10 of your friends" not family. And CONFIRM two people can play at once.

Oh so they are saving the blood sampling and Id checks for the Nextbox.

That doesn't seem right at all. This would be a much larger threat than me loaning my physical game disc to a friend or two, or selling my game on e-bay--both of which are blocked by Microsoft--so why would they allow this? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Damage control. Or maybe they realized they cant confirm everyone whos in a family.

@spaceinsomniac: It sounds alot like Sony PS3's you can download to 5 other ps3's. Which even that is too nice.

This destroys new and used games. Which DRM is was just supposed to destroy used....but this...yeah your right it makes no sense. It cant be simple is HAS to be complicated and not nice/useful in the end, E.G only one that ONE console.

I'm thinking "only that one account" seems more likely, or sub-accounts with everything shared. There has to be some catch. Even Sony doesn't allow five other console shares anymore, and brought the number down to two. They were losing too much money with people abusing five shared copies, and I'm supposed to believe that MS is going to allow 10?

I "think" that they are using the kindle book sharing model? Where it is publisher based? As for the Damage control comment...as I mentioned before, it was already said days before everyone starting acting like their head was on fire.

@spaceinsomniac: Actually....I know how it works. I am one of the folks that bought the Family pack of gold. My dad plays games and uses youtube, my sisters pays for lovefilm/netflix, she watches youtube and plays games. I do to.

So with xbox YOU MUST HAVE GOLD! I have an xbox each and so the family pack came by we bought it and worked out buy 2 get 1 free.

So we had a spare one I signed my best friend up since his gold was running out and he didnt care enough to buy more.

BAD IDEA.

What happens is I am the Parent account, I am in control of the other accounts. I have to use MY card to give my family and friend MSP. I have to load MY account on their Xbox buy with MY card on MY account and download a games on demand game.

So I have access to that game on MY xbox and MY account, MS allows MY family member to play on that xbox without MY account.

So you see, its so freaking awkward to work with my independent'ish family let alone my independent friend.

As MSP is granted as an ALLOWANCE. I buy the MSP and share it among the "child" accounts.

So my friend wants to buy msp for a new Arcade game...he would have to ask ME to buy MSP so he can buy on HIS account and xbox.

It failed and I removed him from the account within 1 day since it would not work for either of us. My family have to put up with this in order to not have wasted money.

Its a nightmare. These are many of many reasons why I want out of the Xbox/MS eco system and go to Sony/PS. They fucked up with the ps3. I loved ps1 and ps2 I want to love the ps4, the ps4 might even let me play ps2! Gaikai! Stream those ps2 games at me!

The family plan is for the parents to control what their kids play. Not really for your dad or mom to let you control stuff ya I know most parents would not take the time to do all the work but that was the idea of it. And it was not meant for you to add your friend onto it.

Family plan for xbl is dead. and they already said it wasn't that too...

@the_laughing_man: I am not arguing the pack is wrong. What I am arguing is it one of very few deals MS ever have done and it was a compromise. I am looking have better deals with no restrictions on the ps4 and no need to compromise for these deals.

The restrictions on this deal does not work for an Independent family in the same house let alone anyone outside of the house. It is for parents with young children.

Yes that was absolute abuse on adding my friend and it was a Bad idea.

And so that is how the 10 family members shared games is going to work and not at all beneficial to a non Parent child situation.

is this because they want to...or because there is no for them to prevent m

pretty much my thoughts. What the fuck is going on in Redmond?

They have not detailed how any of that will work yet.

As for the issue you had. And the family pack is meant for parents with multiple kids and what not. Not for a house hold with teens and above.

@the_laughing_man: I just told you I am not arguing that point on the family pack about the use, I was using it wrong I know I am reminded all the time. Let it go.

However MS wants to control used games and if they ease up on it with a shared family game library and make is super easy to be part of. Then they destroy their own plans.

It will have to be just as restrictive since these restrictions destroy a gameshare club, its not sending a birth certificate in to verify your relationship. However you have to be in really close proximity if not your senior/parent in order to use it.

It destroys out house gameshare club.

These restrictions render its an absolute hassle for an Independent family of a parent and 2 adults.

While it works perfectly with a Parent or 2 parents with any number of kids from 1 to 10.

@tescovee: Microsoft says a lot of things right now...some things are even against what they already said. I could be exactly as the Family plan or it could be an altered version that fits within "its not the Family Plan" or it could be completely different. However the family plan would have been the basis on moving into this.

How else are you going to loan digital games. All of Microsoft's policies are being set in place assuming an all digital, discless future. That's the end goal, to move everyone from discs to digital games. It's a better policy than Steam has.

This isn't damage control at all, it's what their "fact pages" said all along. If you watch the DRM video it's pretty much what their conclusion is too. 10 people in a group, owner and one other person can play the game at the same time. If you're surprised that there isn't an actual identity check for the group I really don't know what you expected, as if people wouldn't completely play the system if there was.

The Steam comparison is wrong in so many ways. First off all comparing Steam (which is a digital distribution and management SOFTWARE platform) to the Xbox One (which is a HARDWARE console), is like comparing a PC to Playstation Network. The initial investment to be locked into the DRM policies of Steam is ZERO...the software is free, and their has always been viable alternatives to Steam. The XBox One on the other hand, is DRM locked at the SYSTEM level, and the initial investment to be locked into their DRM policies is $499. If the Xbox One wanted to have something comparable to Steam, they would would have instituted their DRM policies at the Xbox Marketplace level, and instituted the restrictions on digitally purchased games ONLY. There is no way you can tell me they have a better policy than Steam for this very reason. Steam had to garner trust through good business practices and customer service. Microsoft is saying "F*** That! Lets lock them in on the hardware level and TELL them this is better."

This to me, will loose more supposed sale for dev than used game will. What the hell are they actually going for here?

@the_laughing_man: How is this damage control? This is what they released a week ago, i'm pretty sure even the GB guys knew about this in the video they did. 10 people and 2 playing a game at the same time has been known for a while.

Oh and the fact that it doesn't have to be a family member makes no difference. According the the "facts page" it mentions that all 10 accounts can be accessed from within your home. Again this has led many to believe that you will have to tie your XBox live account to a system, and only accounts tied to that main system can access that system's gaming library. Why would being a family member or a friend living with you matter in this case?

They where not utterly clear leaving room for wiggle room.

Why does this feature have such a misleading name if anybody on any console can be in your sharing group?

If it really is anybody on any console, this feature cuts new game sales virtually in half. Why would you ever not just find somebody else who wanted the game and go halfs with them / take turns buying games? If there's no catch here, this feature is generous to the point of suicide.

Forget the 10 people, it's the two people being able to play at once which makes this crazy (/unlikely). You're telling me publishers have a problem with used sales but they'll go along with this? This would be magnitudes more damaging to them than used sales.

I would use this for single player games quite a bit. Multiplayer and coop are a bit more difficult since I'd probably want to be playing with the people on my friends list which would require separate purchases.

Why have they been so secretive about this function? Why is the only time they've brought it up been in their confusing "here's how our DRM works" post on their website? This sounds like a selling point of the console and they're treating it like it's nothing. It's literally the only positive thing I've read about their online-check DRM requirement scheme and they don't seem to want people to know about it.

@spaceinsomniac said:

The reason they would "allow" this is because Microsoft's aim was never to to disable loaning your game to a friend. That was never their intention at all--the loss of this is a side effect in order to gain something else. There is a major difference between those two things. The reason this "feature" as you know it (we'll get back to this in a second) of lending games is becoming obsolete is because of one simple thing: The Xbox One is designed to be primarily a digital games console, because the digital age is coming whether you like it or not. It is highly, highly likely that the generation that follows this one will no longer rely on optical drives whatsoever. You're going to have to move to digital sometime if you plan to be involved in this industry, and right now, Microsoft is actually making the smart technological move (even if from a marketing perspective they have not). By having a system in which you can exchange and trade-in digital games, they are actually innovating in a way that none of these other major gaming platforms really have. Will Sony do the same with their digital offerings? Maybe, but I highly doubt it at this point as they really don't want to put any more emphasis on digital in order to set themselves apart from Microsoft (which, in a few years, will really hurt them, in my opinion).

Now, this is going to be a long post, but the confusion around here is pretty hilarious, and baffling.

Essentially, Microsoft is preparing for the future by attempting to find a medium between disc-based and digital solutions as we know them. They do not want to go all-digital for a number of reasons--a primary one being that they still want to be in brick and mortar stores like Wal-Mart, and downloading 30GB games isn't really something some people will want to do with bandwidth as it is. Their goal is not to take anything away from consumers, but to give them options in an increasingly digital age. Much of the outrage directed at the Xbox One is nonsensical only because Microsoft's directive and direction is completely misunderstood. There are plenty of things to disagree with, but people have gotten outraged without even understanding what it is that they're doing. They aren't trying to hurt your feelings--they're trying to create a real full-service platform akin to Steam.

Right now, there aren't really mainstream examples of how to do digital lending when it comes to high-ticket items like full gaming titles. Microsoft is trying their hand at it, and they are being pretty generous with what they're allowing. The family plan idea is a great one, in which you and a close friend could pair up and share a joint game library. You could both play Battlefield or Titanfall or Forza with only you having registered the game on your account. This is exciting and unprecedented territory that could bring about a new era of multiplayer gaming. Lending your friend a game for a weekend will be completely obsolete with such a situation, because you two could be doing something better: playing the game together. This goes for singleplayer games, too. You can go in on a game with $30 each, and so long as you strategically do so, can share games left and right.

So, for me, I believe the Xbox One to be an example of the future of console gaming with some very exciting prospects. There are still some things to work out and some things I'm not entirely sold on yet, but I like to think for myself and weigh things objectively. There will be collectors who want to display their gaming cases on their shelves to their friends (which they can still do, pointless as it is), but for me, having my entire digital library available without ever having to swap another disc to change games is far more of a selling point. The fact that I can take my Xbox One and a controller to a friend's and have all of my games loaded in it is another thing I find brilliant--no more forgetting games, no more carrying cases around everywhere. Personally speaking, the only thing I'm worried about is whether I can also store my games on an external HDD. Indications are that we can, and if so, that will make the Xbox One my go-to console without any doubt.

I own basically every console and game device from the past two decades (including an N-Gage), and that includes a PS3 and will include a PS4. The Xbox One is getting a poor rap right now, but that's going to change once people realize what the console actually does offer. Part of the confusion is on Microsoft's part, and part of it is on sensational articles such as those published daily by sites like Kotaku. Not taking a measured approach to questions you do not yet have the answers to is what creates confusion and hysteria. Once you think about it logically and objectively, the merits of the Xbox One and what it's trying to do become very easy to understand and to see for what they are.

On one last related note: People worried about the servers being shut down in "20 or 30 years" are really worried about a completely moot point. Microsoft is, was, and has been one of the most powerful corporations in the world that does and will continue to dominate a large portion of the tech market. This authentication database is a very meager thing to handle. You should be far more worried about Steam shutting down than Microsoft. If the day did come that Microsoft (one of the largest corporations in the world) was no longer able to support the console's authentication system (which involves downloading what I estimate would be at most a 100kb file, which would take 15 seconds on dial-up speeds, by the way, and could easily be downloaded with a cell phone tether when away), I believe it incredibly likely they would implement an update solution that simply disabled the online check-in because the online check-in is basically only there because of trading in games and the exchange of licenses therein. Since trading in Xbox One games isn't going to be too likely 30 years from now, it will serve no purpose, and thus your only actual issue would be adding new games. It's possible, also, that Microsoft would simply create an update to the console that simply flipped the switch: from that point, new games wouldn't need authentication keys, but would instead just be required to be in the drive at all times while playing. There are plenty of solutions to this far-future problem that really don't matter, because there's really not going to be much profit for Microsoft to make 30 years from now on the Xbox One generation. There are a million solutions to this problem that's coming in three decades.

Maybe a case of Cover Your Ass? They pick a number so large that only the largest, most edge case families would ever run into it?

As far as the going in halfs with someone, maybe they're relying on the inherently untrusting nature of the common human? I have a hard time imagining that I would trust going in half with a complete stranger, or even someone I consider a friend. What happens when your friend decides that he wants to transfer the license to his brother, cousin, etc? If you paid for half a game and then it's suddenly gone, that's....bad.

@mourne: As I mentioned before, locking the DRM requirements at the SYSTEM level has no affect on being prepared for "the inevitable all digital future". Saying "the digital age is coming, whether you like it or not", is the exact approach Mircosoft took and from a business and PR perspective it is the wrong approach. Consumers decide what the future of gaming is going to be, and if Microsoft wants to help shape that future offer services and conveniences consumers love and are willing to pay for, instead of shoving it down their throats. Their System-wide policies in no way will play a roll in an all digital future. They need to offer a service via the marketplace where consumers CHOOSE to purchase digitally because it is a) easier b) cheaper and c) more convenient. How does Microsoft's policies do this? How did they make a "smart technological move"?

@mourne: A couple of things.

1. I do not believe the family shared library system is meant to be their solution for lending, I believe it is meant to replicate situations where there are multiple Xbox in a household and one person buys a game then passes it around. I think there will be additional hurdles to jump over, some sort of verification process or something of that sort to be part of someone's "family." I say this because Microsoft stated that "loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners." This isn't supposed to replace loaning, I don't believe, it's something else.

2. You said their goal isn't to take anything away from the consumers but that's exactly what they're doing. "We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers." They are taking away my freedom to chose which games to resell and where to sell them to. Ebay, craglist, my friend down the block? Nope, and if some publishers decide (I doubt they will) then I won't be able to resell specific games at all.

3. The original Xbox live is no longer available. Why am I supposed to believe Microsoft will be running XBL: One Edition in 20 years? Without that verification ping my console is a movie-playing, tv-watching brick.

Information taken from http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/main

Why would you be playing a Xboxone in 20 years?

@the_laughing_man: Because I dragged out my SNES two weeks ago and beat Super Mario World.

If I pay $60 for a game or $500 for a system I don't want to have to rely on the generosity of Microsoft to keep their servers running to ensure I can play it whenever I want. They have shut off servers in the past, that's a fact. That doesn't mean XB1 servers are guaranteed to be shut down in the near or not-so-near future, but it does mean that I'll always have that thought in the back of my mind when eyeing the console.

@the_laughing_man: I thought it was obvious they didn't actually mean family members literally? I'd hardly call this covering their ass, it was pretty obvious.

And the 2 max at a time was already confirmed from the info they put out on their website.

@mourne: Then why not point it out? Why call it a feature for families that "certain people" will circumvent, if the intent is actually to enable loaning for everyone? To me this is a selling point bigger than anything else they have.

I'm guessing they're talking about roommates, so both the feature's name (as it would be meant for families, but Microsoft can't reasonably distinguish between family member and roommate) and who these "certain people" are make sense. You're assuming "certain people" refers to absolutely everyone, that they've named the feature in a misleading manner and that they're being extremely vague for no reason while completely failing to inform the consumers that this great feature exists.

I'll be interested to know more of the feature, but I don't think they'd be hiding anything pro-consumer about the Xbone at this point.

@zornack: Doesn't it seem more likely to you that they'd just disable the authentication at the point of shutting down Xbox Live for the Xbox One? I mean, it'd be preferential if they'd come out and say what their plan is for when that time comes, but my logical conclusion isn't that they'd just deny you access from all of your games because they could. There's no money in it for them that far down the road, so the assumption that they'd just screw all Xbox One owners over at that point seems nonsensical. For as little as I care about the Xbox One, I'm not following the reasoning on this one.

No Birth Certificate necessary, your credit card will work just fine ;)

I mean more as in their wording so far has been what is screwing them.

They should have said " Share your digital game library with 10 of your friends and family. Any two people can access the same game at once. Play Forza with your friend from one digital copy"

I still find the idea that Microsoft would allow two people to play the same game at the same time to be nigh unbelievable. It's counter to almost every single policy they have outlined here. Why would they put all these efforts to restrict used games, loaning and trading and then allow you to essentially get a free copy of every game you have to share with a friend? That makes no sense.

I mean why would they call it 'Family' anything if they aren't even trying to limit to family only. The name just breeds confusion.

I don't think people typically have that kind of trouble trusting their friends.

And thinking about this further, this policy would absolutely destroy sales for a lot of games after the first week or so. Let's say this system were already in place and I decided now that I'd like to play Bioshock Infinite: rather than buy a copy I could just ask on these forums for somebody to add me to their 'family' group for a week or two. This would be tantamount to keeping used game sales, except if all used games were priced at $0 and the original owner retained the ability to play them. ie. it would be multitudes more damaging than used game sales in their current form.

There must be more restrictions to this system which we don't know about yet.

@leftie68 said:

The fact that it is at the system level is what makes it flexible to change later and is its biggest strength in this regard. Saying that "system-wide" policies won't play a part in the "digital future" is nonsense, as that's exactly what will determine it. It will be the same for every console going forward that relies on digital media that is tied to one's account. The smart technological move here comes from the fact that you are getting a digital copy of your game in the form of a physical one. When you assign the game to your account, you can redownload that game at any time so long as you have not traded in its license at participating retailers and such. Of course, you can also just install it from the disc. From a technological perspective, Microsoft is covering both the physical and digital markets while readying for the digital future. It's a smart and ambitious move that you'll come to recognize in the future. Having your games stored digitally is easier--much easier--when it comes to accessing them, just like I said in my other post. You can store your entire game library on the Xbox One hard drive and an external, and never have to insert their discs to play them again. This is infinitely more convenient than seeking out each disc you want to play for each game, especially with expanding libraries that we have now. With Microsoft being in control of the marketplace ala Steam, it will be feasible to have discount sales that they otherwise couldn't because the publishers had no control over the used game market before. They were creating competition for themselves with each new copy sold that re-entered the market as a used game. Like with Steam, they will now have much more control over the discounts to their games, and that will benefit everyone (apart from GameStop).

All the same, if you really think pandering gamers who are always seemingly-resistant to any sort of change and anything that deviates from staying the course will really determine what these companies do, you're fooling yourself. Look how many people complained about online passes. Look how many people complain about annual Call of Duty titles. Look how many boycotts there have been over things like LAN support and private servers. These direction-deciding gamers you mention that are the face of determining the future are either completely ineffective or simply, and more likely, feeble.

I won't be, but I also won't be playing my PS2, PS3, or 360 then either. Virtually every worthwhile game that I would want to revisit is likely to be ported or be available on future systems given the current trend. As technology advances, it becomes easier and easier to emulate past systems on current ones. But, truthfully, I'll be fine without my PS3 and 360 games in 20-30 years. The reason this was mentioned in my post is the sheer amount of people that bring this argument up.

1. I did not mean to imply it was to replace lending; apologies if it was muddled by being surrounded by other points. However, the solution is still completely open to that lending mentality I went over at length and is not being discouraged by Microsoft. Their executive has endorsed it outright because it really isn't a real threat to sales as you still have to behave like a family to take advantage of it. The fact that Microsoft has already said they are planning renting and lending programs (which I consider utterly unnecessary in this day and age, personally) is already far more than is really, truly necessary. We are clinging to age-old conventions because it's what we know, but it really is just holding us back in other ways (as explained in earlier parts of this post and my earlier one).

2. Their goal is not to take anything away from consumers--their goal is to take something away from GameStop and restore what GameStop has taken to the publishers, which is what that quote actually means. The fact that you can't freely loan games to a friend as of this moment is a side effect, not a goal. As I said and cautioned originally, there is a big difference between those words. Right now, Sony and Nintendo have no system in place for dealing with digital purchases (which are the future) and their license transfers. I suspect Sony will keep it the same as the PS3, which will put them behind when it's time for the next generation.

3. If you read my other post, you would see that I already covered this in depth. Keep in mind that a major factor in turning off the original Xbox's service was because Xbox Live had expanded far beyond what they ever initially imagined when the Xbox's inner software was designed. Downloadable content and downloadable games were not such a prevalent part of gaming at the time, and since the original Xbox was not capable of such robust updates to bring it up to speed, they discontinued support. This is no longer the case for a system even like the 360, which has evolved substantially in the past seven years. More importantly, its Xbox Live functionality had no bearing on its status as an operational device. As such, shutting off its access to Xbox Live didn't change much for that system. For this system, doing so would disable the device *UNLESS IT WERE UPDATED* (Please read my past post, as I covered a litany of scenarios in which this can be addressed), so the situations aren't really comparable as far as I'm concerned, from an engineering and ecosystem perspective. This system, like the 360, can and will be updated plenty of times. DRM wasn't a thing with consoles back in 2001 (hell, they were hardly "online" back then compared to what we have now), but as is the case with the 360, Microsoft can and will continue to honor DRM purchases into the far distant future, and let me explain why.

Everything Microsoft does, and everything Sony does, with their digital content will continue to be tied to accounts. These accounts will have licenses associated with them, whether it's your games ("full" games or downloaded games), your DLC, your movies, your music, etc. These licenses are not going to become harder to authenticate in the future as they will still be associated with your account and will be authenticated just by you logging in. These authentication processes are being designed to be compatible with one another. Your Xbox Live Gamertag has your 360 purchases on it, and will soon have Xbox One on it. This isn't a hard thing for them to manage, and it won't be. It really is as simple as allowing you to log in to older devices with the same account that will be supported indefinitely, and since Microsoft has explicitly stated this is the case, it's really a complete non-issue. You will be able to use your same Xbox Live Gamertag on the Xbox One and the Xbox 360, just like you will on the Xbox 4 and Xbox 5 and any other offshoots of the brand Microsoft comes with. All of your content licenses will fall under this account, thus making it not an Xbox One thing but a Microsoft thing. So long as Microsoft is still around and they still have accounts that have content tied to them, you're going to be fine on the Xbox One. The worry shouldn't be what Microsoft will do with the Xbox One in 30 years, it's whether Microsoft will still be around to authenticate all of their products. Given that they are a bit of a fixture in basically every tech market, the answer is: Yes, they will be around. They will be authenticating copies of Windows, games for Xbox, and everything else they sell along those lines. For a very long time to come. For longer than you are alive.

They were very specific about this particular part of it here: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/xbox-one-allows-you-to-share-games-with-ten-family-members-but-some-details

Foremost, no, this isn't about replacing loaning. Read my most recent post before this one for more information on that. What I was saying is that this system will solve a lot of the worries that people originally had about people not being able to play with their brother and sister who have another Xbox in the house while also taking it a step further and giving consumers some serious value for their money. You can now play the same game together, instead of just being able to play it separately.

The details are pretty simple on this. You have to trust the people you're adding to your family. That's the built-in, inherent security measure. You'll see that I'm right about it, promise.

Is that what they said or is that what you think it was for? I've heard stories about married couples with kids having problems with the family pack - pretty sure they were a family.

OK, you know what, brace yourselves, I'm about to say something positive about the Xbox One.

Having the ability to let two people play the same digital copy of a game at the same time is cool. It's not something Sony's mentioned, and it's definitely not something possible with physical games. I've run into situations where I want to play co-op with a cousin or something, but he doesn't have a copy of the game. I paid for it, why shouldn't we be able to play it together?

...I'm still getting a PS4, but that is a neat future.

Presumably there will be a master account that "owns" the game. That account will always be able to play, but then there will need to be either a way to set one of your 10 F&F as your +one for that game, or it will come down to luck of the draw.

If it's the former, and the master account has to designate someone as the +one, then how many people would want to take a chance like that with someone who isn't either their friend, or a roomie. if you gave in half for your buddy to buy a game, and then he decides to designate his girlfriend as the +one instead, you're out 30.00 or whatever.

If it's luck of the draw, then how many times would you put up with trying to play a game only to find out that the +one spot is already taken, before you bought the game yourself.

Loaning digital games: Go into your games collection, find a game, select options, select loan game, select a single gamertag, you have now loaned that game to a single friend. You are no longer able to play that game until you take it back by selecting "return game license" in the same menu. This is assuming that they even WANTED you to be able to loan digital games, which makes no business sense whatsoever, and isn't even expected or demanded by most customers.

Loaning physical games: Select installed game, select remove from hard-drive and disable license, loan disc to your friend. You are no longer able to play that game until getting it back from your friend, and re-installing the game.

But MS didn't do either of these things. They've invalidated my property rights because they felt it makes better business sense, but you--and they for that matter--want me to believe that they would be just fine with me playing the equivalent of $6.00 each for every 10 day-one-release retail games?

Did anyone actually think they would check for ID's and see if you are really family?

No. Did you actually think that people would think that?

People assumed they would be sub-accounts, and highly limited in functionality.

The fact that there is so much confusion highlights just how unnatural these types of contracts are. EULAs that restrict what the purchaser can do with a product after the sale are an abomination. An unnatural perversion of what a sale means on a fundamental level.

If your business model is this complex and perverted does it really deserve to exist?