I fail to see how the audience of Facebook and the audience of OR intersect. Which might make sense from a business point of view if I had any notion that Facebook knew how to appeal to that new audience.
Luddite's forum posts
They reviewed the console? How? If you're only reviewing it in the context of the games and you've already reviewed the games, how does going further make sense? I wouldn't expect an intelligent statement on the consoles themselves to be plausible less than 6 months post release.
Meh, doesn't seem like a really big thing. It'd be great if the ladyfriend could play stuff on my account while I was playing a different game on my account, but as it is it's just a way to have a marginally more secure method of more than one individual using a set of login credentials.
Microsoft can say whatever they want about the feature now that it won't be a reality. They as a business were SUPPOSED to make their case when we first started paying attention, not after they drop the policy while proclaiming how great it totally would have been.
@sephirm87: You go to business with the audience you have, not the audience you wish you had.
Ultimately, Microsoft demanded a lot of concessions in exchange for fairy dust and magic beans. Whether it was a failure of messaging or actual policy is indeterminable at this point, as they never concretely stated what we would be getting in exchange for those concessions. Their allusions were not bankable, I don't care about sports, or tv, or kinect, and thus I was clearly not a customer that they wanted.
Does that make me backwards? Not my problem. I am part of the potential audience, and I don't give up my consumer rights unless there is some quid fuckin' pro quo.
I think they're throttling the experience too hard. It won't be long before online matches become impenetrable for new players, who will leave out of frustration rather than spend all their tokens on constantly losing. I'd bet a cosmetic selling model would have generated more revenue in the long run.
The Steam model works because Steam is way way looser with its pricing. It will regularly and consistently downshift price to match consumer demand, rather than insist that demand match its price. They also reliably have big sales for patient gamers. While I can't share my games, I also nearly never pay full price for a game. Add in several other features and functions of Steam, and you have a value package. Yes, you have a type of DRM, but Valve has made it a value proposition.
Microsoft's problem is that they have failed to make it a value proposition. In exchange for DRM, they're offering the 'infinite power of the cloud'. I know bullshit when I hear it, thank you very much. And the day that changing the disc represents an onerous task is the day I put down the controller and get some more damn exercise. What Microsoft needs to do, and I don't think they will because they have a captive audience, is an aggressive pricing approach for their digital media.