I expected to be disgruntled at that "25 list", but it was actually fairly well represented. Most of those I could not argue with. That said, there was a LOT of redundancy on those points.
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.