: But if Jeff sells the game to you, he can't play it anymore circumvented be
: sold back. If he shared it with both of us we could set up a schedule
: where we ALL get to play on different days, and now they have just lost 2
: sales. There is no more use for the whole "Selling games online"
: idea when it can be completely circumvented by another similar feature on
: the box. Not to mention if we go to the max of 10. It doesn't make sense
: for them to do this if they are so against used games. A smart group of
: gamers could force 10 lost sales on 1 game. And they had to make it so
: that you could add and remove people from that list. Does that mean a
: potentially limitless amount of lost sales? That seems even worse to the
: creators of the game.

You and I clearly have different ideas of what works, in terms of sharing games. You're willing to go to much greater lengths than I am in terms of 'scheduling fun time' - if I have time to play a game, I don't want to mess around with whether I'm on the schedule to play it today. If it's something I have a casual interest in, the idea of being on a list with 10 other people who MIGHT be able to play it is great - if it's something I really want to play a lot, I'll either try and convince Jeff to sell it to me, or I'll buy my own copy.

The different features they'd proposed make sense to me - there were tradeoffs that seemed reasonable to me across the board. (I wasn't at all happy with the 'bricked if offline for more than 24 hour' provision, but we're talking about the game sharing stuff.)

It doesn't make as much sense to you - fine. You're happier that they've switched to this model - I'm a bit saddened that they've backed off an interesting path. (I think we'll probably get back to it before too long.)