: 1. It's much much faster than giving it to a friend. If you have a shared
: library, it's basically 10 people owning 1 game.

I highly doubt this would be how sharing works. At best, it's 10 people owning a share of the game. Non-consecutive play was a probable limitation, as was time limits to the borrower. It's also probable that the actual owner always had priority access. So, no - it's nothing like that.

: 2. You don't have much of an incentive to sell it to someone.

This point loses steam if sharing is more like I imagine.

: This whole model just doesn't make snese as a whole, and that is the whole
: point of this post.

Wholly.

: Sure, it sounds cool and awesome if it was true, but
: it doesn't make sense as a whole. Which is why I think the Demo mode was
: true.

Um, patently denied for starters, and again, I highly doubt it's as cool as a whole as you are making it out to be. Have been, it's axed (for now) so we may not ever know. But if you're thinking of all of these obvious exploits, it's pretty darn likely that Microsoft did as well.

: PS I know that they said that the demo mode was a false claim, but at this
: point, they can say anything about it that they want to. They could make
: it seem like you could have 100 people play the game at the exact same
: time if they felt like saying that. Anything for damage control at this
: point.

But they didn't do anything like that; quite the opposite: they actually pointed out that we asked for the "old way" back and it cost us the new features. Is that necessary? I think not; I've pointed out that if the check-ins were based on actual events calling for verification and not an arbitrary schedule, it would probably have gone down smoother (and still allowed for the traditional model with disc-based games).