CunningSmile wrote:more stuff.
I don't see it working though, Cunning. For every person that co-ordinate their purchases because not everyone in their 'clan' can afford to buy the game, they would be far more people who could afford to buy the game, but don't because their mate has already done so. I would suspect that sales of some games would simply plummet. The big multiplayer games, the CoD's, BF's, Halo's etc. would probably not suffer too badly, as more than one person would need to access the game at the same time, but the smaller games, or those that are bought for their solo content, would potentially see sales drop below the limit of sustainability.
I totally accept that Microsoft needed (and possibly still need!) to sugar-coat their product, and quite possibly that the Digital Sharing was seen as that sweetener, but I suspect that not only was the DS not what it was presumed by many to be, but that it was pulled in the 180 because MS knew they couldn't take another hit, and that the expectations of the consumer were much higher than MS were capable of meeting.
To hear them speak about it now is like having a guy bragging about the size of his endowment, only to get into the changing rooms after a football match and wear shorts in the team bath; it doesn't happen! You wiggle it with pride!. If it is as good as was said, Microsoft would be waving their willy for all to see, not hiding it behind the 180!