Savyg wrote:I don't know how they'd actually enforce that 'family members' requirement.
They clarified it to mean friends... (Occam's razor, it would not be possible to distinguish an adopted, long distance family member from a random person)
cynan wrote:So you think it would have been feasible for MS to implement a system where you could choose to be connected to the internet and share you digital games, or choose not to have to be connected to the internet and not share them? That sounds like a logistical nightmare to me. if it was implementable, it would mean the minute you share a game, you can no longer play any other digital game you may own (one that you don't have the disc to put in the drive to verify that you are currently in possession of the rights to play) without being connected. It can't just be on a per game basis. They need to make sure that if someone on your share list is playing, you nor anyone else on the share list are not playing at the same time. This requires all on the share list to be online. And the online requirement was one of the major issues MS received flack for.
An access control list?!?!?! That has never been done in the history of computing...The owner as described, was allowed to run concurrently with one person on the shared list, as such, the owner would not need to check the access list. However, shared users would need to connect at least every access attempt to gain permissions (most likely continuous
during the run of the game depending on how strict they want to be in propagating changes in permissions). MS did receive flak for the online requirement, but IMO that would be a "fair" trade off for essentially a "free game" and only is necessary during the run of the game.