I tried to write a post, then I read this and thought "why bother".RJ 17 said:Sorry my friend, but that's just plain wrong.Zelgon said:Family Sharing
Now this is what excited me most out of everything.
There was a lot of speculation about what this really means, but I?ll break it down. It meant you and 10 people could be in a ?family? and share your libraries. You and the ?parent? could play the same game together, and anyone in the family could play the full version of the games. I know there was some debate if this meant just a trial run of the game, but Spenser confirmed with Kotaku in a interview that it was the full game, no restrictions. Since all the policies were taken out, we will never see how that would have looked like. Needless-to-say it was going to be an exciting new feature that everyone would enjoy.
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself with your argument of "DRM is a necessity because the companies are constantly battling piracy" then go on to explain how piracy works by ripping off other people's games and just not taking your console online and the assertion that the Family Sharing Program would allow people to have 100% complete unrestricted access to the games, right? Don't you see how that's essentially allowing 10 people on everyone's friends list to "legally pirate" those games? If they can play them any time they want for however long they want, it's just the same as them owning the game without having to pay for it.......how is that not the same as what pirates do? Do you honestly think MS (and game companies, for that matter) would be perfectly fine with a system that promotes millions of players not having to pay for games?
When it's mentioned that the Family Sharing Program would allow unrestricted access to the full version of the game, it was for a limited time only before they'd be prompted to buy the game for themselves. While a demo will keep certain features locked out, the Family Sharing would indeed allow complete access to the full game: meaning there would be no features locked out. MS itself said that they were still kicking around ideas on how it would work, most likely giving those who were "borrowing" the game 45 minutes to an hour to play the game before being prompted to buy it (the source being an article on this website that I've searched for 3 times and can't seem to find otherwise I'd link it).
And when you think about it, unless they want 10 people on everyone's friends list getting free access to games they haven't bought for themselves, that's the only way it COULD work: let them play it for a while before telling them to buy it for themselves.
With regards to DRM:
Everyone has known about and hated the restrictions of DRM since long before the Xbox One declared that it would be using it, so people hating the Xbox One for using it shouldn't come as any surprise. It's not an argument you're going to win. Everyone knows it's about anti-piracy, but everyone also knows that means your ability to play the games you bought and paid for is dependent entirely upon your internet connection and the stability of the servers. If the servers go down: you're boned. Your internet connection goes down: you're boned. One needs only look at the disasters that were SimCity and Diablo III to see why all the hate for it is well-deserved. Just saying it's a necessary evil isn't going to change anyone's hearts on that matter.
With regards to the Kinect:
Beyond the fact that it's just plain creepy, the fact remains that it was a failed product when MS first tried it on the 360. Did Sony come out and say "The Playstation Move controllers are now the mandatory controllers for the PS4!"? Nope. They learned their lesson: motion capture just isn't popular. No need to stuff it down people's throats. MS, on the other hand, said "Screw consumer's opinion on the matter, we're going to charge and extra $100 and force this thing "no one"(exaggerating) asked for onto EVERYONE!" The reason developers didn't make games for the Kinect was because relatively few people bought the thing, so there was no point in investing in it. Why did only a relative few people buy it? Because the majority of people didn't want it. Shipping it with every Xbox One isn't going to change the fact that many people don't want to dance around like a Loony Toon in their living rooms to play a game. And once again you contradict yourself. Sure, people can completely turn it off if they want to, but if more games are developed with Kinect features shoehorned in, they'll have to keep it turned on. And then we're right back to all the audio/visual/biometric spying that creeped people out about it in the first place.
With regards to the games coming out at launch:
Well what games are good and what games aren't is entirely opinion based. Though I will say that quantity does not equate to quality.
In summation: I'm not an MS hater, I've just looked at what they brought to the table and said "Nope, not interested". No amount of spin from you or MS is going to change the fact that I just don't want an Xbox One. I'm not particularly interested in a PS4, for that matter, either...so at the moment it looks like I'll likely be signing up for the genetic enhancements needed to join the PC Master Race when all is said and done.
Good summary. So good, I feel like quoting the entire thing in case someone missed it. Bravo sir.