your not going to be able play your current game while loading the next...

You can't now, but on Xbox One you will... Busy right now but look up Marc Whitten tech talk interviews. He stated it will be like a flip of the channel going back and forth between games.

I agree.. I live in a big mansion where my games are laying in a different room 600 meters from my TV and console.. I have to like walk like 3 minutes to get to that room and then 3 minutes back if I want to switch a disk.. blame my gf for not wanting my games placed with my console..

So basically another thread saying we should be mad MS changed the policy? If they did not convince us before it was changed this really does come out as a lot of whining if you are trying to change opinions now. I suppose you could try a twitter campaign asking for them to reverse policy again. As otherwise I see whining, again, and again.

No not at all... Your post above is the reason why this thread exists.

People just posting "DRM is the devil" and attacking anyone that supported it without understanding any benefits it offers and why some people may appreciate the features it offers.

Not saying anything should be reversed... both sides hae options now on both consoles.

So your accusing me of attacking people or other members? If this is an attack it is because your arguements are banal so I finally said something.

I am aware their would be some benifits, but they would not be universal for everyone. Clearly they would benifit you, but everyone has a very different situation. Either way, I am mostly saying take action, or otherwise you just sound very bitter due to the great number of threads.

That's...ridiculous. I'd bet you are the ONLY person EVER which has to walk 1,2km to change a game, though...

on phone and can't quote.

you'll be able to swap between games and tv, and skype, and other OS features but not games. you can't give a game access to 5 GB of RAM and give that same 5 GB to another game.. it's just not possible unless MS only lets games have half the available resources.

it will be just like my fully digital vita. i can pause a game and use the internet and psn store and trophies and every other feature buried in the OS reserved system resources but when i click on another game i have to close the first one first.

what's with  gamers who have not fast enough internet to download the games digitally in an acceptable time? i mean, we had the argument that the 24 hours check is horrible because a few people have no interent at all or very unstable. if that is true, the possibility to download big games is a much much bigger problem for many more people.

i also don't see that as big problem at all with disc swapping but if the 24hours check was a problem for so many people, downloading games has to be a horror scenario for a huge amount of gamers.

So Xbox360 fans said swapping discs in order to play through a single game was absolutely no problem ans PS3 had zero real advantage by only ever having one disc per game. Now, swapping discs to change from one game to the next is a major hassle and life is over now that XB1 doesn't have it.

Have I summed it up right?

I'm also inclined to go with the assumption that any "flick a switch" claim being made in relation to swapping between games isn't going to work as advertised. Just like family share wasn't going to work as the PR spin was making out. You can go from game to TV or Blu-ray movie no problem because that takes basically no CPU, GPU or RAM, resource. But loading one game at the same time as playing another is a significant CPU, GPU and RAM drain. It basically means a substantial amount of processing resource has to be effectively sitting idle on the off chance you'll want to load a game while you're playing another. That doesn't sound like optimal utilisation of hardware. Either that or the game you're currently playing is going to suffer performance problems while the background loading is happening.