So what's the definition of a ''hater'' according to the OP anyways?

Why would it force Sony? Easy answer, big greedy publishers could side with the most DRM-pro console and not support the other. It's an easy answer, really. In order to not lose third party support, the console maker has no choice but to add DRM too. Of course this could happen to Sony.

14 billion or not, I still think it is PR bullshit. All the tech-savvy guys over the Internet are stating that it is physically impossible with our current Internet speeds. MS is using this PR stunt to hide the lack of power of Xbone compared to PS4, and of course and more importantly, to justify people being online all the time.

Even if this cloud processing stuff were awesome and for real, it would still require 100% online, fast connection for all games using the feature. 

Why should he have too? It's a console. The whole point of consoles is to have a simple connect-to-TV box that you can play games on. Just like every console...oh you know, ever.  If I want to play N64, I can plug it into my TV and go. And I will be able to do that in 20 years. And I was able to do it 17 years ago too when it came out. Xbox One on the other hand, requires an online check-in. Remember playing Halo 2 on Xbox? Yeah, you can't do that anymore. So what happens to your 400 dollar console when MS shuts down the X1 servers?

The problem with Xbox One is that it assumes that everyone has access to internet or mobile internet. Not everyone has a smartphone or a computer. Hard to believe I know. But MS is alienating a potentially huge userbase by including this DRM. DRM has no place on a console. If people like your game, they will buy it.

The check in is fucking retarded. I have fine internet in the city, but at my cottage (where I am from May until August) I brought up my 360 to play and I have no internet, so I play single player/splitscreen games. So basically with the Xbox One it would be unusable for the summer months for me while I'm at my cottage. Complete bullshit.

lol I just thought of something actually from your settling mind clarifications, The Xbox ones system for online checking is going to be pretty painful for doing tournaments of games like street fighter, attend a monthly one here in a city nearby and everyone just bags up their systems and brings up some tvs and copies of the game to play in a hall inside a hotel, but would be a pain in the ass if mid way through the tournie someone has to go around with a mobile usb dongle and interupt gaming so that the xbox's would continue to work.

The only solution that will please people is just having an offline mode to the system, it's either that or pray the ps4 does not have the same online check every day.

someone who loves the 360 and everything it's done for gaming? I guess.

dunno if it is different in other contries or other carriers or other platforms but..

..i'm US on an iphone with verizon.  i would have to play an extra $20 a month to be able to turn my phone into a wifi hot spot so i don't have the ability to use cellular broadband.  maybe they expect me to buy a windows phone?

I'll kind of have to see exactly how they do this or how they verify that people are member of your family.

You the game owner select 10 people on your Friends list.  On your Family or Friend console, it will add an encrypted code within the cloud that you are a family member.  Each time you play a game that is owned by a family member it verfiy your account in the cloud and give you access to play.  To get around everyone being a family member chain type of abuse.  The person you select will also have to select you as a family member and each family member you have selected.

First off, the fact that publishers can restrict this option is ridiculous in and of itself.  Also, this means I can't lend a game, and I can't give a game to someone who is not on my friends list for less than 30 days.  Personally, I don't add people on XBL/Miiverse/PSN unless I know there is a particular game I want to play with them.

Well that is an issue but then it plays 2 ways.  Probably by default, the majority of publishers will go by what MS game studios do.  There probably will be special cases where they sell you a game for a huge discount like Steam did with Batman Origins.  Something of that sort they probably want to restrict because you are getting something for basically nothing.  On Steam, you can only play that game from your account and you cannot distribute, loan, Gift or allow another family member to play the game unless they use your account.  Giving publishers control should allow for better control of prices and publishers deals where they are assured that the people that do bad stuff will not take advantage of them.

If I don't own a Smartphone?

Interesting enough, neither did I until about 2 weeks ago.  Even at my job they are giving out smartphones because thats where the industry is going.  For someone like you who do not own a smartphone, I would be interested to see how long you hold out.  Anyway, without a smartphone then your choices are limited.

Well first of all, I don't want to, which was kind of the point.  As for iTunes there are some differences.  Right now, I have my iTunes library on my iPod.  No matter what happens, those songs are on my iPod, and I could play them.  Nothing short of the destruction of my iPod will prevent me from playing them.  I am free to back up my songs on a hard drive, put them on another device, or so on, and I do not have check in with Apple to use them.  There is no question as to whether or not I will be able to play my songs in another ten, twenty, or thirty years.

I agree that since Itunes has moved away from DRM on music its a much better options.  If you purchase movies, TV shows or Audiobooks well thats a totally different situation.

And those services are all digital.  When you're dealing with digital copies, it's a different thing.  I understand that it's not feasible for every iOS game to be put on a disc.  The limitation on content in the iOS marketplace is a natural function of the environment.  It's something that really HAS to be that way (as of now at least).  In contrast, Microsoft is perfectly capable of producing a machine without such limitations, and they are CHOOSING to add more restrictions to the user.  Microsoft is taking an inherent limitation of digital distribution and forcing it upon people who are buying physical media.

If games are installed on the HDD and backed up on the cloud, how else do you think they could do this without someone installing the game, giving it to their friends and pretty much continue to do this forever.  In such a scenerio, a group of people would just pool their money together and purchase a game.  This would be great for consumers but sure would be giving it to the developers/publishers who spent millions.  Lets not act like there are not people in the world who would abuse such a system

Why would it force Sony? Easy answer, big greedy publishers could side with the most DRM-pro console and not support the other. It's an easy answer, really. In order to not lose third party support, the console maker has no choice but to add DRM too. Of course this could happen to Sony.

Its easy to call publishers greedy but in reality these are billion dollar companies who employ a lot of people who need to get paid.  Consumers are quick to call them greedy while they look for every means to not pay for a product.  There is a big double standard that goes on.  Consumers what publishers to give them the world but when asked to pay for it, get an attitude as if these companies are charities.[end rant]

If Sony want publishers support, they need to have a console that sell a lot.  Publishers go where the money is and thats not going to change.  If publishers are pushing for DRM and Sony hasn't already made this agreement a long time ago then they have enough evidence from MS flondering to go their own way.  The thing is, stuff like this isn't decided in a few months.  Either Sony was going down this route a long time ago or they are not but if that was the case I doubt we would still be waiting for an official response from Sony.

14 billion or not, I still think it is PR bullshit. All the tech-savvy guys over the Internet are stating that it is physically impossible with our current Internet speeds. MS is using this PR stunt to hide the lack of power of Xbone compared to PS4, and of course and more importantly, to justify people being online all the time.

The difference between PR BS is the proof.  One part Proof is if the company has actually paid the cost to actually do something.  The second is a product that actually can demostrate the PR.  We all can just call anything that a company does or say as PR BS without taking the time to do some research.  I have done the research because I like to check if what someone says is actually what it is (Political elections started me doing this in my 20s).  So for the first bit of proof, I was able to find the Orleans platform which shows how the software can provide this type of cloud compute.  Its a really complex system and i am looking to see how it works in a real world scenerio.  The second part of the proof is the Rumored Respawn game that is heavily using MS could compute.  Also we might see what Lionhead is doing with their MMO type of new game that also might be using MS could compute.

As to those tech savy people.  If you asked them if they have any clue on the technology MS is using to provide cloud compute what do you believe the answer is.  Have you heard from any developers saying this is PR BS.  In this OP, it states how much bandwidth you need which was 1.5mps which is basic DLS broadband.  The thing is, you are basing your info from internet posters who have no clue on the technology thats being used so they can only make uninformed opinions.  I on the other hand is willing to wait for the games before forming an opinion as it appears we might have some to prove the worth of the cloud during E3.

You the game owner select 10 people on your Friends list.  On your Family or Friend console, it will add an encrypted code within the cloud that you are a family member.  Each time you play a game that is owned by a family member it verfiy your account in the cloud and give you access to play.  To get around everyone being a family member chain type of abuse.  The person you select will also have to select you as a family member and each family member you have selected.

Do you have a link to that?  From what I read, Microsoft did not detail that aspect.  What they said was "Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One." I would be surprised if it works as you said because I would abuse the **** out of that and Microsoft probably knows that I would.  

Well that is an issue but then it plays 2 ways.  Probably by default, the majority of publishers will go by what MS game studios do.  There probably will be special cases where they sell you a game for a huge discount like Steam did with Batman Origins.  Something of that sort they probably want to restrict because you are getting something for basically nothing.  On Steam, you can only play that game from your account and you cannot distribute, loan, Gift or allow another family member to play the game unless they use your account.  Giving publishers control should allow for better control of prices and publishers deals where they are assured that the people that do bad stuff will not take advantage of them.

And, publishers will also use that to prevent people who are doing legitimate stuff from doing what they wish with their games.

Interesting enough, neither did I until about 2 weeks ago.  Even at my job they are giving out smartphones because thats where the industry is going.  For someone like you who do not own a smartphone, I would be interested to see how long you hold out.  Anyway, without a smartphone then your choices are limited.

Which is kind of BS.  I actually do own a smartphone.  I never used the mobile hotspot feature, but I checked it out after Kilter's post.  It's not included in my data plan and I'd have to pay extra for that feature.  So, kind of a no go for me.

If games are installed on the HDD and backed up on the cloud, how else do you think they could do this without someone installing the game, giving it to their friends and pretty much continue to do this forever.  In such a scenerio, a group of people would just pool their money together and purchase a game.  This would be great for consumers but sure would be giving it to the developers/publishers who spent millions.  Lets not act like there are not people in the world who would abuse such a system

Can't I already install games on my 360?  And if I install them, I need the disc to play them.  Seems simple enough.  If I want to access a copy stored on the Cloud, then I would need to check in with Microsoft to make sure I have proper rights to access the content.  Obviously, if I'm playing it on the Cloud or while I'm online in general, I don't have a problem with having to be online... since I'm online... And if I want to play offline, they could require the disc.  Seems simple enough.

Oh and btw, nobody asked for mandatory installs.  I could see the advantage of OPTIONAL installs or cloud storage, but I don't see how forcing installs benefits anyone.