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.

The Cloud

• The Xbox One will heavily use the cloud in many areas. Some games will use it for boosted performance, and as a result will require internet access. Other features include the sharing of your games with family, the auto-updating of games and environments when you are not playing them, allowing access to your content from anywhere you want without the discs.
• The Haters: My internet is not fast enough for that! The Cloud would require too much speed/bandwidth! Xbox One is done!
• The Solution: Microsoft clarified that for optimal performance you only need internet speed of 1.5Mbps. This is more than acceptable and this is just for "Optimal" performance. Cellular 3G has speeds of 1.5-3.5Mbps, while 4G speeds can range from 10-50Mbps! The slowest DSL offerings are usually at 1.5-3.0Mbps as well. You will likely only need a very short amount of connection to do the daily "check". A quick 3G cell phone connection and you're on your way.

• The Solution: Microsoft has clearly stated that you can use cellular internet access to do these checkins. I realize that there are still many people out there without internet or are in rural areas where it is harder to get. However, cellular broadband has made great gains and while it still won't cover everywhere, it will decrease this issue quite drastically. Also, this is something easily changed and it could be extended, for example, to 7 days, or 30 days.
  
  

1.5mps "basic broadband" wouldn't be enough to cloud compute even PS3 games. I recommend you an interesting read DigitalFoundry has about MS Cloud (they are the same guys who nailed every Xbone and PS4 leaked specs):

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

Just a quote from the article:

"Average broadband speeds in the developed world struggle to reach over 8mbps as of Q3 last year - that's only one megabyte per second. This means that whatever cloud computing power is available, consoles will have available to them an average of 1MB/s a second of processed data. If we compare that to the sort of bandwidth consoles are used to, the DDR3 of Xbox One is rated at around 68,000MB/s, and even that wasn't enough for the console and had to be augmented with the ESRAM.

The PS4 memory system allocates around 20,000MB/s for the CPU of its total 176,000MB/s. The cloud can provide one twenty-thousandth of the data to the CPU that the PS4's system memory can. You may have an internet connection that's much better than 8mbps of course, but even superfast fibre-optic broadband at 50mbps equates to an anaemic 6MB/s. This represents a significant bottleneck to what can be processed on the cloud, and that's before upload speed is even considered. Upload speed is a small fraction of download speed, and this will greatly reduce how much information a job can send to the cloud to process. "

And this is how they end the article:

"Microsoft needs to prove its position with strong ideas and practical demonstrations. Until then, it's perhaps best not to get too carried away with the idea of a super-powered console, and there's very little evidence that Sony needs to be worried about its PS4 specs advantage being comprehensively wiped out by "the power of the cloud"."

JWeinCom said:

 Mach said
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.  

You cannot abuse the system I mentioned because you missed the last part.  In order to add someone as a family member, each family member must be the same on all consoles.  Meaning if you have setup 10 family members on your console and one is a friend.  On your friend console he would need to have added all nine of your family members as his family.  This would restrict people abusing the system.  Now if you had 10 buddies and you form a family, then you all can just pool in and purchase one game and share it amoug each other ;)

Mach said:  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.

Depends on the publishers.  If its EA or Activision then you could have that scenerio but then if you do not buy their games, they will get the message.  The thing is, consumers what publishers to show them they have their best interest at heath but consumers need to do the same thing.  Small scale pirating and game swapping will not cause publishers to bring out the restrictions but if large scale stuff start to happen, what do you think they will or even should do.

Mach said: 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.

Interesting, I just got the Nokia phone for Verison and the hotspot is active without any additional money.  Someone mentioned that that they would need to pay more money for this feature on the Iphone.  I wonder if this is isolated to just the Iphone.

Mach said: 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.

Probelm with the 360 end is that CD checks are the easiet thing to break.  It was the first thing to be cracked on the 360 so as a means of protection, it would be the weakest link in the chain and easily exploitable.  I do not believe anyone even uses CD checks anymore besides consoles.

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.

The full install is there because MS does not want to have a system that splits between streaming from the Blu-Ray or retrieving from the HDD.  I agree it should just be retrieve from the HDD because the Blu-Ray is the weakest part in the chain when needing data.   Having everything streamed from the HDD means MS can optimized streaming from a much faster source and standardize their API calls that way.  Case in point would be Halo 3 and a few other games when installed on the HDD.  Halo 3 actually performed slower when running from the HDD then the CD because its cache scheme was designed for the CD.  Many games do not see any real performance difference when installed from the HDD because the 360 was not designed that way.