Collecting is dead. In 20 years the games are worthless. That's my main issue about it. If I wasn't a collector I would have purchased all of my multiconsole titles on PC, but because I do collect games I suffer worse graphics, less than 60fps framerate, and high costs on average just so I can own physical copies not tied down with DRM.

Wow just wow. You have to be trolling but in case you are not. I do do WHATEVER i want with my music. I bought that Eve cd, DL it to Itunes put it on my ipod, converted files to WPM, put some tracks on my phone, let my friend borrow it, he gave it back, etc. etc. What you said made no sense at all. Try harder next time. 

OT, really. It just comes down to it being kind of a crap PC game rig. it has all the crap elements of PC gaming but none of the benefits. Hell it doesnt even have the benefits of console gaming. Why would i not just get a gaming PC then, its the same damn thing but much better. Unless i really love MS first party (which i personally dont)

I do like the defenders, like my sad friend i quoted, with possibly some of the worst arguments ive read ever. If it dont effect you and oyu dont care, fair enough. But dont get mad at people who do care, just buy your set top box for whatever the hell it costs play Halo 7 and be jolly.

Just some of the restrictions seem like a pain.

One word: Kinect. Microsoft will basically be violating me with this device.

I do not approve of DRM. It's stupid and it's unfair. However, at the same time, it doesn't really affect me. I own nearly 40 games on 360, and not a single one of them is second-hand.

Always-online doesn't affect me either because I always am online with my PS360.

what happens when a game goes out of print? screw you if you wanted the disc then? Yes there is digital, but are people going to spend 50-60 bucks on a game that came out 3 or more years ago? I wouldnt and a few others i knew wouldnt

Ever heard of a price drop?

I just don't like the way Microsoft is trying to change videogames from a 'product' to a 'service'. I feel that without a sense of ownership over the games, I would be inclined to pay far less for them like I do with steam (nothing over $30 is my rule). I'm not the sort of person that forks out for Pay TV, Netflix, Xbox Live or anything else non-essential. I would like to continue paying for games that I want and just the games that I want.

HDD space isn't infinite. So wasting HDD space by compelling installation of 100% of a disc's contents will become pretty irksome for anyone who buys a substantial number of games. It also limits the space available for XBLA games. So I can see this policy cutting into the sales potential of XBLA titles because people will decide to prioritise HDD space for the on-disc games. So it's conceivable that this requirement could actually depress game sales slightly.

It's another unneccessary impost, making something mandatory that is inherently unnecessary is a bad thing unless a substantial benefit to the consumer can be demonstrated. What's the substantial benefit to the consumer in this? Compulsory install is not a gamer benefit at all, the reason for it is to provide a benefit to MS and/or the publisher. People who think MS and the publishers need more control over gamers will, I suppose, see this compulsion as a good thing. But for those who think MS and publishers don't need more control over gamers mandatory install is an unwelcome imposition.

True there will be a performance benefit to running games of the HDD rather than the BRD. But that will only be a relatively small % performance lift, and this doesn't at all justify this sort of compulsion. Is there a technical reason for why it would be bad for full install to be optional?

Everything other than being able to have you copy of your game save in the cloud.

That there's Three.