Thanks :)

I don't know if I'm going to get one or not.  I haven't even seen the games.  But I don't get the extensive hate, as the policies won't negatively affect me much at all or most of us.  It feels like just being mad for the sake of being mad.

The DRM will not affect me in the slightest and I don't have a crap internet connection that fails daily like most peoples on here seems to do.

Provided the game are there at E3, the main reason I'd buy is the services Microsoft will establish in the knowledge that the vast ,majority of consoles will be connected at all times. Microsoft more than anybody have completely changed the console market in terms of services provided over the last decade. When you look at how the 360 started last gen compared to the end of the gen it was practically unrecognisable in terms of richness of features. I'm very excited about what they envision for the future.

The above is why I'm also not bothered about the competitions consoles at present. The Wii U has yet to show me a killer app worth investing in the gamepad and I'm not the biggest fan of all Nintendo IP's. The PS4 looks to be very powerful but that's about it. Its a PS3 on steroids but seems lacking in innovation. If its just graphics I was bothered about, I'd upgrade my PC. Also other than Uncharted (maybe TLOU once I've played it), there isn't any Sony IP's I'd buy the console for either.

Now the OP probably didn't want to make this a "console war" thread but I just wanted to highlight why the XBO is my current favourite proposition.

Like who? I can only think of 4 major ones, THQ, Pandemic Studios, Team Bondi and Bizarre Creations. But just because some companies are going bankrupt, it don't mean they can restrict my rights as a customer does it?

Do I decide how much these games will cost to make? No.

Does my games retailer sell new games for half price, one month after launch for most games? Yes

I could go on like that, but i don't see how you can blame the customers for the collapse of several developers. Is it so wrong that people recycle their games to partly fund their next purchase? and so those who can't afford £40 to £50 a game can still have a chance to afford to enjoy these great games. Once people buy a good, they can do what they want with it except copy it. That's how a market works and that's how it will always work. You may think DRM may help but it will do more harm than good, people will not stand for it with physical goods. It's barely tolerable with digital goods  

there is a 95% chance i wont buy xbox one... because..
1st i game mostly on nintendo or sony
2nd im a slow adapter.. and all these stuff are so new to me...

My gaming habits will not be changed all that much by the Xbox One. I have a stable internet connection that rarely goes out completely, and anytime I have to move I will make sure I can get a fairly reliable connection (not just for gaming, but for other things as well). I don't sell my games or give them away, I rarely rent games, and it's rarer still for me to borrow games. I'm not really bothered by the whole "lack of game ownership" thing too much; it's a bummer, but it's also a common thing these days when you consider the widespread adoption of iTunes and Kindle (two services I don't currently use, not because of ownership concerns, but because I simply don't listen to much music or read many books).

Simply saying "these things don't affect me" is only part of the story, though. There ARE benefits to the consumer in Microsoft's system that I am looking forward to, namely that you get a digital copy of every game you purchase at retail. I can play any of my games anywhere, regardless of whether I have the disc on me, or even if the disc breaks! I take good care of my discs, but accidents can still happen, and it's nice to know that if my disc breaks I won't need to go to the store and buy a new copy.

If there is one thing that might get me to change my mind on the Xbox One, though, it would be the rumored visual DRM. I don't want the Kinect to charge me money because too many people are in the room at one time; can you imagine the conversations with family members? "Hey, can you go in the other room to read your book? My Xbox is trying to charge me money because there are too many people in here." I don't think that would go over well.

Only 4 "major ones". Yes, and an order of magnitude more smaller ones. It's not 'blame', it's a reason. I make a game. 4 million people play my game, but only 1.2m of them actually bought it, and so my game loses money. Gamestop made money on my game, but I didn't, and now I'm bankrupt. Is that somehow fair?

People like you have a flawed view of seeing a video game as a "good". They should be viewed just like digital goods. If I buy a car, and I drive it for 100k miles, it loses value in every sense of the word. It has less use left in it. it is no longer in perfect shape. It is less of a car than it was 100k miles ago. Maintenance costs rise. But a game? It's the same game. I can play it, and give it to the friend, they can play it, and trade it in,and someone else can buy it used. Unless the disk is damaged, ruining it, it's still as good as the day it released.

There's a second issue. When you buy a car, couch, etc, the cost of it is largely set by materials and labor. This car cost $4000 in labor and $8000 in materials and shipping, so when I buy it for $14,000, I know where that money went, and how much is going to support the company's infrastructure/bottom line. But a game? All games, old or new cost probably less than $1... physicially. The entire budget is spend in development and marketting. Not really tangible costs to the consumer. The fact that a new AAA game cost a fortune to make isn't as clear as when you see a new BMW with high tech features, but the company still needs to make money off of it.

Considering this to be wrong is your opinion, but claiming that they company selling it has no right is just plain false. Software on computers has very clear licensing to prevent this - it's necessary and reasonable. The fact that console gamers aren't used to it is the real issue. But the fact is, the average PC game is cheaper than the average console game for this very reason. If PC games didn't have Keys and could be passed on as easily as console games, they'd have to be a little more expensive too.

Like others have said, it doesn't really affect the way I play games. I am almost always online, I don't buy used and I don't sell my games or borrow them. They have already confirmed that more than one account can access the library on one system, so that clears up the other issue I had with it. I was really undecided on it 'til recently. But I will be buying the Xbone. I will also be buying PS4, the one that impresses me the most is the one getting purchased at launch, while the other will have to wait about a year.

Now a question to the OP- I know MS is the only one that confirmed DRM, but what will your take be on DRM if PS4 also has DRM? Will you do a survey and have a presumptuous poll for that too?

good points

But i don't see how punishing your potential customers will make them want to buy your games. Surely, if that was good. More people would hear about the next game and want it. Spread of information by mouth and hype go do wonders for a game. I think the problem is really that games cost too much in development these days, they MUST have the best graphics, they MUST have the best voice actors, they MUST be realist and they MUST be like Hollywood. All these makes development far more expensive then necessary and thus need to sell millions more copies than before, they also come out far less often as this expensive development takes a long time. All damaging to potential profit making, which they all go for. 

Also, games themselves may be as good as when they are first bought but the consoles they are played on degrade just as a car would over time. But that 3rd paragraph makes sense. Also, digital goods are different, as it stands you can't sell them on, although i think you should. We can't just not be expected to buy buy buy and not be allowed to sell on later.

Also, you'll never convince me to change my mind, i'll make that clear. I just see it as wrong, we shouldn't be dictated to by no one. I understand that they want to make profit, who doesn't? But you don't attack your source of potential profit. As the CEO of Take Two says you must impress your potential customers to get their money. It's surely common sense here. I'm sorry but if you think the industry faces problems now, it will shoot itself in the foot if Microsoft goes ahead with madness. As it stands, a physical good is there for people to do what they with. They have no right to say what we buy, isn't ours. Even with digital goods, sure we can't sell them on but who are they to demand us to play online?!? It don't currently happen with any digital games service, but Xbox One demands it. How does that bit of DRM benefit publishers? But as i see it, don't fix what ain't broken.    

~http://www.computerandvideogames.com/409797/take-two-ceo-games-must-delight-consumers-to-avoid-secondhand-market/

This.  It won't change anything for me. 

I bought one Xbox 360 game via the second-hand market only because at the time it wasn't available via Games on Demand.  The only person I might exchange games with was my nephew.  While I like disc-based games for their immediacy this generation, I learned to appreciate the games that were available online more.  Having had hardware problems, specifically with the DVD drive, I could have kept gaming without it had I just had an a digital copy of the game.  Functionally, DRM really doesn't change with Xbox One.  In fact, capabilities are added, namely in the ability for up to 10 family members to access my content. 

As far as an online connection goes, I didn't have a problem with that.  Granted, I hope they change that policy or provide an alternative so one can game completely offline, but my Xbox 360 was always connected to the Internet when it was powered on.  I can't imagine why, and I generally don't think it is, a big deal for many people, because most people that own an Xbox 360 have it connected to the Internet.  So the fact that it will phone home every 24 hours, really isn't a big deal to me.

I had Kinect with Xbox 360 and I'll obviously have Kinect with Xbox One.  I had no problem with enabling or disabiling the ability for Kinect to upload data.  With the Fun Labs, I enabled it so Microsoft could get proper feedback, and then I disabled it.  I did it with the Xbox 360, and based on what Microsoft has said, I can do it with the Xbox One.  I'm one of those people, who during the Kinect beta, wanted the ability to turn on my console when I say "Xbox ON."  Personally, I would love that when I enter a room, and the console isn't on, that it instantly recognizes me, but that isn't what Microsoft is doing.  It's listening for two words, "Xbox On" and that's it.  So, the console being always on, and Kinect listening when it's in a low power state, doesn't bother me.  It's functionality I've wanted from Day One.  I'm also not bothered by the fact that Kinect is required for Xbox One.  It doesn't take away functionality of the console, it adds to it, so why not require it? 

Nothing about the Xbox One to me prohibits a buy.  Certainly there are somethings I would rather they be different, but they are what they are.  I'll make do.