Don't you think they would have specified either in their press release detaing the feature or in their press confrence at e3 the advantages if it had any after the back lash? I mean, they fired someone over it and if you read the interview he clearly writes off everyone who doesn't have a good enough connection (me) and says people are over exagerating...

Will you tell me more about this place you live in where people all collectively choose not to buy the PS4?

I'd rather see them continue the current policy and work towards getting rid of physical media all together. Digital distribution has monopolized the pc world and it should do the same for consoles.

Don't want to derail the thread but my reasons are here:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=160686&page=1#

Good for gamers, but probably not what publishers want.
Basically you have a second copy of the game to be played at the same time.
1. System can't know that the game is already in use.
2. The system can do a check if it's not already registered, but you can simply play it by logging out.
3. Same as 1, game could have been shared/given away already.

Easier: Disc is the master copy and always works for offline single player, there can be 1 registered digital copy that can access online features which is tied to your account.
1. No internet, can always play the single player with the disc.
2. Have internet, disc in drive. If the game is not registered to the current account, give the option Register or Play offline
  If you Register to be able to play online, whoever had the registered digital copy loses access to the game.
  Play offline locks out online to the game. (Not to the whole system)

So someone else can still be playing offline single player from your disc while you're playing online, but why not. Movies give you 3 copies nowadays, blu-ray + dvd + digital copy. What's so bad about 2 people playing single player from one disc. Only 1 can play online with it.

i wanted to respond last night but it was getting too late.

..your potential hurdle is too big.  or more specifically too confusing.  if there is no customer confidence in buying/selling it is almost like the feature isn't there.  it can just too easily be abused and for better or worse MS would take the bad PR for having a system that can be so easily abused.

instead the system should look like this.

Initial purchase:

When i put my brand new game into my let it automatically install to my hardrive regardless.  makes things simple.  at that point..

If (console logged into internet) Then (register game license to current account) else (do nothing).

Playing a game:

If (console offline) Then (disc required to be in cosole in order to play)

Else If ( console online and account licensed for game) Then (play game without disc)

Else (disc required to be in cosole in order to play)

Selling a game:

*when the buyer attempts to play the game*

If (buyers console logged into internet) Then (licensed automatically transfered from previous account to current account)

Required details:  no fee applied to license transfer.  Unlimited number of license transfered allowed.

this would not require a gamer to ever be online.  for those that choose to go online you get all the benefits of an account based, digital system without the current limitation of downloading massive game files.  games can still be loaned to a friend by transfering the license and later transfering it back.  games can still be rented.  no 24 hour checks.

Potential hurdles:

consumers would have to be educated that even though their games can be played without a disc they still can't throw it away or give it away without losing their game.  people would have "bright ideas" that could result in bad PR.  you won't educated everyone but as long as the media is well informed they won't report the exceptions.

publishers would have to be convinced that the "exploit" isn't anything to care about.  the exploit being that a gamer that is totally 100% offline forever can take a friends game and play offline with the disc while the online friend can play it with the account license.  The argument of why not to care is that it is a maximum of two players (not infinate), the offline player would not be able to be online while player which already eliminates any online portions of games from being exploited, and the online player would only be able to do this arrangement with someone highly trusted else they would risk losing their own game.  i personally think the amount of exploitation would be quite minimal.

in short this very close to what MS already has,.. expect the part about license transfers only being allowed at "participating retailers".

imo, the biggest difference is that the details above has a goal of providing consumers an easy path to the benefits of a digital distribution model without the massive hurdle of downloading massive game files.   MS's solutions is, imo, focused almost entirely at being able to charge license transfer fees for used game.  HOWEVER,.. now that MS officially stated they aren't charging fees and EA officially backed out too that battle has been lost.  if they are willing to conceed that point they have an opportunity to change the tide against sony by changing their policies to be more consumer friendly. i really hope MS is smart enough to change..

This whole DRM is blessing in disguise for Microsoft. Come on people real issue is Kinect always on and system will not work without it. They will have remove that or realease another SKU if they have any chance of success with XBOX ONE.

Or, instead of new ideas, how about keeping the current model? No hurdles, no anything.

Yes, I know that's not gonna happen. But while the above is more likely, it's still probably not gonna happen.

The only people who still worry about Kinect always on are conspiracy theorists or completely missed MS explaining all the customizing and disabling options... it does not pose a threat to anyone's privacy any more than a webcam on a laptop does.

They require it connected because it is an input type that is fully integrated with the console. Do you complain about not being able to disable a controller as an input device? No, because that would be silly :)

if you're paying any attention to the NSA scandel you'd know that the US governement has given themselves legal right to access communication regardless of privacy policies and that MS was one of the first partners of the NSA.  so "no more than a webcam" is sort of a loaded statement..

sorry, but i do NOT trust the us government right now with respect to privacy.