I want one of your fancy entertainment systems that runs without electricity, since clearly, online checkin is still somehow an issue when everything is powerless.

As for used games - if you have no money, buy games a few months later when they go down in price?

As for people having to take it back - it will say "internet required" on the box. Yes, if someone buys something for $500 with no research, they'll have to take it back. Just like if they buy a BluRay player and don't have an HDTV.

I think people view this in a fundamentally different manner than MS. This is a device, meant to be used on the internet. Don't have internet? Or it's not reliable? Don't buy the Xbox One. But people are acting like NOONE should buy it. An expensive, but low to the ground, sports car should not be purchased by someone living in a rural area with poor roads. It's a bad idea. Should they go out of production? If people have internet issues, don't buy it. It's not for you. This is 2013, and a significant number of people have very fast, reliable internet connections. If your internet connection exists in the past, get a console that does as well.

Well that's a scummy quote. But at least it's an honest scummy quote.

Yup. That's a great way to run a business. If it doesn't work out for you, too bad so sad. Don't buy it.

It's clear that you aren't seeing what others are, maybe that's because you have a perfect system where everything goes perfectly well including your internet access? I don't know, but I guess if you like these restrictions MS is putting out, more power to you. If they work for you, fine. But they obviously don't work for others. What I tell you won't make a difference.

Let's be honest, people are willing to justify just about anything to get what they want

I don't like the online requirement for The One but for me the excellent looking games, ecosystem, the fact that most of my friends will be getting it, and the great features it's going to have make it well worth it for me. I know there are a lot of people that say they would never buy something if it did something they didn't like but when it comes down to it, most will justify buying a product that does those things they don't like if it offers something that they want. It happened with XBL costing money, it happened with Steam, and most recently, it's happening with The One's policies, and how PS4 is charging for online. I know that you (and many others) would say they would never buy something that does what The One does (and you may actually be among the extreme few that would actually stick to that, who knows) but chances are, you would cave if it were, for example, Nintendo doing something similar but offered some games that you couldn't turn down.

There's nothing wrong with that either, almost all of us do it; it's part of the human nature. I just wish more people would realize this. :s

As to your other points. Even if MS doesn't change the time requirement for the online checks (which I think is rather unlikely) most of those won't effect you. Whenever you buy anything there's always a chance that there may be times it won't work due to something. I'm not going to drop my cell phone service (which, BTW costs an arm and a leg) simply because of the off chance that I may go somewhere without cell phone service. I'm not going to stop buying electronics simply because a few times a year the power may go off. I'm not going to stop buying cars and not drive anymore simply because of the off chance I may get in a serious accident. It's all about weighing the benefits vs. possible negatives and in this case, for many people, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Finally, with the used games policy, it won't effect 90% of people because most go to Gamestop, Best Buy, or some other major retailer to buy/sell used games. Not to mention that all signs point to mostly digital platforms having so many sales that you can buy just about double the amount of new games than you can buy used console games.

NO....What he is saying is that there is a segment of comsumers that they pay attention to...meaning XBLive users...when he says "a broader set of community" he means gamers in general..So no he's not saying that your wrong...

Call of duty and Elder Scrolls are the worst examples you could possibly use. Call of duty is STILL $60(Ive seen physical copies NEW as low as $30) on steam Skyrim(again new physical as low as $10) is $30, both are MSRP store retail price. MW3 $40, retail Black Ops 1 $40, retail again. Black Ops 2 will be $40 when ghosts releases at $60. They use Steam because its the #1 DD/DRM platform on PC, and they (like the assholes they are) are the ones launching the games @ $60 for their licenses. For the longest time it was $50 standard on PC because there was no license fees and Activision was like F you guys we just want $10 more in our pockets and many of the major publishers followed suit. I know there is Steam sales and whatnot but they arent much better than retail sales especially on newer "AAA" titles. The middlemen are being ditched and prices are will stay the same on the blockbusters. The flops and old games will be sold at digital firehouse prices.

For a long time my biggest gaming fear was that Steam would take off under the guise of convenience(cant deny that) and low prices(you can usually do just as good by sale and used shopping). I was afraid consoles would copy this method and remove ownership for good, and despite the internet backlash I think the xbone will do great and with it will come the death of ownership as game devs choose the bone as their preferred method of DD/DRM. I pray that I am wrong and the bone is a colossal failure.

No, you misunderstood it. He was asked about the negative reaction of the attendees of E3 ("this show") towards Xbone's DRM.

I think it's fair to say there's a segment of consumers at this show in particular who really pay attention, who are very passionate about all aspects of gaming, and that we listen to closely. = XBLive members

In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details.= Gamers in general....

Your trying to spin this....

Yeah, no. It was about the reaction of the internet and people at E3. Read the article. He wasn't talking about XBox Live members (I assume you mean Xbox Live Gold subscribers?)

Your English teacher am cry.

For me, this whole PR debacle will be used as a show case in the future in how to handle users (especially the internet user :).

Firstly the reason this is resonating with gamers is because the last few years honest gamers have been on the crappy end of DRM, and to be honest, this is the first major backlash. I know we had Diablo and SimCity, but they were contained to an extent, but gamer anger has been growing. It's just unfortunate for MS that they have created a device with too many seemingly bad decisions and a poor message. So of course it will run and run when they continue to gloss over the issues.

If you consider two things:

1. Many devices require access to the internet in this day and age with many people having good internet.
2. Digital hasn't been an issue for people at all.

So it might seem ok to go down a more digital device, but the way the PR has presented the information has been so mixed and in many cases terrible, it just re-enforces peoples attitudes.

For example, i only have two major issues with the Xbox, its the fact that if i lose internet for more than 24 hrs my games wont work and the fact that they could disable my games in the future. Now I have 78MB internet, hasn't been down in years, but as a user I know thats a slim possibility and 24 hrs is just not enough. I like to play old games like anyone else, and there is no clear message to say these will still play if i have the hardware in 10-15 years time.

What happens then, is that one doubt and issue, is magnified by issues that don't directly affect me, but it makes the product seem even more un-consumer friendly... Kinect always on, trade-in, family access/profiles, no swappable hard disk, the thought (unlikely but possible that the games could be switched off)... console not being multi-region.

So I guess what i am saying is that if they had thought about it properly they could have done most of that, and as long as they had a reasonable plan, you know most users would have been happy.

For example, why isn't the online activation longer to cover issues with moving house/isp issues (so a 31 day offline). Why not state that even if the XboxOne servers are shut down MS will allow you to access your games offline indefinitely.

I know they need activation to transfer software etc, but you know what they could have just said you must be online to "resell your software". These are basic things that have been so off key, all that happens is more comments (guy on submarine should just buy Xbox 360) just come across as worse. They need to fix this and the only way to do this is to truely attack the issues with sensible solutions... and you know what they can do this without putting themselves in a situation where the console can be offline all the time etc.