Disclaimer : this is not aimed toward any member or group of people, but rather target specific attitudes.
First of all and in order to avoid the repetition : there are two distinct debate at hand here. The gaming console itself and the policies/mentality.
As a console, we've already said it : Xbox One is perfectly nice console, about the same as PS4, with some good exclusives and services. This has never been a debate.
The real debate isn't either about what will Microsoft do about DRM, Kinect, used-games etc...but it goes even deeper : it's about the psycho-sociological difference of people who will never buy a Xbox One even if they like it, and those who will buy it no matter what.
And the "matter" is really important, because it shows in a similar fashion how people accept fascism, accept to be screwed by government, to pay overpriced products etc...
------------------>
We ALL KNOW that DRM don't bring ANY benefices to gamers, that Microsoft work with the NSA to monitor people, as for used-games, there's somewhat confusion.
Because there are two kinds of people : the sane people who have strong values, and common sense that usually comes from education, information, books etc...or simple pragmatic opportunistic consumer instinct that tells them that OF COURSE, DRM have never been justifier, good for the consumer or even sold a product better.
As for used games, once again, common sense tells people that if they bought something they should be able to lend, give or resell it, and others should be able to buy it, some even just know that one of the FIRST human right to be ever defined is the right of PROPERTY.
Sane people KNOW that of course they don't and shouldn't be monitored for a matter of basic human right called privacy, or simply because their common sense tells them that they don't want someone having a camera in the middle of their living room with families and friends, or mainly because this is the FIRST and foremost CLICHE of future fascism and dystopias.
<-----------------
So why on the other hand, is there some people who can accept either of this things. Well you simply have to listen to their "reasons", and I'll tell you why they're wrong :
1. DRM
"It stops piracy" : if absolutely controled, yes it does, for some times. But the real question is "does it help sell better"? No, it makes sell less, and that's what piracy is about and why, in truth and numbers, sales of music (digital, concert, rights or cd), games (digital, or physical) or movies (cinema, rental or blu-ray) HAS NEVER BEEN SO HIGH. Not only because of the streamlined way of consuming them but because typically, out of the many people pirating a product, most people would have never bought/used/seen it. And because they didn't it means that they would talk about it, make some friends know about it, buy it or buy the sequel or any derived product. Of course, some of the "pirates" use the game, and go buy it right away.
"It helps developpers make more money, and so make more/better games" : Abolutely wrong. Teams of developers are paid a fixed salary with a minor if not any bonus, and only the PUBLISHER and the producer make more money out of more sales. In fact and as proven multiple times, the more sales there is for a games, the more milked it is, and the less if gets better. NO WAIT in fact, having DRM helps major publishers (like the music major industries and their lady gagas) have more control over the market and it's sales, by canibalizing the concurrence, especially indie developers who never supported DRM btw, and like music majors, it enables them to produce more shit at low cost and high sales.
But the real question is : WHY would you support or care about the producers/publishers making money? Do you care about Goldman Sachs making more money by ruining more countries? Do you care about Apple making their price higher, so they can innovate (and of course they do it less and less, if not at all anymore)? YOU ARE A CONSUMER, are you that submissive and stupid as to care about multi-billions company making money over the shitty product they make, which makes them want to control the market more and sell anyway ?
"I'm not concerned, I have high internet access/I'm rich" : Well you know what? If you really wanted to defend a brand or publisher, this is typically the arguments that you should battle again. A console that is only accessible to people with high working internet access or money, doesn't help make more or better games. It makes them reach less people and so publish less games. But the real question is : because you have internet access or rich, why would you accept to be monitored, check-in and ask permission to use what you OWN ? Do rich people do that? Also what a f^cking egoistic sc^m attitude.
"Well if we had DRM I would have the family share option" : what a stupid reason, there's is absolutely no reason why Microsoft couldn't have implemented this option without DRM, playstation 4 does something similar.
2. Used games
"I never buy used on console" lucky for publishers, there are people like you. And how about lending, or bringing the game to another place?
"You don't OWN the game, you own a LICENCE to use it" : WRONG again you dummy. When you buy a media product, be it a music CD, a blu-ray or a DVD, you do not only own the physical object but also the right to use it, lend it, copy it, HOWEVER YOU WANT as long as it's never for promotional/fiducial reasons. That's the actual law. But you know what? Laws are written by men, corrupts ones often, and can be changed. IN the 1830s the law said that blacks were owned slave, in 1940s the law said jews have to be deported. So it's not much a matter of law, but just common sense, or real knowledge of laws and rights.
And you know what? The LICENCE thing you are refering to isn't even a law, it's actually illegal. It's a EULA contract that contourns laws.
3. Kinect
"Well I can turn it off, sometimes" : Yes, but you HAVE to turn it on anytime you use your Xbox One. It means that all the filming, face recognition, body/eye/voice tracking and monitoring functions are on.
"I don't have any proof that it'll be monitored by NSA" : Again, this is really a sign of very low intelligence. People who read books, are educated or into politics KNEW this would happen when other doubted. BUT NOW, it's on the first page of EVERY MEDIA :the NSA really is spying on all our communications, and Microsoft was the first company if not maybe the instigator of PRISM. But the real question is : when it's not clear (it is, unless you're desillusioned/hypocritical) that something as grave as a private government agency spying on its citizen happens, WHY would you risk it?
"Well I don't care, because I have nothing to hide, 'merica" : "People who are ready to give up their freedom for security, deserve neither" You know why? Because freedom is a citizen duty in itself, you have to use and protect it in order to get it. And if you give up your freedom and rights of PRIVACY, to prevent the few, never clearly explained or proven, terrorist attacks, you don't deserve them. To be more simple, it has to do with fascism : this is a CLICHE of dystopian books, but maybe that's why most people who agree with such argument are dumb ignorant, un-knowledgable people. Anyway, for this one I can't reach below the surface of stupidity to even explain.
Moderated,
-Mr Khan
