They originally had the intention to implement all those policies that they eventually overturned. That itself is enough for me to never respect them as a gaming company. Either way i'd still buy one once the inevitable kinect-less sku comes out.

Of course I am doing this. I just wanted to say that both are greedy. Noone is worse or better than the other. Stating facts can never be stupid. Just open your mind, "dr.": Both companies want our money. I don't know why you want to steer this into a console-war again when we are talking about companies here.

"Noone is worse or better than the other."

You're statement is in-effect saying that all companies are the same (since all companies seek profit). That's utter BS. Is there no underlying ethos in any company that could differentiate it from another? Does the CEO and Governing Board not have the will and right to impose their desires on a company? Is there no fundamental difference between a Japanese company and a American one? Are the two exactly the same!? BS.

Some companies are worse at offering good products and better at ensuring success despite a poorer product. Manipulation exists. We have a right to abandon a company due to a poor track record. And since 2009/10, the 360 has been lightyears behind the PS3 in terms of offering what was promised. They had an awesome launch period - that's that. And I am completely justified in using that track record to form my opinion of the brand they've been building.

And don't come and "dr" me. Your cynicism is well and duly noted. I've had that nickname since I was 16, and I'm applying for a PhD scholarship as we speak. What are you trying to do? My mind is well and truly open. If you knew me in real life you'd be aware of this.

So you admit you behave different in real life and online? Why? And don't call someone talking bullshit, where is your education?

I don't see any difference in greed between Sony and MS. Your attempt to turn this into a 360-ps3-discussion is noted but again, perhaps you get it this time, we are talking about companies. Both have a lot of products and both want to earn money with them. Both also have perhaps technical solutions I would've decided otherwise because it costs customers more than you would have to pay if you'd buy an alternate product.

This post proves how vocal you are as a Microsoft fan. You have no reason to disrespect reasonable comment that are counter to yours.

"So you admit you behave different in real life and online? Why?"

Yes. Because everyone does. Because an online profile can only ever be a subset of the total person. Not to mention that one would behave differently because there is a veil of anonomity here which doesn't exist when someone is a millionaire/genius/model/pauper/ugly/druggy or whatever it is they are doing with their life. I could write you a 10 000 word essay explaining exactly why. Different doesn't mean less real. Why on earth would you ask such a worthless question? You're the one that prompted my reaction in the first place.

"'And don't call someone talking bullshit, where is your education?"

Makes no sense. Makes no sense. *looks again* Still makes no sense.

I don't see any difference in greed between Sony and MS. Your attempt to turn this into a 360-ps3-discussion is noted but again, perhaps you get it this time, we are talking about companies. Both have a lot of products and both want to earn money with them. Both also have perhaps technical solutions I would've decided otherwise because it costs customers more than you would have to pay if you'd buy an alternate product.

I get it ok. I get everything that anyone here writes. It's not that complicated at all. So now that you've invested yourself in this "companies aren't products" mantra of yours, I'd like to make it clear that I disagree completely. A company is known by it's products. What else is there!? I dislike Windows (and I have DAMN good reason to do so), and the Xbox One reveal has been shambolic. Not to mention that this whole thread is specifically about the Xbox One which is designed by MS. The point your attempting to make seems to hold less and less value in the context of this website/forum/discussion.

And your last sentance is just terrible. I can glean what you are trying to say, but the fact is that you don't.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/409184/ps4-to-regulate-used-games-like-xbox-one/

There. It was a rumor. Hell, there were rumors that the PS3 would restrict used games before the PS3 launch. There used to be tons of articles on PS4 restricting used games but now they're impossible to find because whenever I Google the subject, I only find articles from E3 and beyond. But yeah, before E3, many were afraid that Sony AND Microsoft would restrict used games and only Nintendo would allow it. Now calm the fuck down.

*note* I only read the first 50 posts of this thread.

And for the record, even the Dreamcast had the ability to regulate used copies of Phantasy Star Online. It's a controversial topic that has been around for well over a decade.

And Steam.

Seems people are unable to distinguish between these obviously different things. I'll give them a hand:

NO-ONE GIVES A RAT'S ASS ABOUT DRM ON DIGITAL MEDIA.

and

EVERYONE WAS PISSED AT MS BECAUSE OF DRM ON PHYSICAL MEDIA

not really that hard I'd like to believe.

Well, without benV to confirm, it's hard to figure out exactly what the cause was. I did read all his posts during the time, and nothing was really hinting at what the reasoning could be.

That being said, I do think you theory could be part of the puzzle, but allow me to also provide you with some corner pieces.

1. The system for trading in used games required the integration of the windows azure cloud platform into the gamestop functionality. While some members here swore that it must have been free for "trusted partners" (ironic, since gamestop was not to be trusted lol), the very fact that they'd have to alter their entire POS to accomodate for a new network could have been, at the least a hassle, and at the most, costly..not to mention that it's an online database, not an in-store one...which they currently use.

2. The trade in system took a piece of the pie, gave it to devs, and took another slice and gave it to microsoft (for whatever reason) and it also set trade in prices. That's not just revenue they're controlling, it's everything.

3. Two part:
a) The family share as explained by MS reps said you could share unlimited with 10 people. If that isn't a big middle finger to gamestop I dunno what is. That being said, it's hard to believe MS would part with 90% of sales. Just looking at the ps3 share program with 3 copies for friends, was quickly axed in order to fix revenue.
b) The share program as explained by the anonymous AMA program only allowed timed demos. This wouldn't have been a big deal, but like you said, it did direct them to purchase digitally, which might have been a problem for gamestop.

4. The console itself. We heard no details regarding trade-ins and how they could be returned or fixed for that matter.

Now, another thing we know is that the digital program would have given gamestop a pretty big share of reseller market. With mom and pop shops unable to integrate with azure, and ebay and amazon basically untrustworthy for resale, gamestop would've seen significantly more traffic.

What we can deduce here, is that the extra profits from this additional traffic was offset by the downsides, and likely by a large amount. Breaking even wouldn't have been such a concern as to stop pre-orders.
We can't really theorize as to what this variable income would have been, but if we were able to, it could help pinpoint exactly where the problem stemmed from.

I could theorize that the added traffic at lower margins could have played a part, necessitating higher overhead for more workers and upgrades, as well as the loss of freedom to price how they wanted ultimately decided the change of course. Without the azure system, the whole strategy is kaput. It makes a lot of sense then, why MS took away virtually everything they were offering when all us consumers were simply saying "just remove these parts". Obviously, you can't remove parts of it piecemeal if the core system is missing.

Informing you that your "rumor" about Sony backing out last minute holds no water at all and falls flat due to the numerous amount of sources available to all of us is not trolling.

You brought it up and decided to include Sony is your OP. You don't get to complain when Sony fans come in here, latch onto your Sony related opinion and then begin commenting.