1. Not debunked, confirmed. Any game you install is tied to your account. Any other account that tries to use that game has to pay a fee. If you bring a game over to a friends house, you can play it, but you have to log into your account on their Xbox to do that, otherwise your friend has to pay a fee. For new games that fee is the actual price of a new game.
2. Whether or not it is "set" it exists and that is a bad thing. The fact is, the console will require a internet connection, the only question is how often.
3. A camera that constantly runs, whether or not you are actually using the console, and monitors you and your living room to identify who is and isn't there on a console that is constantly connected to the internet... yeah, they'll never violate our privacy with that. Oh, and the PS camera, included but not required to run the console, unlike the Kinect.
4. That's only because Xbox gamers have deluded themselves into thinking that a paid service is somehow better than what everyone else offers completely free. Also, you are quite wrong, plenty of Xbox gamers are sick of paying for Xbox Live just so they can do things that everyone else is able to do for free.
5. A PC is not a console, never has been. If you run out of storage room on your PC, you can always upgrade the drive. Can't do that with the new Xbox, gotta use external drives, which are great for backing up files, not so much for running software off them.
6. The machine has a bluray drive, the cloud isn't needed... except as a sneaky form of DRM.
7. Gotta agree with you on this one, however, I think it is safe to say that most people do not buy a game console to watch TV, they buy it to play games.

And now for a little bit of funny:
http://www.dorkly.com/comic/52061/if-new-game-console-reveals-were-honest

Is the Xbox one supposed to act as a cable TV receiver, or just that customers are going to be able to pay for TV subscriptions through them? Because Charter for example, requires that you use their digital receivers. It's not optional, and there is no way around it. So I mean, the whole 'augmented' TV experience wouldn't work at all in my area since the Charter cable box is required to receive encrypted digital signals from Charter.

Not that I really care since I think the system is way too gimmicky and lame (as things stand right now, I wouldn't even take one for free because of the Kinect privacy concerns I have, but that could change), but I was just curious if they're advertising it as a digital cable receiver to help condense devices in the living room, and wondering if other cable companies operate like Charter does when it comes to requiring their special receivers to be used.


haha!

BZZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry but wrong! It'll work fine all you do is plug your set top boxes HDMI lead into the HDMI IN port on the xbox thats it! (although it looks like theres an IR out port for boxes that don't accept straight HDMI commands)

Unfortunately, since there is no actual standard for decryption of the cable/satellite signal (each provider is different), it will be just as woodmarach described: a cable box connected to the Xbox which is connected to the TV, all via HDMI. The only real advantage I can see to this setup is you will no longer have to switch inputs on your TV to go from the console to cable. Frankly, that isn't much of an advantage; for most modern TVs, that's the elimination of a single button press on the remote. All of the "features" offered by the Xbox are already present in most cable systems and anything they don't offer most people already get them through other devices like laptops, tablets and smartphones. I guess if you don't mind interrupting your movie watching with Skype calls on the TV screen, its a good thing, but why would you do that when there are already much more convenient ways of doing it?

Actually YES debunked! Theres an interview floating around that makes it more clear the charge is for if they ALSO want a copy of the game ie if you both want to play it at the same time. They have a system in place to let users trade and even sell their access to a game but they won't be talking about it till e3 or later.
Sure it exists but steam does similar and this allows them a way to let you play without the disc in the machine.
Actually not confirmed we don't know if the PS camera is required or not. The way they were talking about the light bar it may well be required!
We don't actually know the limitations of the ones live system so we can't actually comment on what gold is required for now
Doesn't matter its the same principle and hell USB 3 isn't that low bandwidth that it'll slow down access THAT much
Do you know how Dev's will use the cloud? What if I offloaded rendering beyond 600m to the cloud allowing richer field of view, I then offload the world physics allowing more interactive worlds... How about I do both of those and use the power instead to allow hundreds of players on screen at once?? Just because it would allow them to use it as a DRM system doesn't mean thats ALL it will do
actually you'd be suprised theres figures (which i admit i can't seem to find right now) that show that the ps3 is more used for watching movies and that netflix is the most used think on the 360

-Fee for used games is confirmed to be true not debunked.
-Doesn't matter if its 24 or 2 weeks. Any sort of requirement to sign on to use and play my single player games is unacceptable.
-The kinect function is just a bad gimmick and now they are trying to set it up to help police their consumers even more. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa Unacceptable
- I loathe Sony, I was a big fan of Xbox and 360 and did have a constant live connection when I had my 360. But it was completely uncalled for when everyone else does it for free. PC gaming has been doing it for free forever. It's just a nickel and dime tactic. So please don't assume to know how everyone feels.
-Blu Ray should be fine and plenty of space for what is needed, and optional installs if you desire. Cloud gaming is just DRM in disguise.
-TV viewing is starting to decline, more and more people are turning to other media ways and even those that do watch it are going DVR.


It boggles my mind that any self respecting fellow gamer would defend this pile of crap. You actually in here trying to counter all my points is quite alarming.

Before too long Microsoft will just start charging gamers by the hour or something. Can't log in unless you have your debit card attached and money on it.

Though you'd defend that no doubt.

There's nothing wrong in my post. Reading comprehension 101. I asked if the Xbox was trying to consolidate devices.

"...but I was just curious if they're advertising it as a digital cable receiver to help condense devices in the living room..."

So, while you failed to read my post properly, you did still answer my question - thanks =)

Like I said though, I was just asking out of curiosity. I think the system is laughably gimmicky and pathetic, and I find it hard to believe anyone of average intelligence would find it appealing. There's still time for positive change before the system releases, but as it currently stands, I think it looks retarded. We'll have to wait and see how the final product turns out.

1. You just repeated what I already said. The fee is completely confirmed, you can't just bring your games over to a friend's house and simply play them, as has always been the case with consoles of the past, you need to use your account or your friend has to pay, period. This mysterious method of trading or selling games doesn't matter as long as you can't simply share games, which is a completely legal form of fair use they are now blocking.
2. Just because Steam does it does not make it acceptable. They could have easily come up with ways to run games off the drive without the need to call home. Oh hey, here's a thought: don't install the entire game to the drive in the first place, we were already OK with running our console games off the disk so why change it? Oh yeah, so they can enforce draconian DRM.
3. No argument against the glaring privacy concerns of Kinect then?
4. The fact that you have to pay at all to do anything that everyone else gets for free is offensive. You really expect MS to drop the Gold requirement for things like Netflix? Why would they, they are making a ton of money off it.
5. It's a bottleneck that shouldn't be there and it will be felt, if you have to resort to using external drives. USB 3.0 is fast, but still not as fast as SATA and is much more CPU intensive. It will be a double hit, both in the data throughput and the processor load.
6. Sounds great, as long as you have the internet connection to handle it, which far too many people do not. The cloud is great in theory, but in practice, the infrastructure required for it just isn't there yet. All it allows is devs to show off "new shiny" but will restrict who they can show that "new shiny" to. Better to just rely on the local power of the console to do what they want.
7. Actually the PS3 became the most used device in the US for watching Netflix, but that doesn't mean anyone bought a PS3 just to watch Netflix. The PS2 was the most popular DVD player in the US for a while too, but again, most people didn't buy it just to watch DVDs. Game consoles are bought to play games, anything else they can do is just a side benefit.

Awww, that would have been a perfect demonstration, showing both Kinect support and CoD features at the same time...

Actually no theres a difference your saying they are going to charge for everything and thats apparently not true. What they have said is if BOTH of you want to have a copy you can BOTH play at the same time on DIFFERENT consoles then you BOTH have to buy it. HOWEVER they are talking about how if you want to give your friend YOUR access you'll be able to transfer them YOUR right to play it which means you won't be able to play it till they give you it back.

So yes trading among friends is apparently still there within their system with the slight complication that you have to give them permission within the system itself. What they've also said is there will be a way to permanently remove your no disc in the machine rights so that you can trade in the game in stores or even just sell that right to other people over the live system itself.

It's like the Nook's virtual lending system for e-books where you can give up your right to read a book for a set amount of time while granting access to it for a friend who doesn't own it, or possibly even the Zunes system where you could share a song for a set number of plays after which the other person would need to purchase it to carry on listening.

Just read a funny name for the new Xbox on a german gaming website: Xbox One-Nine-Eight-Four ;)

Well if that's accurate then that's not quite as bad. Still sounds more work than it should be, though.

Actually there was you assumed that the augmented stuff wouldn't work in areas with specific hardware requirements thats what i was correcting.

As for the rest you'd actually be suprised a number of my less techy more TV and sport interested friends have been asking me if the augmented NFL etc stuff will work in the UK. The fantasy football stuff for example could really swing a few people to it if they offer prizes etc. Also my nephew who IS a gamer and tech head actually prefered this announcement to the PS4 one his comment was along the lines of

"Sony spent the whole thing talking about the hardware and a couple of gimicks like vita control while trying to catch my attention with games, MS said they'd be showing me the more boring stuff now and leave me wanting to hear about the games and the boring stuff wasn't even that bad! add to that it looks like i can watch tv while playing a game and waiting for my friends to come online and i'll be buying"

Note he does know about the DRM and stuff and he doesn't seem to care his view is it's "like steam but better because i can actually trade in the crap games"
Yeah it sounds long winded but no worse than PC gaming for me... I think all these years of Steam etc have desensitised me to stupidly long winded DRM schemes, sure I prefer no-DRM but if it's a good enough game I can live with it if i have to :-/

I would like to see your source for this. Considering how circumspect MS has been with their answers on this topic, I think you may be speculating a bit. Everything i have read and seen so far indicates that it is not as simple as you describe and that any kind of sharing, outside of using your own account on someone else's machine, requires you to pay some kind of fee, up to the full cost of a brand new game. Regardless of the sharing scheme, the fact is, there will definitely be a fee for used games and possibly rentals, a fee that at this time, goes to MS alone, not to the original devs or publishers.