Maybe because several of those consoles gamers supported you by buying your previous consoles and even some of them bought games for said consoles giving you even more money in the process; so in the end it shouldn't be a real surprise if those peoples kind of fell "entitled" (to reuse that way too overused word) of being part of the target market of your next console.

It's like if tomorrow blizzard declare that the third SC2 extension and all the next SC games will be rhythm dance games instead of RTS; I doubt that many SC or RTS fans will buy the "you are no longer the target market so deal with it" argument.

EDIT: Also here we are talking about one of the major three home consoles, not some unknown brand by some unknown startup, everything that happen on this console, good or bad, will have a lasting impact on the rest of the gaming world (especially on PC where the vast majority of AAA games are console ports).

While we're at it, what were the justifications for the home-calling every 24 hours? Loads of websites have different information, so I don't know which to trust.

Who's raging here? Were only debating politely (AT THE TOP OF OUR VOICES), because were passionate about gaming. Complaining and arguing about things you like is a pleasure on its own for most people, but if it's not your thing you're free not to participate.

I for one think that what Microsoft offers with their new console so far is shit and I see no reason to suspend my judgement about it even if I have no plans to buy Xbox One. But I'm not angry at all.

So who is the Xbox One for? Because Xbox 360 owners like me are CERTAINLY not happy about the Xbox One. When did they change their target market?

What's the target for the Xbox One? People who like having their consumers rights stripped away by greedy Microsoft? People who like NFL? People who want to watch TV TV TV TV TV? The first Xbox 360 was targeted at gamers, it's pretty safe to assume that the Xbox One SHOULD be. It's a matter of basic logic.

Consoles are targeted at CONSOLE GAMERS. Period. This whole "target" argument is pure nonsense.

Why can't i complain about something that i don't agree with? Since when can't i make some constructive criticism? And who are you to tell everyone here what they should or what they whouldn't complain about?

" the ones that do not have internet are not the a target"
And that's a fucking stupid argument. Of course ONLINE games and MMOs are NOT for those that do not have a reliable internet connection. But what Microsoft is doing is EXPADING this limitation TO EVERY game, even ginsgleplayer offline titles that DO NOT need internet. It's an artificial limitation. Can you see the difference now? WIthout an internet connection the Xbox One is a brick. Just a black brick. Even my fucking cellphone works fine when it's out of range. The Xbox One doesn't.

Why shouldn't i complain? I'm a Xbox 360 owned and i'm not happy with the direction the console market is taking. I'll criticize it as much as i want and i'll make sure everyone knows how much of a piece of shit the Xbox One is. I have the right to complain and express my opinion about stuff i don't like. Please respect my right to express myself the way i want, thanks.

The games don't need the discs to play, so it stops you from installing said game, going offline, then selling the license through Gamestop or whatever but keeping the game as long as you want in offline mode. Also from installing game on friend's machine, going offline, going home, letting friend play.

Basically they are freaking out about the idea of people playing shit without paying, even more than Steam does. You have to keep verifying with them you have the right to play what you are playing, which used to be done by showing the disc is in your possession but is now done through a server.

Actually options to sell used games from your account, give away your used games to your friends and the fact that two persons can be logged-in to the same online account at once and play video games at the same time make Xbox One better than Steam. I wish to have those options on Steam, especially the last one because me and my wife are gamers and it's pain in ass to use Steamworks games.

Of course I'm comparing only two online DRMs. PC gaming is still way better thanks to DRM free options (ruined in some degree by Steamworks) and configurable hardware, but I don't see how Steam fans can say that Steam is better than that.

One thing they could do that would make this a bit better is have it so digital purchases that are tied to your main console don't need to check in to run. They wouldn't need the excuse of someone trading in a game while offline since those games don't have a disc anyways. It would work the same way Xbox Live Arcade and Games on Demand purchases work today.

I doubt they would do such a thing though.

So in a way, it "half-locks" games to accounts? Seems like they made the system to offer some compromises and ended up with something that sits in the middle yet it is not that good.

They should have just started locking games to accounts, in my opinion, eliminating "used" games and whatever, but not requiring an active internet connection, like how it is done on WP8 and W8.

They couldn't just emulate the Steam model because Gamestop has too much power. They had to have a way to do used games, thus they had to have these more persistent checks to make sure what you're playing wasn't sold or borrowed.

It's all corporate politics with this shit. None of it is about the consumer. It's a power play between Microsoft, Gamestop and the big publishers.

Well "raging" rarely change things but on the other side bending over and accepting everything never did and never will. So in the end raging is not the worst option for them especially with Microsoft who already back-pedaled numerous time before.

Its something like the go-to retailer for console games in the US? So they are worried that if they eliminate used games, GS won't stock X1 games?

Yeah, despite them selling so many used titles they still account for like 60% of new game sales. I read the percentage in an article not long ago, it was 60-something.

Still don't need to upgrade my hardware every year to play the latest games.

I really don't believe Microsoft has what it takes to take the edge in exclusive games. They do have the money to get exclusive rights, such as the Gears of War franchise, which was made by a third-party studio. But they don't have as many talented internal development studios as Sony or Nintendo. They're not even close. In fact, Sony has many more first-party and second-party studios than Microsoft.

Sony has Naughty Dog, which is nowadays one the best studios in the world, Santa Monica, SCE Japan Studio (responsible for ICO and Shadow of the Colossus), Guerrilla, Evolution Studios (which has a few former Bizarre members), Ready at Dawn, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Polyphony Digital and Quantic Dream, just to name a few.

Microsoft has 343 Industries, Turn10 and ehhhhh, hmmmmmm ahhhh, nothing. Ensemble was a great studio, but it was shut down by Microsoft. Bungie was amazing and could give Microsoft the edge, but it's a third-party studio now. Rare is NOTHING now. Nothing compared to the old Rare in the SNES and N64 days. Rare hasn't made a good game since Conker Bad Fur's Day (although Starfox Adventures and Kameo were pretty decent, but the development on Kameo started when it was still a Nintendo studio). Most of the developers who worked on Rare's golden days have left a long time ago.

Microsoft has already stated that they will announce a classic Rare game soon (probably at E3), but sincerely for me it doesn't mean shit. After what they did with Banjo and Perfect Dark i expect nothing from Rare.