I thought some of the quotes from the Microsoft executive in this article, were pretty arrogant.
This one in particular struck a chord with me:
"This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand."
Microsoft, it's not your job to educate me, or anyone else. It's your job to compete and offer a product that caters to my needs, particularly given that this is largely a completely optional entertainment product.
Since we're "educating", let me attempt to educate anyone willing to read this, including said Microsoft Executive(s), even though it's not my job or right to do so.
There is this thing called, giving a company too much control. It's about the worst possible thing the consumer can do to themselves when it comes to fostering competition in any market place. The problem with your Xbox, dear Microsoft, is that if we give into your wishes, you become both the hardware supplier, and the game supplier. You essentially become controller, in every way, of your own ecosystem.
Given the high cost of producing gaming consoles, and the limited competition in the hardware space as a result (currently three players, with many complete failures along the way, SEGA, Atari, etc.), by allowing you to dictate every way in which we buy, and more importantly use, share, and sell games on your system, we would be doing, pretty much the opposite of what would be best for consumer friendly business models and favorable pricing as you put it, because you don't have enough competition, for an "equivalent" entertainment experience.
You also place yourself in a favorable position for even more competition killing exclusive distribution models with publishers, which is also the opposite of what is best for the market, or consumers.
People like to compare this new move to Steam, but there are a few very important, very key areas that Steam is essentially an Apples to Oranges comparison.
1) Steam does NOT control the hardware, and in fact seeks to expand its presence on MORE hardware (Mac and Linux), whenever it can, because it needs to. So even if there are some negative consumer issues we need to accept because of the digital distribution model, the fact that we can play those games on vastly more pieces and types of hardware, all of which are industry standards with significant longevity, produced by a huge number of varying manufacturers, with open hardware, and lots of competition, and many avenues to attainment of that hardware better ensures the value of our purchase.
2) Because Steam doesn't control the hardware, they have to compete with Amazon, Origins, GoG, Green Man Gaming, and whoever else can setup a storefront or a distribution application. This keeps pricing down, and will continue to do so.
3) Steam, albeit still not as friendly to indie developers as we'd like, is VASTLY better when it comes to indie distribution, which is competition within the games market itself for these large publishing houses. This also helps to increase consumer options as well as drive pricing down.
4) Piracy, as much a I DO NOT support it, is in many ways a protection of our right to continue to use products that often become impossible to acquire and/or obsolete or unsupported by hardware changes. Even Steam games, because I have the data on my hard drive and/or a backup, there is potential for pirate unlock, patch, or update, in the event that Steam no longer exists, or the game is no longer supported by the developer, that will allow me to continue to use the games I paid for, theoretically indefinitely. Essentially this is my right to backup, modify to function, and protect my purchase, something that barely exists on consoles, and almost completely disappears because it's much more difficult to re-engineer and distribute hardware affordably, than it is for software.
None of this is available on your closed system Microsoft. So, sorry, I don't need you to "educate me on the future and your better way", I need you to stop being arrogant and VALUE (the favorite buzzword of the disingenuous corporate mouth piece) my rights to use of my purchase, not seek to control how I access every piece of entertainment and tell me it's "for my benefit".
I'm sure it's for Microsofts benefit, and I'm sure it's for the benefit of many multi-million or multi-billion dollar publishers. However, for my benefit? I don't think so.