To summarize: Without DRM policies, you can't share digital titles and gaming technology will remain at a standstill.

To criticize the article:
"Because I keep losing my disc cases and I don't have anywhere I can put my games if I do have the cases."

So basically, publishers can be even greedier and make money off used games as well as new ones, removing resale game stores, like GameStop, from ever getting in the way again, thus causing potentially thousands of jobs to be lost from GameStop and other various stores going under.

See above.

Bold text: Explain to me the logic behind digital-only titles, like PC games, that have a starting base price of $60. You can't even sell those games to a used-game shop, so why make it so expensive?
Underlined text: If by "old system" you mean "DRM policies," explain to me and everyone else why that would lower prices or not cause a price increase. Because publishers can now make money off used games, or rather, licenses? If you lower prices on games, you also lower your profit because you believe that the money you'll make from used licenses will fill in the gap that the lowered new prices have left. But have you considered this - what is stopping publishers from charging full price for used licenses? What if there is a lower amount of people selling their games than anticipated? If prices don't drop, that would also mean used licenses have a potential to not drop either, meaning a new or used license for a game would cost $60. If less people sell their licenses, that would mean a loss in potential profit, causing publishers to get angry at Microsoft. One of the perks of buying a used game is that it's cheaper than a new version.

Have you never sold a game to GameStop? They gave you the short-straw on the sale to make a giant profit. What's to say that publishers won't do the same thing? i.e., You sell a game's license, the publisher gives you a measly $5 for it, then the publisher turns around and sells it for $60 again.

Mister Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation once said something that has stuck with me ever since I've heard it. The phrase goes along the lines of "'It gets better later' is never a good excuse."
Also, regarding PC gaming and Steam - It's either use Steam, EA's version of Steam which is significantly worse - Origin - or go hunting for games that decided they're too cool for online stores. You won't find much. It's less of a "want to" and more of a "has to" if they want something mildly decent.
Also also, Valve gives discounts so often because they know how to make consumers happy. Microsoft would never lower prices like crazy just because they are doing well; in fact, they'd probably see that as an opportunity to make more money off games.
Also cubed, what do you mean by "its licensing model was once heavily maligned"? Are you trying to say that Steam lets you share games digitally? As far as I know, if I send the files of a game I own to a friend of mine, he'd be considered a pirate and I'd be considered an illegal distributor. You need to elaborate a bit more on that statement, Mr.Writer.

There's a reason why sharing digital copies is faulty and that's because it's too easy to manipulate. Or at least, it is on PC. In a console case, however, it's an invitation for people to not buy games. Think about it this way - why would I buy a game if my friend has it on his Xbox One and I can just ask him to let me use it on my account? It would go from "sharing games with a friend" to "giving my friend a copied version of my game for free." Even with a limitation on how many people you can share with, it would be nearly on the same level as piracy.

Wait, run by that me again? Removing the once-a-day system means people can install games on one system, bring the game home to their system that has it installed, and both systems can play it simultaneously? Didn't the Xbox 360 require you to have the disc in the system, regardless of whether or not it was installed to your hard drive? Even if it was download-only, installing to both systems, regardless if it were the new system or the old system of online connection, I pointed out that you could essentially do the same thing with the policy you fell in love with, Mr.Writer. With what you explained and with how it is now, you can still give away one free copy of a game to your friend. But you seemed to have forgotten one thing - discs. If Microsoft continues to show the brain levels that they have been, they'll implement the same system the Xbox 360 used where you have to have the disc in the system to play it, regardless of whether or not it's download to the hard drive. Even if there aren't discs, they could simply implement the Xbox 360 system again - you can download the game to a friend's hard drive, but the friend can only play it on your account. If this were the case, you'd have to be online to do it anyway otherwise the game refuses to run.
There is just so much wrong in that statement that I would have to create an entire thread explaining what is wrong with it.

In conclusion, Mr.Writer, it seems you are comparing the Xbox One to Steam. Yes, you can download games from an online store with both, but you can't share games on Steam and you most likely will never be able to. You also seem to be looking at what benefits were lost with removing the DRM policies and not what drawbacks were lost; the biggest drawback you just-so happen to forget was the fact that if you are not connected to the internet you lose access to all of your games, which is one of the biggest detours for people in areas with shaky internet connections.

Just because a new system allows new ways to share games that would "advance" gaming technology it doesn't mean that it is a good thing. You have to consider what is needed for that system to work and consider if it's worth it in the long run. Having the once-a-day check would detour people from buying it, especially if they have unstable internet, and having the DRM policies in place would also detour people because they don't want to sit in front of their TV while they fill in the necessary codes and waiting for it to install just to play a new game. This would lower accessibility and as a result, lower sales meaning lower profits and potentially a loss in money.

Speaking on the having to download games to play them again bit. I have about 200 GB of games I've gotten, downloaded, and play here and there from steam on my computer. So when my hard drive started to show it had corrupted bad sectors I had two choices. Figure out how to back everything up on a secondary drive (which will like remain my self proclaimed steam drive, for space and not having to bloody download it all again) or I could go and download my games again. TF2, Left 4 Dead 1& 2, along with the many indie titles. Which for the big games it locks my PC out for 8 hours, which means any games on steam I can't do anything. Similar thing happens when the Xbox 360 game is updating.

The idea of doing the same for the Xbox One seems nuts, I want to get my game take off the plastic, open (and enjoy the smell), and play. I will wait for minor updates but after that I want to be good to go. No clue how fast the download speed from disk would be bout I doubt I could do the same, not to mention the hard drive fills up which means that you have to get a secondary one if your collection starts to expand. (Fortunately you can get a cheap external hard drive and your good (one thing PS4 doesn't do)

"The new PC games need an HDD space of around 7-8 gigs. That's the same amount of space most 360 games use as well." found when I went to look at game size. So average game collection is what 10-50 games depending on size. Each one eating up we will say 8 GB which means you need an 80 GB hard drive to store all them with a collection of 10 or 400 GB if you happen to have 50 Xbox One games (no clue if that many will be release but roll with it). Now lets say that hard drive crashes. You have to reinstall and replace that hard drive. Since they are all digital downloads that's more time with it sitting there waiting to be used because you have to re-download them to your console.

Seeing the problem yet?

Digitally being able to share your games is cool. Nice idea, problem is gonna be hackers who figure a way around that share with only one person clause.

As was said: All because it's more advanced doesn't make it better.

Maybe people are also starting to realize that the Xbox is just a computer and Steam can fill the gaming gaps... with free online multiplayer, which the Xbox doesn't have.

The best news in that article was this part:

About dang time. Gates really should return to being the head of Microsoft. Even if he doesn't, the new CEO better be a lot more consumer friendly.

And Sony continues to take advantage of Microsoft's gaffes.

The unboxing video (which is back online now) at the above link was removed because of an alleged copyright claim from Microsoft.

Sony's response:

While Nintendo just sits back and laughs at them both.