Oh, you mean the PC, where you can't resell your digital games and you need to login to steam from time to time to play them?

Consoles have never been about backwards compatibility, so lets not entertain that idea nor make it out like the Steam world is somehow some paradise compared to the majority of the plans MS have outlined.

I've also been gaming long enough to remember the early days of Steam, where people worried about their games suddenly 'going away' and how the gamers would 'never stand for losing physical disks and a lack of resell' and yet here we are, 10 years later, where for many people the idea of not buying a game digitally on the PC is a strange one and where many people are 'steam or no sale'.

Consoles are now starting to follow the Steam/Apple business model where your purchases are tied to an account and the majority of people are fine with this model so all the crying from the 'hard core' console gamers is, frankly, laughable when it comes to this.

Yes, you could play Sega Master System games on the Sega Genesis.

You could but it required an add on that cost the same price as a master system.

Consoles are now starting to follow the Steam/Apple business model where your purchases are tied to an account and the majority of people are fine with this model so all the crying from the 'hard core' console gamers is, frankly, laughable when it comes to this.

That's not really the problem. When the Original Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube were around for example, it was a proverbial three horse race, and these consoles had to out perform each other, in order to secure their markets, but now that Microsoft pretty much dominate the console market, there is less focus on designing 'the best gaming machine' in order to secure a customer base, and more focus on how their machines can make them more money after people have already bought them. It seems like plenty people simply don't want change, and will buy the XB1 because they are so familiar with the 360, and I guess that's why Microsoft have been so ruthless with all the new restrictions; because they expect people to 'bend over', as it were.

Regular HMDI cables don't even fit in the back of the Xbox 360, no, instead we must buy the official Microsoft one (I actually removed over-sized plastic casing around the A/V cable so mine would fit). Plenty other things like this currently make the 360 slightly annoying, but the XB1 will take this type of design to a whole new level; controllers, headsets, cables etc will all need to be Microsoft, or made to adapt tho their new console.

No backwards compatibility: Why not? Would it be that hard to implement? Presumably it's to stop us all selling our 360's.

Plenty of my friends like to trade games in for store credit, and essentially buy new ones with that credit. That won't be possible anymore, and the shops' business will suffer for it. You may not care, but it's Microsoft who'll be reaping what would have been their profits. Does no one see this as a bit too greedy?

Mandatory internet checks, or no single player gaming? Why must a console be dependent on an ISP to function? These services can experience intermittent problems, particularly weather related ones, and older consoles never required this measure. There's some real 'backwards thinking'.

I honestly don't see why I would buy a machine, so blatantly designed to milk me.

That's not really the problem. When the Original Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube were around for example, it was a proverbial three horse race

The PS2 had something on the order of 75% market share. The other 25% was split by 3 consoles.

but now that Microsoft pretty much dominate the console market

No it doesn't. I think today the console market is more equal than it has ever been.

Regular HMDI cables don't even fit in the back of the Xbox 360, no, instead we must buy the official Microsoft one (I actually removed over-sized plastic casing around the A/V cable so mine would fit).

I have a monoprice HDMI cable in the back of my 360 right now. o.O

No backwards compatibility: Why not? Would it be that hard to implement? Presumably it's to stop us all selling our 360's.

More than likely it has to do with the fact that a lot of people rarely/never use backwards compatibility. It's not about the difficulty to implement; I'm reminded of the saying that goes something like, "Anything is possible if you're willing to pay the cost." It's not just about difficulty it's about cost vs. benefit. As was also the case with the Xbox 360 they probably crunched the numbers and found adding a couple million to the cost of development would only add a small benefit to most users.

People always complain about this, but really after the first year of a console's release it doesn't matter that much. Some people care more than others, but most of the people that complain about it wouldn't use it in the first place.

Plenty of my friends like to trade games in for store credit, and essentially buy new ones with that credit. That won't be possible anymore, and the shops' business will suffer for it. You may not care, but it's Microsoft who'll be reaping what would have been their profits. Does no one see this as a bit too greedy?

If I had to guess they're using the steam model, in which case developers will see a good chunk of the profits. Obviously being a developer I'm ok with this.

From a consumer standpoint, those shops were rarely worth it anyway. If you're worried about greed, there is little that could be more greedy than used video game sales. Don't hide your distaste behind the greed argument, when it's already near it's peak.

Mandatory internet checks, or no single player gaming? Why must a console be dependent on an ISP to function? These services can experience intermittent problems, particularly weather related ones, and older consoles never required this measure. There's some real 'backwards thinking'.

2 things on this.

1. They've said single player games are fine and playable offline; internet verification is only needed to confirm the license for the game when you buy it and to verify that license intermittently (they've said every 24 hours in the past, but I feel like this is a moving target).

2. The internet is a big part of people's lives now. I can understand growing pains, but over the next 5-10 years the expectation will become that you have high speed robust internet with you most of the time and especially at your home. I can understand people being hesitant, but that is what's going to happen. That is not just a Microsoft expectation either; every tech company I know of is pushing towards the internet being an integral and near constant part of your life. I cannot fault them for designing their system around realistic expectations for the future.

Overall, it still boggles my mind they chose cable TV for the presentation when I think cable's slowly dying in favor of streaming services.

I think they did show this. They mentioned searching "Video on Demand", but I don't think they mentioned who they had as content providers. They did show Netflix and Hulu Plus at least (presumably also the windows store). I feel like at some point in the next couple years Xbox is going to make a big play to replace your cable provider with either an existing VoD service that's planning to expand, or one of their own; maybe as an open API that allows content providers to provide content and advertising themselves on some sort of "channel" system.

I find that concept really interesting as cable cutting becomes more prevalent. That could totally be wishful thinking, but the more I think about it the less unlikely it seems.

Well, any HDMI cable will fit, just not at the same time as the regular AV cables. Though I agree, it's kind of dumb since it's not like splitting audio into a separate device is a super rare occurrence.

I guess I should have worded that whole point differently; the A/V cable that comes with an Xbox 360 is deliberately obstructive of standard cable designs.

1. They've said single player games are fine and playable offline; internet verification is only needed to confirm the license for the game when you buy it and to verify that license intermittently (they've said every 24 hours in the past, but I feel like this is a moving target).

This doesn't change my issue with it. It can only serve as a hindrance to paying customers. How does it benefit us?

The PS2 had something on the order of 75% market share. The other 25% was split by 3 consoles.

I meant pre-release (when in the design phase), and the way in which each machine would be designed to take the market, by being awesome for gaming, and not milking me for money through their vastly developed social network. I think that Microsoft currently have enough customers to comfortably pull money making stunts, whereas the in the PS2 era, this may not have been so simple.

More than likely it has to do with the fact that a lot of people rarely/never use backwards compatibility.

Xbox 360 introduced the whole online profile/gamerscore/achievements etc to console gamers (not saying they were the first to do this, but that doesn't matter). Backwards compatibility may fulfill the needs of the current generation more than before, where that is concerned. I guess it won't matter to some people, but I hate to see a collection of games become useless.

If I had to guess they're using the steam model, in which case developers will see a good chunk of the profits. Obviously being a developer I'm ok with this.

From a consumer standpoint, those shops were rarely worth it anyway.

I have to disagree with this, because we are comparing these shops to what Microsoft offer in their services. Today, I traded in a few games for NFS Hot Pursuit. It cost £12.99. To download from XB live, it costs £19.99. I don't even have enough GB free to install it, unless I buy a bigger official Microsoft HD. I could use an external hard drive, but then I'd have to format it, and it may only use up to something like 32GB. The real shocker was that NFS MW was priced at £49.99 on XB live.

See, my whole point is that it's not enough for Microsoft just to sell a console, but rather they design it so that only their own line of products work with it (short of your own loop holes and plastic casing removal), and charge you more money for them. It's always been tolerable, but this game licensing and killing the trade in market, being unable to loan your game to a friend - what is that?! Serious control measures, but why are they necessary ?