darth8ob

@khidi:
And one more thing

Q: Why mandatory Kinect!? are they SPYING on us!? OMG!

A: Kinect became mandatory because MS wants to see it used to it's full potential by developers. Ie: A horror game that knows when you're relaxed so it freaks you the hell out when you literally least expect it. They invested a lot of time into what is actually a very advanced, underused, and honestly futuristic peripheral. If it is mandatory, developers won't be scared to integrate it into their games and you'll see amazing new things. (Example: The Psycho Mantis fight from MGS1 when dualshock hit the scene, too damn cool back in the day...)

@khidi:

Waaaaaaaayyy Tl;dr

Let me explain this as simply as possible for the slower crowd...
The biggest of your arguments are voided by a few sentences.

Q: Why have restrictions in place and always connected?

A: Because at time of release, Physical media still exists. Going direct to all digital is the plan, but even they understand that a complete digital shift so quickly would not be acceptable to many gamers. By having physical media and making it downloadable to the console, you essentially have a "passkey" for a downloaded game, unfortunately, this passkey actually contains the data and it would be unreasonable just to allow hundreds to download the game onto their console for no charge. Always on connection puts a system of checks in place to ensure that doesn't happen with physical media. Once physical discs leave entirely, DRM wouldn't be necessary to play games. (except to download them in the first place)

Q: What if there is a breach like PSN!?

A: You pay for XBL for a reason, and for the billions they are investing in the already far superior amount of servers and security, that concern is minimal. Remember, this is a software company that has the deepest of pockets. This is what they do. Microsoft addressed this, although briefly, in the first press release. This is probably the main reason Sony slipped in the PS+ charge during E3. That, and MS was taking all the heat.

Q: Why no sharing?

A: Read my first post in full, grasp the economics, then, if you still don't understand, re-read. In short, would you rather be able to buy used games for a jacked up price benefiting the retailer, or decrease the cost of, and selling price of games as a whole and support developers directly?

I truthfully hope your post wasn't a very long-winded troll, but it appears to me that it was mostly just a rage post. Come at me with something real, and with relative intelligence and rhetoric, then I'll consider your rantings to have some merit.

I appreciate that sentiment, glad this idea gets through to someone, at least. I admit, it is a difficult model to see through the smokescreen of bad PR Microsoft has garnered, but that's part of why it was so ingenious. The average person could never have thought up such an almost universally beneficial long-term business strategy, and that's why those execs make the big bucks. Microsoft's Achilles heel is, and always has been, it's public relations strategy. A juggernaut like them, especially one that is so essential to modern-day operations, doesn't know how to properly market their product because almost every product they have ever put out has sold itself! (prime example, Windows OS') Whereas a company like Apple has to rely almost exclusively on aesthetic, advertizing, and curb appeal to move products. If you want to see a juggernaut from a PR and advertizing standpoint, look no further than Apple. I dislike all Apple products with a passion, I like the company even less, but I know a successful marketing strategy when I see one.
Microsoft, in my opinion, thinks that the public is smarter than it really is. They don't "dumb down" things for those unable, or more likely, unwilling to understand. They are working on it, but there is a fine line between "streamlining" and "dumbing down". That's probably why every other Windows OS is great, while the others between are just "meh..." If they could simply learn how to deliver their vision of the future with more grace and justifiability to core audiences, they would be even more profitable than they are today. Prime example, the Zune. It was an excellent device, just as (if not more) functional than the Ipods of the time, definitely more durable, with a solid marketplace application comparable to ITunes with no restrictions, excellent compatibility with Windows machines and a competitive price point. Why did it fail? Almost zero marketing effort compared to Apple's "all out" approach. This is Microsoft's biggest downfall, by a landslide. Not filling our heads with a bunch of trendy, useless, garbage, jargon-filled advertizing and just saying

"Hey, man. we got this new thing that we want you to explore for yourself. We want you to have the firsthand experience and excitement of discovering all of our new bells and whistles yourself, because we put in too much work to ruin that for you."

Alright, my bias really is starting to show now, and I'm a major business tech junkie so I'll leave it at that.
Just some food for thought.