: I believe his (RC's) point in changing the thread title to
: "Selfish" and then bring up "they completely lacking in
: empathy nor do they completely lack principles" was his one and only
: point and that was to suggest I am selfish because I stated I am
: unaffected by reported XB1 features. That's pretty much name calling.

Incorrect. You're selfish because you lack thought for others in this matter. Which is pretty much the definition of selfishness.

Frankly, your belief that Microsoft's plans will not negatively affect you personally is the height of irrelevance. The fact is they will negatively affect others and that is what is being objected to.

I have little reason to believe that Microsoft's plans would actually affect me in any great capacity: I usually have solid, fast internet and buy my games new. I don't LAN anymore and I don't rent or lend games out anymore. This also, is completely irrelevant.

I object on principle that I should not be treated like a convict having to sign in to my parole officer every day just to use the products I purchased legally. I object on principle that the ability to resell or gift my possessions to others unfettered is being taken away. Doubly so that I cannot have this right as an additional option available for purchase, nor am I guaranteed lower prices as a result of lower rights. I object on principle that an unnecessary accessory is being forced down our throats. Not just bundled in the box, but demanded that it is connected even when it can be rendered utterly inert and useless in innumerable ways: including by Microsoft's own installed system software!

I object for known and unknown others who regularly engage in practices that would be restricted or made difficult under such proposals. I object for a range of my potential future selves which would be similarly inconvenienced.

: We are digital gaming consumers. We all have to meet a minimum requirement to
: accomplish this.

Microsoft is trying to raise those minimum requirements arbitrarily for no known benefit to the consumer. Presumably they perceive there will be some benefit to themselves or other corporations. Certainly the benefit is not to game developers - who thrive on having a large market to sell to which Microsoft will actively restrict which such policies.

They are including requirements which for some cannot be reasonably overcome or overcome at all and which do not need to be in place; as the current generation of consoles is abundantly in evidence for.

: Since we live in a world
: of capitalism controlled mostly by supply and demand, the richest of us
: get the good things first. Prices drop as a result and then another
: portion of the population get to invest in cheaper products. Cascading
: effects result in most of the population getting these cheaper products
: but still, not everyone. So we should at least acknowledge those who
: bought in first at the most expensive moment in time because it is they
: who started the consuming ball rolling.

Are you talking about trickle-down capitalism? As far as I understand it, that theory has largely been discredited.

You'll also win no points with me trying to say those who already have lots of money should decide which projects or policies are adopted for everyone. Money =/= sense.