: The constant internet connection has useful elements, like the ability to
: keep your games up-to-date when you're not playing. That's a useful
: feature, but only if the user can control it - every PC gamer on this
: forum has had the experience of Steam trying to update something while
: you're in the middle of something like a game of League or streaming a
: movie. The problem, though, is that because that feature is mandatory and
: not a user-controlled setting, it is no longer "Hey, this thing is
: useful to you," it's "We're concerned you might be doing
: something in breach of the EULA, and we'd really like to make sure you
: don't do that."

First, you can't say that until we know the details of what this once-per-24hour connection does.
Second, Apple is moving this way too with seamless background app updates.
Third, who says updates'll necessarily interrupt anything important?

For all we know there may still be an option to disable auto-updates. Choice is nice to have. But I can see how enforcing updates can be beneficial. Perhaps this is MS's past experience coming through in regards to IE6, which they now tell people not to use, and rightly so, but can't force people to upgrade for their own good. *shrug*
Point being, there's no basis to presume this is all exclusively about unfair EULA rules, or inherently and necessarily bad user experience. All we know is what they've told us, so if you presume anything malicious from that, you're not doing anyone any favours.

Confirmed details are more respectable than presuming and ranting over impressions and reputation.

: What it says is the same thing that EA's absurd DRM on Mass Effect 3 says. It
: says the user is bad and not to be trusted.

Is every user good and 100% trustworthy? It's a matter of perspective. Every decision would be unfavorable to someone. I guarantee you EA does not universally distrust every user, nor presume every user is bad and untrustable.

: It says that a marginally
: effective anti-theft system is important enough to impede the experience
: of 100% of valid users. It says "Oh, sorry, our servers are down so
: you can't use this technology you've purchased."

The drawbacks to whatever they implement are certainly clear. And it hurts them because of the negative feedback. But to presume they want to screw their customers over is just wrong. Like any company, they want to both make money, and keep their customers happy. Finding the middle ground without making blanket presumptions about their entire client base is not an easy process. That's why it's a risky business trying something new.

: Steam is fine because it's a service within the platform, and one with a
: pretty effective offline mode. If I couldn't access my PC when Steam said
: "no" or the internet was down, nobody would use it.

Steam is a software service running on hardware. XBO is "Steam"&Hardware. If Steam were the PC's OS, then there may be more concern. We use PCs for much more though, so its use goes far beyond Steam. But XBO is Steam; it's Steam in console form, if you will. With the added benefit of using disc-based media.

Maybe Steam should release a gaming console, then we'd have a better competitive comparison :P