Physical games: Do everything the way it has been done since the 70s. No exceptions, no restrictions. Lending & borrowing, trading, renting, selling off, buying pre-owned, etc., would 100% work the way it always has been done.

Digital games: Do it more or less like Steam does. Have an offline mode, the occasional big sale, the whole "games tied to your account & can access them from any XBO," and (possibly) sharing one's digital games in some manner.

Let the people decide. People like me who prefer to do things the old way will naturally gravitate towards that, whereas people who like all that newfangled digital download stuff will have that option. By catering to both groups, they could have avoided ruffling any feathers.

As I said in a related thread on DBO, you can still maintain the status quo in regards to physical games on consoles while also offering a robust digital marketplace. I still can't believe nobody at Microsoft figured any of this out. Did nobody at any board meeting or anything say "Hey guys. You know if we add DRM on physical games and require an internet connection for the system to work, people are going to eviscerate us for it? Can't we, y'know, do all these neat future-y things without adding restrictions that are sure to be unpopular?" Instead, they went ahead an announced their DRM and "you need an internet" plans, completely overturning a nearly four-decade-old paradigm, and that's why everyone (including me) got royally pissed off. For a company that's been in the console business for nearly 12 years and two (soon to be three) generations, it all smacks of incompetence, lack of respect for the customer's concerns, or both.

Just like how PC gamers have gotten used to doing things the Steam way, people like me who've been playing pretty much nothing but consoles since the 80s are used to doing things a certain way. We're accustomed to being able to fully exercise our First-sale rights with our own property at our own leisure. We're accustomed to being able to play our systems without having to phone-in and ask for "permission" to play our games (not even the all-digital Steam does that). We buy our systems and games, and that was the end of our business with the manufacturer. and we didn't take too kindly to the notion that the old ways would become a thing of the past. I certainly wasn't going to fork out $500 to support a business model that disparages my rights as a consumer to do as I wish with my own property (within the law, of course, e.g., actual piracy is a no-no). Regardless of whether MS's intentions were pure or now (and I'm skeptical they were), the end result would have been the same.