8
The question is flawed.
My utility from having rights as a consumer to do whatever I want with a product and the utility I get from benefits from update-able connected consoles are unrelated and thus are "untradeable". It is obvious that I CAN have full access to my disks AND have a connected, updateable console without one affecting the other NOW. Any change departs from the current optimum point.
This is why when MS DID try to impose similar controls on physical media, it caused an uproar (since it removed from the consumer) and it was retracted (at no cost for the consumer). If and when a company does exercise this ability of course I ll not accept it. Any argument using "technological progress" as an excuse for such an exercise is simply irrational as we can have a cake and eat it too. Funnily such arguments did exist when MS announced their initial plans.
As long as things stay as they are I am happy
I asked, because when I tried to present you with a hypothetical scenario whereby not only are there market realities (consumers would revolt) but iron-clad consumer protections are in place to create a comparable level of ownership rights for digital media as there is for physical media you said you couldn't consider that because digital ownership as restricted by DRM allows additional control by the platform owners over your purchased content.
The connected/update-able console paradigm allows platform owners additional control over the content you have physical ownership of that didn't exist before. This is the grounds you used to reject even *considering* the hypothetical I presented.
So, let me try this. If, prior to the Xbox 360/PS3 generation, you had been presented with the concept of connected/update-able consoles along with the idea that this could potentially allow platform holders to block access to your purchased discs would you have been opposed to this paradigm on those grounds?