I think the initial uproar was because of their stated intention to restrict discs in a way similar to how downloaded games are restricted: Tying a disc to an owner's account, and charging a fee to change it.

That business model was of zero benefit to the consumer, and would have caused legitimate inconveniences and burdens on the consumer, for the sake of helping Microsoft destroy the used-games industry (under the guise of piracy prevention).

The kinds of online/downloadable DRM that Steam pioneered (and that Microsoft was laughingly touting as a "new feature") is already something we all accept, and is nothing new. The thing is, as it stands right now, when we download a game through Steam, through Playstation Store, or through Xbox Store, we know what we're getting into and we accept it for that particular purchase. I don't know about you, but every time I do it, I cringe slightly, knowing that I'll be unable to use that downloaded content if the infrastructure behind it goes away or changes for the worse. (Which WILL happen, it's just a matter of when... Software companies and game publishers are not permanent entities, and are always subject to accidents, service outages, and sabotage.) But I make my purchase as an informed consumer, and I choose to be shackled with its associated DRM, as the tradeoff for the convenience.

But as a consumer, if I buy a physical object, I expect that object to be mine to do with as I please, even if it's a piece of software, regardless of what the EULA might say when I click past it. Microsoft's unwise attempt at a moneygrab there seemed just too invasive, too much, too obviously over-controlling of my purchases and what I do with them. It was just so quintessentially *Microsoft*, a clear example of why we love to hate them so much. In hindsight, the uproar about it was absolutely inevitable. As was their official backpedaling today.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Microsoft originally came up with the Disc-DRM idea because they thought that, since we already accept this kind of DRM in one area, we'd accept it in another. They failed to see the difference: Just because we like taking it in one orifice doesn't mean we'll take it in another. That's really what this all boils down to.