I will have to see more games. From what I've heard it has less power than the PS4, but can compute stuff in the cloud, and then send it to the console. Seems fishy, and almost more about using the "cloud" buzzword, as well as being a form of DRM.
Pirates hack a game, and they still haven't hacked all the content, because some of it wasn't on the disc.
There's also the huge concern about privacy with the console ALWAYS listening to you, and always wanting to be connected.
From the games displayed I'm not impressed by it. All the features shown were nice for TV viewers, but I don't watch TV.
So instead of MS trying to get TV watching numbers up, they seem to have instead hurt their game players.
If it was at least as powerful as the PS4, didn't always listen, didn't need to always be connected, I think it would be better.
I could live with cloud connecting, but you have to remember, if they are doing processing in the cloud, what does that mean for people that have slow connections? What about people that don't have connections? What about single player and not wanting to connect to the cloud? The answer to all these is either a.) you can't play. b.) your game will go slow because it's having to process stuff that meant to be in the cloud. or c.) the game will degrade in quality so it doesn't have to compute as much, since it's cloud computing isn't available.
All of those are bad. They didn't add anything to the console for me, in fact they took away by making it always needing to be connected.
Now if they made games run fine at 30fps, and they announce the cloud as something like, "and if you want 60fps, then enable a cloud connection and we do part of the processing." and then they end that with "and that is an option, but you do not always have to be connected, if you don't want to."
Give gamers a choice.
Personally speaking, unless something amazing is announced at E3, the PS4 already won. (I mean after PC of course.