I agree with Mesh's points almost wholesale, but I've been arguing with Ash about this for days now. It's just a situation that some people aren't going to agree on, and that's okay-- because none of us have to buy an XB1 if we choose not to.
This reductionism I continually see that says "XB1 IS THE SAME AS STEAM BUT EVERYONE LOVES STEAM" is missing very important shades of distinction.
And you can get a very solid PC to play games on for $400. I know, because I built one for a friend a few months ago. We spent $500 total, and that included a brand new bitching monitor, cheap speakers, and a mouse/keyboard. It runs Borderlands 2 at higher-than-console-quality settings, and does everything else you'd want a PC to do.
The only point that is true is that-- yes, you could be said to not "own" your games on Steam, but considering my games are more accessible via Steam than they are as CDs sitting in my parents' attic 900 miles away, I am infinitely more connected to them than I would be otherwise. The doom and gloom and "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN STEAM DIES" is paper-thin, if you ask me, because Steam isn't going anywhere for the forseeable future, and when it does, they've already said they'd unlock the encryption.
Microsoft's console will be gone and forgotten in ten years when the hardware becomes outdated, and if the NEXT Xbox isn't backwards-compatible, your games WILL disappear. It's equally possible that they'll unlock them somehow, too, and we can't discount that, but the life-cycle for a piece of console hardware versus a PC-based distribution platform that exists on Mac, Linux, Windows, iOS, and Android is significantly shorter.
Mesh basically summed it up:
Value-added or taken away. Steam's introduction and existence does nothing to take away from our computer gaming experience. Some of us even like its features; the rest can ignore it. XBO and its online DRM are a major step backwards from the 360 in every ownership aspect.