[QUOTE="Areez7"]

[QUOTE="Randolph"]

Wait, you're Henry? Next thing you know Sergio and JakeT will pop back up and we'll have a Xbox forum mods reunion.

Randolph

Wait...you're Minda_Cubed?

LMAO!! Yeah, I remember you. Good to see some old school guys like us around. Geez, I dont even know what happened to my Henry account. I stopped coming to the forums for a while. And whats happened to the forums? I see cursing now! Where are all the MODS? 

It would be really simple to solve this problem. Just have all games come with a code that you can redeem if you wish to have it be an online game. It could have a partner code written to the disc so that you have to have the disc in the drive and input the code to turn it into an online game, but when you did it made the disc inoperable unless inserted into that same console. The all or nothing scheme is going to hurt themguynamedbilly

This could work, but it does not address the issue of developers loosing money on trade-ins. DRM allows developers to either make additional money by requiring the purchase of an additional key code, or prevents them from loosing money at all from used game sells.

Wait, you're Henry? Next thing you know Sergio and JakeT will pop back up and we'll have a Xbox forum mods reunion.

Randolph

Wait...you're Minda_Cubed?

[QUOTE="Areez7"]

Who is we? You? Certain segments of the population? I agree, that certain segments of the population will never like DRM ever. I am not one of those. It is what it is. I was never big into trading used games in anway. The value in these intellicetual properties is the user entertainment experience. Although lower pricing for games would be a plus for consumer. I mean who doesnt like lower prices these days???

And who wouldnt like to see games go back to $50?? However I also understand the industry rasing the price of games, as development cost are very expensive and rising. Since I have been buying games, over the last 28 years, the price point had always been $50. In 1988, I was buying NES games for $50 and in todays dollars ( adjusted for inflation ) that is roughly $98.00. So when people were moaning a groaning over a $10 increase, I chuckled considering how consistant prices have been with console software.

What MS is doing, is not that much different than Apple iTunes or even Amazon. When you download a music track from the iTunes store, you are in effect renting that content indefinitely under license. When you purchase an eBook on Amazon you are essentially doing the same. I wonder how many gamers here and elsewhere, who are openly complaining about the Xbox One's content policy, currently download content through Apple iTunes?

 

If you think Sony is at the other end of the spectrum than MS, you may be in for a rude awaking. Sony is leaving DRM up to third party developers and has only guarnteed that its first party developers will not impliment DRM. Much like online gaming, Sony is adopting the "We'll leave it up to the 3rd party developers" and when the dust has settles, we"ll join the party. Ah Sony, they were in the 80's what Samsung is today. That is an entirely different conversation. Nintendo without a shawdow of a doubt is defintely at the other end of the spectrum as they push what makes Nintendo, Nintendo.

 

MirkoS77

We is me and many (a LOT) of other people.

I'll never understand why people, such as you, are OK with this direction.  Wouldn't you prefer the alternative?  Don't you wish to retain your rights?  Don't you want to be able to sell, rent, trade?  Sure, you may not do these things but what's wrong with having that option?  You seem to be advocating the direction MS is taking simply because they are taking it and nothing else.  Do you really think that they will reduce prices?  What reason will they have to?  It's a closed platform.  Their DRM is greed and nothing more, and there's no reason for them to drop costs.

The thing is, I would gladly take a price increase of $10-15 if MS kept all its DRM B.S. far away from its system.  The majority of games I play are off of Steam and there are many restrictions it imposes (but is much more lax in Internet requirements with it's offline mode), not to mention dirt cheap sales relatively soon after release.  Paying more for games with no DRM is essentially the same as paying less for them with it.  You can make all the comparisons to itunes, amazon, books, but I still can't understand WHY you'd willingly give up freedoms that you've held previously, on a "promise" of cheaper games, one that I highly doubt and has not been yet realized.

Would I prefer the alternative? I honestly just do not care enough to want to retain the ability to trade in used games or rent games. It is a non-issue for me, it is an option I never exercised. As I said, I do neither and therefore I am not impacted by this. I do believe that gamers will have the option of selling used games on next generation of consoles. We will just have to purchase a new key when we buy a used game. Again, some us will hate this and others will not. And I cannot say with confidence whether or not developers will drop prices for games. I mean time will tell, right?

Am I advocating DRM. No, but I do understand the business decision behind it, which I will get to later. The biggest mis-conception gamers have is this. That console DRM is all Microsofts idea and the developers had nothing to do with this. Console developers are very ok with DRM as this gives them an opportunity to re-coup lost dollars from the secondary market. How many developers have said pubilcy " Bad MS for DRM"? Maybe a few, as the developer of The Witcher 3 did.  Forbes recently wrote an article about console DRM and the impact. What they are saying is this, in five years developers will better be positioned to earn additional revenue, which is a win, win for developers. So for those of you who think Sony will be totally immune from DRM content material, think again.

Someone posted an interview where Peter Moore of EA said that EA never aggressively lobbied MS or Sony for console DRM. What Peter Moore didnt say was that EA never asked for it. Not aggressively lobbying for DRM, in no way says " Hey we never asked for this, we do not want it". EA, is more than ok with console DRM, despite whatever Peter Moore has said.

For years EA (and other console developers) have been trying to find ways to eliminate piracy and re-coup revenue lost from the secondary gaming market. See developers look at the DISC we own, as their material. We may own the disc, but we do not own the intellectual properties contained on said disc. And for years, companies like Gamestop have literally been generating billions of dollars off of secondary sells. With developers not seeing a dime of that revenue.

Is this about greed or a sound business decision? I suppose that perspective, depends on your own personal views of greed. I can say without any hesistaion that the devlopers are very ok with MS DRM. It allows them to to address the issue of piracy, and loosing revenue to secondary sells. And I believe that when the dust settles, many of us will go back to gaming and DRM will be an after thought.

Freedom. I do not see myself as giving up freedom because I will buy games on the Xbox One. Before Gamestop ever existed we never had the luxury of trading games in for credit. We did have the ability to rent games, but that was it. So my perspective is different, because I grew up in the mid to late 80's buying games, without the luxury of used trade in's. I see the used trade in model as a luxury that has been afforded to us by gamestop. And as I have mentioned before, I do believe that 3rd party developers will allow used game sells, with the requirement of purchasing a new key-code.

I will say this, MS with all the backlash they have been receiving regarding DRM, needs to elaborate on this more. As it stands, their policies are still a bit vague, in my opinion. Here is what we know about the actual MS policy in place....

• Publishers choose whether you're allowed to give a friend your game as a gift
• Publishers choose whether you're able to trade in your game for cash or credit at a participating retailer
• Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers or consumers for performing trade-ins i.e they're effectively leaving it to those parties to sort it out among themselves

[QUOTE="Areez7"]

[QUOTE="Randolph"] Oh, a dudebro. Conversation is over.MonoSilver

A dudebro? Oh I see...You assume that because I play first person shooters online that I am not hardcore enough to debate the subject matter? And know little about gaming... Or you believe that I am some 21 year old frat guy, who has never appreciated playing games like Shenmue or Star Ocean. I mean apparently anyone who plays FPS or has an appreciation for them are just ignorant gamers with low IQ's....I am assuming them that you feel the same way about the folks who review games for GS. 

Making broad assumptions about an individual based their gaming habbits is a bit ignorant if you ask me...Rather than trying to come up with a thoughtful counter, the best you can come up with is "dudebro".....:|

Yes. I probably buy 10-12 games a year. And between my PS3 and 360 I have over 50 games. And I agree, if you need to trade games in to have GS subsidize your gaming hobby, well than the Xbox One is probably not going to be the system for you. 

[QUOTE="Areez7"] I probably buy a couple of games a year but primarily focus my time on online FPS on Xbx Live.Randolph

A dudebro? Oh I see...You assume that because I play first person shooters online that I am not hardcore enough to debate the subject matter? And know little about gaming... Or you believe that I am some 21 year old frat guy, who has never appreciated playing games like Shenmue or Star Ocean. I mean apparently anyone who plays FPS or has an appreciation for them are just ignorant gamers with low IQ's....I am assuming them that you feel the same way about the folks who review games for GS. 

Making broad assumptions about an individual based their gaming habbits is a bit ignorant if you ask me...Rather than trying to come up with a thoughtful counter, the best you can come up with is "dudebro".....:|

[QUOTE="Areez7"]What MS is doing, is not that much different than Apple iTunes or even Amazon. When you download a music track from the iTunes store, you are in effect renting that content indefinitely under license. When you purchase an eBook on Amazon you are essentially doing the same. I wonder how many gamers here and elsewhere, who are openly complaining about the Xbox One's content policy, currently download content through Apple iTunes?Randolph

I don't use any of those services. 

I really don't understand this continued insinuation of "oh you'll get used to it and go along quietly".  You guys seem to be projecting.  Just because you're willing to give up so much to move forward with gaming, doesn't mean I will as well.  Don't lump me in with you, I stand by my principles.  If Sony had gone the same route as MS, they would have lost me as a customer, had Nintendo done it as well, I'd just be a retro gamer moving forward.  I don't have to do anything or get used to anything in this hobby that I don't want to, precisely because it is a hobby.  I have a choice.

I m not actually lumping you or anyone else into the group of us who are ok with DRM on consoles.  I actually did say that some of us will dislike this too. And it is very ok for you or any one else to have a difference of opinion. Clearly DRM will turn some of us off and some us will not even think twice about it.

And what exactly am I willing to give up to move gaming forward? So far as I can tell....nothing. I do not trade games in and I do not share games with friends. I probably buy a couple of games a year but primarily focus my time on online FPS on Xbx Live. 

[QUOTE="Areez7"]

And yes, MS probably jumped out of the gate a bit faster than a lot of us would have liked with DRM. But, they are being upfront about it because this is the direction console gaming is going. I imagine that like this generation, we will see both platforms around for 7-8 years. DRM is not so much about today is it so much about how we consume games tomorrow. It would not a be a surprise to me, if the up-coming consoles are the last traditonal consoles as we know them today. Meaning, we will have small set-top boxes ( think Apple TV ) without the all the sophisticated hardware of todays consoles. And these smaller platforms will be cloud based and allow us to stream game content as well. Hello DRM!

MirkoS77

We will never "like" DRM, ever. There is no benefit to the consumer. Actually, the only positive I can see from it is if they significantly reduce game prices, and I mean by a lot, and assure us that our purchases are secure forever. I use Steam and have gotten 3-4 top tier games for the price of a newly released one ($60) 6 months down the road from insane sales, and that's a great feeling. But there has to be incentive. As the One is a closed platform, you can rest assured there is no reason for price drops as it's all through MS. Having exclusive and no competition, they can do whatever they want, and it's apparent they are trying their best to do so.

I tend to agree that this is where games seems to be headed. But they don't have to be. This E3 has triggered a massive war in distribution and consumer rights philosophies with MS at one end of the spectrum, and Sony (and the Wii U) at the other with consumers wholeheartedly supporting the latter. People will still be as vehemently against these policies eight years from now, count on it. Unless they gradually ease us into it which is the way I suspect it will happen. MS was just too abrupt and forthcoming. It was the wrong approach.

Who is we? You? Certain segments of the population? I agree, that certain segments of the population will never like DRM ever. I am not one of those. It is what it is. I was never big into trading used games in anway. The value in these intellicetual properties is the user entertainment experience. Although lower pricing for games would be a plus for consumer. I mean who doesnt like lower prices these days???

And who wouldnt like to see games go back to $50?? However I also understand the industry rasing the price of games, as development cost are very expensive and rising. Since I have been buying games, over the last 28 years, the price point had always been $50. In 1988, I was buying NES games for $50 and in todays dollars ( adjusted for inflation ) that is roughly $98.00. So when people were moaning a groaning over a $10 increase, I chuckled considering how consistant prices have been with console software.

What MS is doing, is not that much different than Apple iTunes or even Amazon. When you download a music track from the iTunes store, you are in effect renting that content indefinitely under license. When you purchase an eBook on Amazon you are essentially doing the same. I wonder how many gamers here and elsewhere, who are openly complaining about the Xbox One's content policy, currently download content through Apple iTunes?

If you think Sony is at the other end of the spectrum than MS, you may be in for a rude awaking. Sony is leaving DRM up to third party developers and has only guarnteed that its first party developers will not impliment DRM. Much like online gaming, Sony is adopting the "We'll leave it up to the 3rd party developers" and when the dust has settles, we"ll join the party. Ah Sony, they were in the 80's what Samsung is today. That is an entirely different conversation. Nintendo without a shawdow of a doubt is defintely at the other end of the spectrum as they push what makes Nintendo, Nintendo.

[QUOTE="Areez7"]

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

Yeah and you know what? I wasn't one of those people. Been one of the biggest supporter. I fully support their integration. I'm 100% behind the tech. Think it's amazing. I see their vision and I think it's great.

NOT their policies. Now my eyes are fully open to the fact this is a bait and switch. All stick, no carrot. Get this now, give up your freedom. Screw that. I'll wait, I'll still eventually get all that stuff and keep my freedom!

Just because Microsoft isn't the only one with DRM doesn't make it ok. I hate it on the PC too. And even if publishers do it on Sony's console at least for the time being you can choose to buy that individual game or not. If it has high replay value, maybe I would. If it doesn't I can skip it.

You will get cloud gaming in the future. But if you get it from Microsoft you will help set a shitty precedent for it, for things that would have come at no cost. Just like what we did with Xbox Live. We set a shitty precedent for online gaming. Requiring a payment method that we all hoped would one day go away. Instead it just encouraged Sony to adopt the same.

Guess what? Online gaming is still free, as it should be, everywhere else.

It's simple. I only buy 7-8 games a generation. The rest I rent or buy used. I can't afford to buy them all, and even if I could some games I don't believe are worth $60. So even though I love their tech and I love their line-up of games, what is the point if they will limit me to just a handful of games a generation?

Would I buy games like Kinect Rivals? Nope. Would I buy games like Crimson Dragon? Maybe, maybe not. Need for Speed? Nope. Do I want to play them? Would I rent them? HELL YES! Guess what? I can't. Cause they have no plans for that. Can't afford to with the console model. I just can't. So now those games might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned.

Microsoft effectively destroyed that and created a cumbersome system for us, a system created by them, publishers and retailers in their little meeting where they will effectively take out all the freedom we had of selling games between each other and give that ALL to retailers like GameStop.

You can have digital distribution where they can check keys for authentication but STILL give ownership to the buyer and let them re-sell it used as they see fit! They just don't WANT to do it.

alexwatchtower

I believe this is MS official policy on used games for the XBX 1.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

Whatever the case, I am not one to say that we set a bad precedent by paying for Xbox Live. I had the privlege of being an original beta tester for Xbox Live in 2002 and MS has practically delievered on all of their promises for Xbox Live. Beta testers, and early adapters of the Live service help build Live, through are feedback and the $50 a year subscription we paid. MS used the money we invested, to build a robust and next gen online console platform. What Microsoft did, 11 years ago was a big win win for console gaming. It allowed us to enjoy and interact in new ways never done before on a console. Was it free? No! But Microsoft was charging gamers for a SERVICE.

Sure Xbox Live could have been free, but it would have never been able to deleiver the content and features it has today. I had the experience of free with Sony and it was literally night and day. It is good to see Sony finally come around full circle with online gaming after mocking it for so many years. See, the subscription money used, helps to maintain servers and build infrastructure. Sony is going to be doing the same too. They realized that if you wanted to offer a trully compelling online community and experience, it had to be done this way.

I am 100% positive that you pay for cable TV. Have we set a bad precendent by allowing cable companies to charge us to watch Television? Television at one point in time was FREE, as it was transmitted through airwaves. However, Cable TV is a service and we pay for the variety of entertainment options it provides us. Should TV be free too than? To an extent it is still free to the consumer if we purchase an HD attena, but your experience would be limited.

No one is taking away your freedom. You have the freedom to not buy the Xbox One. Hect you have plenty of options, you can purchase a Wii U or the PS4.

Personally, I do not think that their is a right or worng answer to any of this. Either what Sony or Microsoft has to offer works for you or it does not. At the end of the day it ultimately comes down to games and which system provides you with the gaming experience you desire.

For example, the issue of not being able to trade in Xbox One games, not a big deal for me. I do not and have not traded games in the past. The "always on" online connectivity, my Xbx 360 is always hardwired into my router all the time. Not an issue for me. The Kinect, do I need it, probably not, but it is more or less an extension of the Xbox controller. Perhaps developers take full advantage of it and create even new ways to play games.

Probably the most interesting thing with all of the bickering, is that a lot of the attention has been taken away, on focusing in on the great games both platforms will be offering soon.

I was a beta tester too! RE-VOLT BABY! I've been an Xbox supporter from day 1.

But come on, it's obvious what's taking place. Paying for a free service to be taken away. Paying for intrusive advertising. Paying for a service that SHOULD BE FREE!

Don't compare it to cable. We already pay for ISP service and they have an actual cable line that goes from my house to their headquarters in order to give us this ability in the first place.

This is like Road Runner saying, ok the ability to have Internet is $49.95, but then Gamespot charges us $5 a month to post in their forums. This is the road we're going down.

We already pay for that ability. We already pay for the ability to connect to other computers. Game developers are the ones who create the online modes in their games.

Xbox Live is a fancy match-making service. Not to mention, adverising pays for it and we have to put up with that on top of the fee.

I can download any freaking emulator and match-make all I want using a free program like Kaillera and others that are much better. And no ads either. I can do this with just about any PC game as well. If they want to charge, charge for a value. Not for the ability to play games online. For $5 a month you get some games or something that you have access to. And now you add this used gaming restriction bullshit on top of it all. Where the **** is the carrot? I dont' see it. All I see is stick.

And why not compare it to cable TV? You can still watch TV for free but you pay for it. You are screaming foul that MS is charging for a service that should be free. Watching Television program was free too and still is. Why the discrepancy here? On one hand you are ok for paying for television service, which was free and still is ( with an antenna ) but berate MS for charging for Xbox Live? MS used the cable TV subscription model as the blue-print for Live. Again, a service.

It's great that you can download an emulator etc, which if I am not mistaken is borderline piracy. And I hope that you are not using piracy as an argument for why Live should be free. If you are, cancel your cable TV service, purchase a fixed modem for free internet, and emulate your favorite television programing by downloading torrents. Or I can go to XBC as I used to with halo before Live, and play online free, but have a lack luster experience doing so ( can anyone say LAG ).

Now if you do not see the carrot, so be it. Xbox One will certainly not be the console of choice for everyone. Some gamers heavily rely on the ability to trade used games in for credit towards new games. And yes, MS probably jumped out of the gate a bit faster than a lot of us would have liked with DRM. But, they are being upfront about it because this is the direction console gaming is going. I imagine that like this generation, we will see both platforms around for 7-8 years. DRM is not so much about today is it so much about how we consume games tomorrow. It would not a be a surprise to me, if the up-coming consoles are the last traditonal consoles as we know them today. Meaning, we will have small set-top boxes ( think Apple TV ) without the all the sophisticated hardware of todays consoles. And these smaller platforms will be cloud based and allow us to stream game content as well. Hello DRM!

Again, I'll go back 12 years when MS announced Live as a subscription based service. People here were up in arms, saying they could game for free. Sony laughed at MS, saying that online gaming should be free, that it was to early to adapt online console gaming. That it was irrelevant. And look where we are at today. To say MS is screwed is a bit pre-mature, none of us can say that for sure. Because at the end of the day, it still does come down to games.

[QUOTE="Areez7"]

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

I don't get tied to a company as much as you guys believe. I've never had a problem ditching before or swapping sides(heck I did it pretty much every single generation except the last 2) and loyalty to a manufacturer never had to do with the manufacturer, but the product they put out that met my wants or needs. I backed the product, didn't care who made it. I drive a Cadillac, my first car was a red Honda prelude, but my favorite damn car was a Kia Sorento. That was the best bang for my buck I ever got!

I bought Sony, I bought Sega, I bought EA, I bought Microsoft. No big deal to me. And I could give up missing on a few games in order to get the better deal.

And that's something Microsoft doesn't understand. In fact, them more than any other, have fewer loyal customers than the other 2. We are used to giving up things. They didn't win the hearts of gamers.

It was never about you Microsoft with most of the customers. Some people still had a bitter taste in their mouth supporting you guys, but your product was undeniably good. You guys got the gamers who mainly swapped consoles and looked for the best value. That's what you didn't understand! The least loyal customer base! We didn't have a **** "relationship"! We had a business deal Microsoft! And now that deal went bad! Your deal freaking stinks! You understand business, don't you? Sorry, it's just business! Nothing personal!

alexwatchtower

Some of the reaction here sort of reminds me of the days, 11 years ago in these very forums, when folks would bash MS because the Xbox was to much like a PC or Xbox Live was a gimmick. People are always adverse to change, especially when it seems to come rather quickly.

I can certainly appreciate many gamers being upset about DRM for console games. It does not seem fair and as a comsumer not having the option to trade a game in as a downpayment of sorts towards a new game, kind of sucks for some. In reality you are either impacted by this or you are not. Some gamers trade their games in and others do not.

The writting has been on the wall for sometime, that the industry was heading and is heading in this direction, in regards to DRM. PC gamers were up in arms when this happened and now console gamers are up in arms. At some point, whether it was Microsoft or EA, this was going to happen.

Gamestop is an industry juggernaut, generating over a billion in revenue a year. Most of that comes from the sells of used/trade-in games. And guess what? The developers do not see a penny of that. So with rising developmental cost and loosing millions in additional revenue from used game sells, it almost seems natural that at some point this would happen.

Microsoft is not the only one ok with DRM. Sony has left the door open for third party devs and DRM for the PS4. According to Sony, it is at the discrestion of third party developers to determine whether or not games for the PS4 will have DRM. Sony only gurantee's that their first party titles will not have DRM. So this tells me two things, that even Sony has given 3rd party developers the green light on DRM, as they have left that decision in the hands of the 3rd party and two, that it should come to no surprise if we see DRM from 3rd party developers on both platforms. With rising developmental cost, and piracy it was only a matter time.

Lets fast forward to the very near future here. Cloud gaming and the elmination of discs to play games. At some point, we will be buying games and playing them directly from the cloud. Exactly how do we buy and trade-in used games via the cloud?

I am probably one of the few who see's the days of used games dwindiling. Dont kid yourself, DRM is coming to both consoles this generation.

Yeah and you know what? I wasn't one of those people. Been one of the biggest supporter. I fully support their integration. I'm 100% behind the tech. Think it's amazing. I see their vision and I think it's great.

NOT their policies. Now my eyes are fully open to the fact this is a bait and switch. All stick, no carrot. Get this now, give up your freedom. Screw that. I'll wait, I'll still eventually get all that stuff and keep my freedom!

Just because Microsoft isn't the only one with DRM doesn't make it ok. I hate it on the PC too. And even if publishers do it on Sony's console at least for the time being you can choose to buy that individual game or not. If it has high replay value, maybe I would. If it doesn't I can skip it.

You will get cloud gaming in the future. But if you get it from Microsoft you will help set a shitty precedent for it, for things that would have come at no cost. Just like what we did with Xbox Live. We set a shitty precedent for online gaming. Requiring a payment method that we all hoped would one day go away. Instead it just encouraged Sony to adopt the same.

Guess what? Online gaming is still free, as it should be, everywhere else.

It's simple. I only buy 7-8 games a generation. The rest I rent or buy used. I can't afford to buy them all, and even if I could some games I don't believe are worth $60. So even though I love their tech and I love their line-up of games, what is the point if they will limit me to just a handful of games a generation?

Would I buy games like Kinect Rivals? Nope. Would I buy games like Crimson Dragon? Maybe, maybe not. Need for Speed? Nope. Do I want to play them? Would I rent them? HELL YES! Guess what? I can't. Cause they have no plans for that. Can't afford to with the console model. I just can't. So now those games might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned.

Microsoft effectively destroyed that and created a cumbersome system for us, a system created by them, publishers and retailers in their little meeting where they will effectively take out all the freedom we had of selling games between each other and give that ALL to retailers like GameStop.

You can have digital distribution where they can check keys for authentication but STILL give ownership to the buyer and let them re-sell it used as they see fit! They just don't WANT to do it.

I believe this is MS official policy on used games for the XBX 1.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

Whatever the case, I am not one to say that we set a bad precedent by paying for Xbox Live. I had the privlege of being an original beta tester for Xbox Live in 2002 and MS has practically delievered on all of their promises for Xbox Live. Beta testers, and early adapters of the Live service help build Live, through are feedback and the $50 a year subscription we paid. MS used the money we invested, to build a robust and next gen online console platform. What Microsoft did, 11 years ago was a big win win for console gaming. It allowed us to enjoy and interact in new ways never done before on a console. Was it free? No! But Microsoft was charging gamers for a SERVICE.

Sure Xbox Live could have been free, but it would have never been able to deleiver the content and features it has today. I had the experience of free with Sony and it was literally night and day. It is good to see Sony finally come around full circle with online gaming after mocking it for so many years. See, the subscription money used, helps to maintain servers and build infrastructure. Sony is going to be doing the same too. They realized that if you wanted to offer a trully compelling online community and experience, it had to be done this way.

I am 100% positive that you pay for cable TV. Have we set a bad precendent by allowing cable companies to charge us to watch Television? Television at one point in time was FREE, as it was transmitted through airwaves. However, Cable TV is a service and we pay for the variety of entertainment options it provides us. Should TV be free too than? To an extent it is still free to the consumer if we purchase an HD attena, but your experience would be limited.

No one is taking away your freedom. You have the freedom to not buy the Xbox One. Hect you have plenty of options, you can purchase a Wii U or the PS4.

Personally, I do not think that their is a right or worng answer to any of this. Either what Sony or Microsoft has to offer works for you or it does not. At the end of the day it ultimately comes down to games and which system provides you with the gaming experience you desire.

For example, the issue of not being able to trade in Xbox One games, not a big deal for me. I do not and have not traded games in the past. The "always on" online connectivity, my Xbx 360 is always hardwired into my router all the time. Not an issue for me. The Kinect, do I need it, probably not, but it is more or less an extension of the Xbox controller. Perhaps developers take full advantage of it and create even new ways to play games.

Probably the most interesting thing with all of the bickering, is that a lot of the attention has been taken away, on focusing in on the great games both platforms will be offering soon.