03-21-2013, 02:58 PM
(03-21-2013, 02:39 PM)Wardenclyffe Wrote:The obvious response would be(03-21-2013, 02:33 PM)Xannidel Wrote:(03-21-2013, 02:26 PM)Wardenclyffe Wrote: This really bothers me, but more so with Xbox Live/Ridiculous DLC pricing. If enough people said "Hey Microsoft, having to pay to play with my friends online is total bullshit. I shouldn't have to pay more to use the internet I'm already paying for", then I think Microsoft would would change their policies. Sony and Nintendo have free online multiplayer. Sure, there's PSN+, but considering how much free stuff you get from joining, you're practically stealing from Sony. And not to mention IT'S COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. Honestly, a lot of the people I talk with have the "Well Xbox is better because they told me they were, so I don't mind paying out the ass to play Call of Duty", but that's a whole different story.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if enough people had a problem with it and refused to buy into this crap, they'd either have to change their ways or just flop out of the competition.
That would have to be AT LEAST 75-80% of the gaming community for them to rethink their shit.
So maybe paying for subscription based multiplayer is a tough issue to tackle, but banning used games will be an issue that will probably upset 75-80% gamers, especially when you factor in the people who sell used games for a living.
"Lol no Micro$oft, I won't be buying your console". Banning used games, if it happens, Microsoft have lost potential sales.