[quote name='MoCiWe']All I know is I got to read some enjoyable comments the last few days, and that's made it fun in itself. In reality though, I'll probably buy the new Xbox either way, I'd prefer if it didn't have an always online function and could play used games, but my system is never not connected online as it is and I know that I'll get the new Halo game day one, and put enough time into that alone to make the purchase worth it, but it's still understandable why people are upset.[/QUOTE]
My response isn't directed at you personally. But loyal customers like you are what fuels those actions. Once a company know that you rely on their products, they have total control over you and your money, hence they can keep pushing this, to perhaps $70 games with a bare bones design, continuous charge for online play, crammed advertisements not only on your home screen but also while you play, $10 to unlock content that is already on disc, and $40 DLC and map packs. Still want to play Halo 5 after Halo 6 comes out? Sorry, servers are shutting down.
Doesn't this make you, the consumer, feel ever so powerless?
[quote name='sp00ge']Always online isn't an instant deal breaker for me, although it docks a load of points. The deal breaker for me is the "no used games" aspect. As a consumer, if I'm paying full price for a game, I should have the right to sell the game and recoup some of my costs, especially if I didn't like it.
This is the very reason I am very picky when it comes to digital purchases. The last two Xbox Live Arcade games I paid full price for are Minecraft and The Simpsons Arcade, which were games I was already familiar with and knew that I liked. Everything else digital I've bought in the past two years was on sale at a price I felt okay gambling on.[/QUOTE]
If always on comes into the picture, second hand blocking would be right around the corner. Why lay down this infrastructure if not exploit this for its most "beneficial" feature?