SpaceInsomniac

What the hell are you talking about? I really wish you would have quoted whoever you seem to be replying to, because I have no idea what you're talking about. What rape joke?

Yes, something does seem a little off about this. One statistic looks at "gamers" another at "game purchasers" and the last one finally examines CONSOLE TITLE protagonists. Why didn't the first two statistics look at console title gamers and purchasers? Until the game industry puts actual actual facts before agenda pushing "statistics," it's really quite hard to tell just what percentage of female gamers play the sort of AAA, big budget, holiday release titles that most gamers think of when they think of "video games," and what type of games people talk about when complaining about the lack of female protagonists in the latest Call of Duty title.

And if female gamers are dying for female protagonists, and if female gamers really do represent 47 percent of the console gaming audience--which I believe is the connection that these "statistics" are trying to make--then why did only 18 percent of Mass Effect 3 playthoughs use a female protagonist when given the option?

As much as I fucking loathe what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox One, if Kinect 2.0 can see gender as well--as it can already read your heartbeat and your pulse--and MS had the guts to release the data, we could finally know once and for all the ratio of female to male gamers within each genre and even individual titles.

Until this industry decides to own up to the actual percentage of female gamers who play traditional retail video games--and for all I know that number could be anything between 1 and 50--it's hard to for me take any of these "statistics" seriously.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy well-written female protagonists--fem Shepard all the way--but for that matter I enjoy any well-written protagonists. They're kind of a rarity in this industry.

Because working with a publisher to secure exclusive in-game content, and afford them the opportunity to reveal their game during one of the two biggest press conferences at E3 = paying publishers to not show any multiplatform titles on your competitor's hardware?

MS has been working with Activision to secure limited time DLC exclusives and reveal the latest Call of Duty titles at their press conferences for years, but this is kinda different. Customers don't get anything out of this. It's fine for MS to offer it, IMO, but it's pretty shitty for anyone to actually take the money.

I believe those are referred to in the jewelry world as bracelets.

Any particular reason why? Even if you are someone who views the used games market as bad for the industry, why should people lose their right to trade games with friends, or rent games, or even sell their games at a garage sale ten years from now?

You're thinking of the rumor that MS was paying an image management company to invade forums. This isn't that.

One is a company paying more money to secure the better version of a product for their customers, and the other is a company paying more money in an attempt to hide their competitors product from their customers.

But ultimately, they both kind of suck. If Microsoft customers want to hold Activision's feet to the fire over Sony's Destiny exclusives, more power to them.

Game rentals are not supported - Nothing was said about this, it might up to the publisher to offer timed deals or free weekends like steam.

Quoting directly from Microsoft "Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners."

Not being able to disconnect Kinect, or turn it off separately from the console itself. - They said you can pause or completely turn off the kinect in the release from major nelson.

Pause =/= completely turn off. Again, quoting from Microsoft: "If you don’t want the Kinect sensor on while playing games or enjoying your entertainment, you can pause Kinect. To turn off your Xbox One, just say “Xbox Off.”

The uncertainty of what happens to your game collection once Microsoft eventually turns off the Xbox One servers. - They haven't said anything on this at all yet and assuming they don't have a DRM kill switch like steam does if steam explodes is fear mongering.

Hence "uncertainty of what happens." There is no assumption here, just uncertainty. Just like Microsoft allowing customers to give their games to ONE friend ONCE and ONLY if they've been on your friends list for at least 30 days, and then giving publishers the tools to screw you out of even that extremely limited right. Uncertainty galore.

And again, Steam doesn't need a DRM kill switch, because Steam allows people to play their games offline.

There's one rumor going around right now that Sony is going to be more forgiving with their DRM than Microsoft, EA is not happy about that, so EA is "punishing" Sony by making Titanfall--the first game from Respawn Entertainment (ex-Call of Duty developers)--an Xbox One exclusive.

Like I said, I'm not really upset with MS for doing this--as was said, it's just business--but I absolutely feel that gamers themselves should be pissed at any company who would take the money. Hiding away certain versions of your product would be doing a rather large disservice to your customers.

Sony fans deserve to see how their games are going to look, and undecided buyers deserve to see how each console stacks up when games are running side by side. If your favorite publisher is going to screw you out of that opportunity because they'd rather take money under the table, instead of doing what is best for their customers, THAT is what people should be upset about.