It's making them money, people are paying for it?

Where's the problem?

The person who wrote that and all the other articles are fucking idiots. It's as if they think the business is run for their benefit, it's run to make money...and that it's doing.

Because they made the console that plays the game, and also allows you to go on the internet with the game...

I certainly agree with that. I won't pay for Live as a matter of principle. It's not worth it to me when the others are free. I came close to buying a 360 a few months ago, pretty much just for Halo, and the idea that I would have had to pay extra just for one game, or to use some of the other features, kind of pisses me off. Why do you have to pay for Live if you want to stream movies?

It just annoys me to have a basic feature of many games held hostage. It flat out feels like extortion and I really want no part of it. Whenever I feel my resolve waver regarding the 360, it's usually the thought of Live that turns me away again.

If Microsoft wants me to buy a 720 then they'd better reevaluate Live next gen. It had better emulate PS+ somewhat and give actual value or there is no way it will be my primary console or possibly even a secondary console. Honestly, I think part of the reason the PS3 is eating the 360's lunch now is that the PS3 is much more viable as a secondary device to someone who already owns a 360 than the other way around, mostly due to the 360 being hamstrung for someone who isn't going to pay an additional premium.

What's your point?

Nothing is wrong with paying for online/gold.

If people are prepared to pay then why shouldn't a company charge for it and with gold subscribers at what 30-40 million+ then why the hell would they stop charging for it?

all that, and with ads

So if PC makers started charging you to use the internet on their machines, you would be okay with it? Okay, got it!

Don't forget, they also have to pay their internet service providers.

People are quick to shit on people disagreeing with the method used by MS for Live.

But if MS took a different approach, like Sony's PSN+ for example, imagine how many reluctant gamers would jump in? There's a lot of people playing mostly third party games who went for the PS3 simply because online gaming is free on it. If MS came up with an other, less exploitive way to monetize Live, then I'm quite sure next gen would be even more difficult for Sony.

Indeed would be like saying that Nike has to stop charging a lot for their shoes or that Dr Dre Beats shouldn't be 300euros for a pair of headphones, if people are paying and still happy to have a few adverts in the bottom corner of the screen which generate an absolute ton of revenue for MS then why would they stop doing it?

In my experience this statement is true.  You pay to win.  Not really sure why you told me to go to bed but MMOs work in two ways.  1 you pay monthly or you adapt the free to pay and then it becomes pay to win.  Oh and btw how much money has WoW made over the years?  People play it because it is a good game and they have the money to constantly update it.  XBL works the same way.  I don't expect everybody to go out and buy XBLG but one thing you can't argue, is that it is a great service and it continues to update.  I expect it to be a multimedia hub next gen and if that comes true then it may even be a cheap alternative to Cable TV. And I don't consider $5 a month to be that big of a deal either but hey that is just me.  People wast their money on crap like fast food so if I want to pay for XBL and spend hours of time on their I dont see why other people are going to complain about it.  If you dont like it then dont get it.  Complaining why a popular service should be free is just pointless though because at the end of the day it will still be popular, it will still be good, and it will still cost money.