You pay for that when you get the game, or you think that the publisher doesnt take that into consideration at the time they make the game, also understand that you are paying MS for the Xbox live service not to the publisher/developer, paying for something that is free on all the other consoles DS,PSP,PS3 and on PC. and I hope your are wrong because I shouldnt pay for a P2P connection and if they do that I will play only on PC.

Since now I know how you look at things I wont explain any further. I would be waisting my time with you as it seems to me you work for MS or are Just a fanboy to blind to see things for what they are.

Sony and Nintendo are giving it for free. Microsoft has to follow next gen. Not the other way around.

Fun was Hi-jacked by Sony long ago, when they entered the gaming arena. That guy who wrote the article doesn't know a thing about what he's talking about and just wants to blame Microsoft for what Sony started. Sony nearly monopolized the gaming industry by gathering 2/3's of third party games for themselves. If it wasn't for Sony, Sega wouldn't have rushed to make the Dreamcast so soon and would've thougt more about piracy.  I am glad Microsoft joined up (for now) because someone had to slow Sony down. Microsoft eventually will no longer be the knight in Shining armor when they gain enough marketshare and finally win a gen. I already know to be ready for that. Microsoft makes people pay for Xbox Live. Wow! Guess what!? Sony couldn't force people to pay for PSN if they tried. It's funny that no one pays for internet on PSN, because people barely buy PSN products as opposed to live which actually has puts a fair annual price tag on Xbox live. Xbox Live has been so successful that Microsoft showers their consumers with annual updates for Xbox Live. Sony cannot afford to do that and if they tried, they would be in more trouble. Xbox Live is quality...and there is always a critic who never has the mere $50 dollars a year to pay for quality, yet could pay $399 to $599 to buy their PS3, $250 to buy a Wii or even $199 to $399 to obtain an Xbox 360. No one talks about how Sony is lagging in the entertainment department and uses the gaming industry with the Playstation brand to win DVD wars with rivaling brands. No one complained when Sony used DVD on the PS2 to streamline and drop the price of DVD players in 2001 and people almost got the picture, but let it pass when they used the PS3 to save Blu Ray (risking loyal customers). When Sony tells you at an E3 conference that they want to create a multi-media system, is because they are obviously trying to use this market to win a losing battle in another market.

Microsoft is a known Monopoly, but they aren't  a monopoly in the gaming arena. Everyone is already weary of Microsoft, so they know not to overstep their bounds just yet.

Why does my rebuttal stink?  Someone who complains about MS charging less than $4 per month for a service that costs them money to operate, but who refuses to acknowledge that Nintendo is providing much less hardware at $250 than MS is at $199, is being inconsistent.  So MS gouges by charging a little money for a service that costs money to operate, but Nintendo isn't gouging by charging so much for their console that they're making a killing on each one?

Does it stink to point out this inconsistency?

Perhaps you should actually explain why someone's post stinks if you're going to criticize.

I agree and I think it's pretty ridiculous to call one company greedy and others not greedy.  The truth is companies are out to make money and Nintendo and Sony are no different than Microsoft in that regard.  Take Nintendo for instance, does anyone really think that the original Nintendogs and Pokemon games had to be released in three separate versions?  As for Sony does anyone really think that their hands were tied and Blu-Ray was the only way they could have HD games on PS3?  No they did it to further their own bottom lines (Sony for future licensing fees).

As for Sony not charging for online, I am speculating but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it because they knew they'd get a lot of grief from consumers over paying for an inferior service at the time or simply because they chose to use it as a bullet point against the Xbox 360 and expected to recoup the costs with online microtransactions.  Also people can continually bash Microsoft for the hardware problems but they have admitted it (something Sony never did with PS1 and PS2 cd/dvd drives) and are continually working to fix the problem. 

I wish Microsoft would be more transparant though and show hard numbers and behind the scenes work to silence the critics.

This console pricing is not much to argue.  Comparing Ninty $250 to MS $199 isn't fair given that the $199 wasn't opening price.  Try opening prices for comparison and that would be more realistic.  Even with $199 does that include wireless controller?  NO.  Built-In WiFi?  NO.  WiFi option was $100 extra which bring that plastic box with limitations back to $299 easily.  That's one thing that Sony and Nintendo have done that's been great...  sell a console and keep it consistent.  Sony's only changes are in disk drive storage options.  MS has console with wifi and wireless controller, wifi absent with wireless, no wifi or wireless, etc.  They market to unsuspecting shoppers a value that isn't much of a value when they decide to try something with their console that someone else is doing with another model.  Example, Wii and PS3 have WiFi.  MS with their many options had some 360s with wifi and some without.  My nephew with his first one kept trying to connect to his house's wireless internet.  I tried helping him and so did his dad.  Found out his model didn't have built in WiFi.  What a shame.  Everyone buying a Wii or PS3 had the same system basically as everyone else they knew with the same system.  360 owners that received theirs as gifts (like my nephew) or others that just aren't familiar enough with the hardware were disappointed to find that they all didn't have the same consoles.

If you want to compare something to the $199 360, then wait until Wii hardwires it's controller to the front of the console and removes the WiFi guts from the system.  Then you'll have a comparison.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360arcadesystem/

Actually the $199 price does include a wireless controller.  Also as far as wireless goes what happens if a person only has a wired network?  See I can play that game as well.  As for Sony selling a consistent model they have released many SKUs with varying levels of PS2 support, hard drive size, etc.  As far as opening price goes why does that even matter?

There are several reasons, actually, but I'll limit myself to the top two.

For starters, you're comparing the purchase of the base unit (a one-time deal) to a constant subscription. Simply put, if you bought the 360 (for $200) and a $250 Wii in 2005, your Live subscription would mean you've paid an additional $200 by now, and you can look forward to doing the same for every year going forward. That $250 you spent on your Wii, by contrast, is a steady amount.

I'd also add that you're setting up a disingenuous comparison. The $200 360 is very bare bones, and can not in fact do everything that a regular 360 can. Adding things like wireless and a hard drive (the former a luxury, the latter much less so) bring the price to above that of a Wii. Indeed, a much more accurate comparison would be that of a Wii with a 360 Pro, which data suggests many many many many many more 360 owners choose over the Arcade version, but I'm sure you already knew that. I wonder why you didn't bring it up?

But I'm sure that, to you, none of this matters. You seem to have this odd opinion that hardware manufacturers should be losing money on hardware. While I would have been happier if I bought my Wii for less, I knew full well what I was getting into with my money, and I (as well as the majority of the public, it seems) thought that that was a fair price for a luxury item.

Let me anticipate you. You're going to babble about HD, hard-drives, etc., and how on a purely tech level the Wii is overpriced. I don't care. Apparently, the majority of gamers don't care. Like other gamers, I play games, not hardware. Do you feel that the Wii's games suck, making the system not worth the price? That's nice, but seriously, nobody cares.

To summarize: your rebuttal stinks because it's comparing apples to oranges, and because it's disingenuously using a unit that the vast majority of 360 owners didn't buy. A tech-oriented argument will get you nowhere with a luxury entertainment device. And your subjective tastes in entertainment don't matter to anyone but you.

I'd say commerce and progress ruined the fun for everybody.

One minute you've got ages to spend relaxing, procreating and putting in the odd spot of hunting, no worries apart from dying horribly due to some disease or other, the next you're working for hours on end every day and hanging around bars with lots of worries plus an exaggerated fear of dying horribly due to some disease or other.

Fantastic.