@jayjay444 @cryofax I've played all four Halos + Reach. Got stale. Linear, repetitive. You're right it's just my opinion, but I've played about every FPS since Wolfenstein 3-D (which predates the original DooM) and they're just meh.

Thank God they got away from Microsoft so they weren't forced to make more Halo games. Now they have the creative freedom to make a Halo clone. Completely different. If you have to "look closely" at the trailer to spot the differences, you're making a clone lol. Halo has been boring since Halo 2 (was always a mediocre FPS if you're a PC FPS player anyway). Destiny has a lot of changes to make to not be more of the same.

@FalconOfStorms @cryofax @Zoomer30 That IS old lol. But seriously, the analogy makes no sense. And the difference in quality between consoles was just as significant then as now. Just as a chariot 10% faster is just as significant as a racecar 10% faster. It's all relative.

@FalconOfStorms @Zoomer30 Well I'd agree that a better console can make things look better and play better. But the difference has to be fairly extreme (Wii vs 360 for instance). I doubt any gap in modern consoles is significant enough.

BTW that analogy is terrible. You're comparing a vehicle for transport vs one for racing. If I am RACING chariots I go for the one that is 10% faster. If I am driving a racecar on a crosscountry trip I take the one that is more comfortable. The point is the expectations (what gamers want from their games) and power of the vehicle (or console) are relative to the time. They are no different now than then. The wider the gap in power the more obvious the difference in gaming experience is. But at a certain point its significance takes a backseat to game availability.

@Sevenizz @jd7904 The console winner of a given gen is the one who sold the most consoles. That's Nintendo. Wii sold over 20 million more than the 360.

@johnritter4141 You miss the point. This isn't about people not wanting online gaming, it's about people not wanting to be forced online when there is no reason to. A single player game has no reason to go online unless I want it to (maybe for an update or DLC etc). It shouldn't be forced.

@StaticPenguin That's how free markets work. Sales are driven by consumers. Companies change based on sales, but sales are a result of consumer action, part of which is bad publicity. So this most definitely was a result of consumer action. No Microsoft didn't do it out of some warm and fuzzy change of heart. But that's almost unheard of in any industry.

@MERGATROYDER You have a link to that? Remember they dropped it probably anticipating the new consoles would have publisher used game fees built in, but both Sony and MS backed down on that. So NOW EA is saying the won't bring it back, even though they are now cut out of used game fees. I don't recall them making any kind of pre-emptive announcement that they wouldn't bring it back even if the consoles didn't have a used game policy.

They say the connected console is the future. Uh, guess what? Consoles are already connected. We want features that are good for the consumer. There is NO advantage to the consumer being required to be online if he doesn't want to be. That's just so they can control us. We rejected that. Congrats to those of you who didn't give in to this garbage.

To all you idiots who defended these terrible policies and said we as consumers had no power and should just bend over and take it, shove this news in your pipe and smoke it. We win.