One-stop box? Microsoft might as well sell the Xbox 720 as a smaller version of a typical PC. There's really no need to do this. Of course, it would be a nice way to target the casual market, but please, don't make it affect us core gamers in any way. We buy consoles to play video games.

And actually, Microsoft did the right thing by not requiring everyone to get Kinect if they wanted to buy a new model of the Xbox 360. Quite obviously, not everyone wants to have Kinect and not all developers want to create a game with Kinect (cost and vision issues). Requiring both your market and your developers to use Kinect will only alienate them. The only way the core gamers will ever embrace Kinect is with good games that make Kinect an important part of the game, and not just an accessory. It comes down to the quality of your software. That being said, it is correct that certain things have to be available on the base package of the Xbox 720 such as wireless internet.

As for Blu-ray and a pure online method in getting games, they are great things and I actually expect Blu-ray to be the standard format for most discs in a few years. But it comes down to two things: Cost and Execution. Adding any of the two features should not affect those who do not want to avail of them and it would be a massive waste of cash for everyone if a game is created in Blu-ray but doesn't use that much space.

The new Xbox Live price scheme you're proposing is actually pretty good (we pay for what we want, not for what we don't), and same with the idea of a new exclusive. Though, there's no need to discontinue any of the franchises Microsoft has right now. They still work, so why remove it?

This article said the basic reason why I'm not planning on getting a 3DS this early. The 3DS launch lineup was, in so many ways, disappointing. A good game here, and a whole lot of bad ones on the next. Maybe Nintendo is just simply targeting a "kiddie" market, those who don't think as practically as most teens and adults do with their video games, to get a good start? This would be a wise move in order to give time for the quality titles (Ocarina 3D and Kid Icarus to start a pretty decent list) to be improved and released on a more competitive schedule. As seen on the disappointing starts of both the DS and the Wii, all we have to do is give it time.

In terms of having DLC as a form of expansion, there's really no problem with having it, as long as the devs know what they're asking players to pay for. A good kind of DLC would most likely be the BioWare DLCs for Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 as they're extensions (not really much of an expansion) to the game's story and actually adds hours into the gameplay. A bad kind of DLC would be mods or skins, things that are better off offered for free or things that should have been there in the first place. Seriously, who would pay for a new set of shades for your character? An exception is probably The Sims, where people take huge advantage of the DLC they pay for. As games to simply be downloaded instead of having a physical copy, I don't believe in doing so. While having so is a bit more convenient and there's no CD that might get missing, the only problem is that it takes a while to download a game, especially with the increasing size of installers. It then becomes a bit irritating when PC-users need to reformat and some would end up having to download again. Also, there's a certain beauty in box arts and the contents inside that are better appreciated in physical form as compared to digital.

Seems like most of the much-awaited games of E3 '09 are the sequels of the '07 hits. Can't wait for Bioshock 2 (kinda sad if it becomes multiplayer as it WILL make it too much of an FPS to make people look at its brilliant story)