1. You're being unrealistic, If they supported every outdated gaming platform nothing would move forward.
2. Mircosoft stopped working on the original xbox years ago and can't be responsible for people unable to upgrade.
3. Assasin's Creed 2 doesn't need servers to run.
4. Some people wanting to play Halo 2 can still play it, and can play it on multiplayer - split-screen or LAN.[/quote]
Well, my thought is that when it comes to games and gaming the entire thing should be self contained. Just like how I can whip out my old Coleco Vision, plug it in, and play the old cartridges if I want to. I see owning the product and being able to use what I paid for indefinatly as one of my rights.
You could say that my expectations are "unrealistic", but then again I brought up these problems starting years ago when services like "LIVE" first launched. The general attitude was along the lines of "meh, don't worry about it, the service won't go anywhere, Microsoft will be around forever". The issue of them supporting antiquidated technology was something someone overlooked and chose not to consider in the great "rush for the future". Well now we've got a bunch of Halo 2 players who still want to play the game they paid for, the way it was supposed to be played, yet Microsoft doesn't want to support the servers.
Ultimatly I feel that if these products require dependancy on the company and it's services for any features, the existance of servers, or whatever, then the price should be substantially lower. What's more I at least do not think that Microsoft represented themselves well when games like "Halo 2" were being released which is why you see some
people complaining about it now (here and there), fine print aside, the general vibe being presented was that they would be supporting this service forever (or at least as long as Microsoft existed).
Keep in mind that I am fairly against the whole idea of "digital" gaming on a number of levels because of the power it takes out of the hands of consumers, and the dependancy on businesses that it breeds.
To me the very valid points you make are moot, basically I feel Microsoft should never have released this product for all of the reasons you mentioned. However since they did it anyway, I personally think they should be made to support it. If that means them maintaining antiquidated servers until Microsoft goes out of business, or the heat death of the universe (whichever comes first) so be it. Understand, I *WANT* them to take a massive bath because of this. Sadly I doubt anyone who cares will ever have the money to bring it to court seriously, never mind win.
Also, as far as I'm concerned none of the consoles I ever purchused were clearly marked with an expiration date (if it's there it's not obvious to a cursory inspection and probably wouldn't hold up in court). I have both a 360 and a PS-3, I do not own an original X-box but I don't remember seeing it marked that way either. Microsoft sold the X-Box based on that service so I feel they should be obligated to support it.
Rulings of the sort I suggest would of course basically kill a lot of these online gimmicks and bring media/games back to hardcopy which is where I think things should remain.
