SirLysander wrote... As I said, *I* found Microsoft's offer for their service at a particular price acceptable. It sounds like you do not. All consumers are different.
This whole thing started because some guy wanted to know why he has to pay for xbox live even though he hasn't paid for xbox live and he wanted to know why Microsoft wouldn't listen to him. I merely explained the reason why Microsoft charge when NONE of their competitors do is because not enough people are willing to say "NO I won't pay for a service that millions of others get for free".
I don't care if you find the price reasonable I was merely pointing out the reason why Microsoft ignores those that don't pay is because A) there aren't enough people not paying and

there are too many people willing to pay.
SirLysander wrote... My recollection of your earlier post was along the lines that GFWL broke down partly because the quality of the games offered through it. Had the games offered through it been of much higher quality, or in stronger demand, then it's quite possible it might not have broken down (or, broken down as soon as it did). Poor planning and poor execution are deplorable, but not necessarily moronic. Then again, there's the saying that one should not ascribe to malace what can be equally said to arise from stupidity.
The initial situation with GFWL was such that a fee to use it meant most PC gamers ignored it after all why pay for an inferior service when there were vastly superior services available for free. GFWL did not suffer because of lack of quality it had some major hitters such as GTA 4 and Fallout 3 yet eventually Rockstar and Bethseda ditched GFWL in favour of Steam. The GFWL service died on the PC for many reasons but all of them can be attributed to the fact PC gamers saw the service and what it was offering and said NO.
SirLysander wrote... I like the 'put your money where your mouth is' quote - because that's what business is all about. On the other hand, I do not expect someone provide me a good or service for my benefit or enjoyment without knowing they are expecting some benefit(usually by remuneration i.e. money) or an otherwise exchange of goods or services, although the latter is far more rare than the former. I don't have a problem with XBox Live or, at present, it's price, thus I see no reason to change or terminate the present arrangement.
I expect value for money, if a company wants my money they better work damn hard for it. After all I certainly worked damn hard for my money. Now when I see company A) offering a free superior service and company

charging me for a worse service why in gods name should I buy company B's service ?
The same goes for Origin, it is in no way shape or form anywhere close to being anything that Steam is. The service lacks several basic features that a download client should have (such as a backup facility). So why should I give my £60 to EA so they can shove their inferior service down my throat ? Yes I will quite happily miss out on Mass Effect 3 but another company will benefit when I spend my money on their products rather than EA's. Now if enough people do that then you might find EA think about changing it's ways. That is why I say put your money where your mouth is.