Im surprised both XBox One and PS4 did not announce prices increases for next gen games to $69.99

It's safer to push more DLC (some of which was cut out of the base game for that purpose) rather than raise the base price and risk losing sales. Publishers are pushing DLC more than ever with some even selling a DLC Season Pass prior to the game's release (with only vague promises of what the resulting DLC might be since most of it hasn't even been made yet).

DLC is all about selling minimum content for maximum profit so any time they can sell you at least some of that they end up ahead--and DLC can't be traded even if the base disc can be so traded copies lead to more DLC profits over time.

I'm personally not really surprised that they didn't raise prices, DLC or otherwise. They tried it with this gen, raising prices from €59.99 to €69.99 and it just didn't take. €70 games didn't sell much at all, and most stores eventually started selling games at €59.99 despite a €69.99 RRP.

And given the current state of the economy, raising prices on a luxury item is tantamount to putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger.

Joystiq has a quote about "over-delivering on value" at $500.

They really are exactly what Sony was last time. It's almost amusing how cyclical it is.

The key point here is that if you are savy enough to find Microsoft's intrusive DRM and overall walled garden measures objectionable, you are not the target market.

I personally find the measures deplorable, and cannot understand how any self respecting consumer would knowingly give up so much, for nothing in return. But I also fail to understand the appeal of Call of Duty. The thing is, I am aware that I am wrong. Call of Duty *is* the paradigm. People will accept whatever measures Microsoft introduces, and they will consider them features. Of this I am sure.
Incorrect. I specifically requested a legal and binding answer to this question, specifically:

"If a user was to get banned, would he or she be prevented from downloading uninstalled games?"

And the answer was yes, but that GOG would give notice in that case to allow the offending party to download/backup their games. So while this is a friendlier, and more diplomatic measure, it is still DRM.

I find this interesting. I wonder if TheEnigmaticT can flesh this tid bit out a bit more for the rest of us.

There's nothing to flesh out. All companies offering cloud-based services reserve the right to terminate your access.

Wow... I digged a little and this old issue I found:

http://kotaku.com/5160595/xbox-live-sadly-no-place-for-lesbian-gamers

wow... just wow... I wonder why nobody sued Microsoft for this. Being banned for saying "I am gay / lesbian / hetero" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

thankfully they changed that.

Not really, because a digital download service comprises two components - your licence to use the game, and the redownload service. If someone got banned from GOG, they would lose the service, but would maintain the right to continue using the game. The licence would be unaffected, as would your ability to exploit this licence.

It's the same on steam for a long time now. Even better, actually. When you got banned on steam, you do not loose your ability to download and play the games you bought. You can't buy new games.

Unless you bought something with stolen credit card, but I don't think they would delete all games from your account.

Not really, because you're still dependent on Steam's DRM service. It's a step in the right direction that they don't lock you out of games you already legitimately bought, but when Valve eventually goes out of business, your games will likely be gone.

(Yes, I know about this legendary and mythical forum post from Gabe supposedly stating that Steam DRM will be made inactive, and I know about the cut-and-paste answer that everyone gets from Steam Support about how access will be provided to the games, but it doesn't change the fact that the SSA completely contradicts this statement. If Valve were serious about this, they would remove the offending statement from the SSA. The fact that they won't is a telling thing.)

Steam ToS had a provision about providing the means for remove steam DRM from games you bought before closing down. But for me, it doesn't really matter, it's the same as on GOG - I don't make backups for my games. It's a reason I switched to digital distribution - to NOT store my copies locally.

By the way, I know cracking legally bought games is illegal in Germany, but in Poland it isn't. After steam closing I could legally crack them.

And lastly - I don't think Steam winding up is more likely in the nearest future than for GOG.

If you want to know my personal stance - if I lost my games library for any reason whatsoever, I would torrent them. I don't buy games digitally because it's illegal to pirate. I buy them because I apprecieate the service, and convenience. And torrent sites keep my "local copies" for me :P

I disagree. It is not even trying to restrict how you use the data once you have it, the installers are complete and do not require fetching additional bits and pieces as part of the installation process, the games are complete and do not require fetching additional data once launched. It is restricting whether or not you may download the installers to begin with - once you have, you're good to go (unlike DRM, which even after that fact tries to make sure you have the rights to use the data).

Sure, but then it's your decision to trust someone else with the data you paid for, not them forcing you to trust them.