Ohh, it's the old "physical vs. immaterial goods" argument. When you went to buy the CD, were you interested in the music on it, or the physical medium?
Not sure I see your point... obviously I wanted the music. But if you're going to give it to me in a downloadable format, shouldn't I get the typical benefits of said format (redownloadability)?
And even in your software counter-example you have to use a qualifying "almost always".
Right... almost always. I said "almost always" because that's been the case in every situation I've experienced, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Not sure what that proves.
I'm curious: why are you defending so staunchly not being able to re-download music you've purchased in the event of a crash (or if you're away from your computer and want to, say, redownload them at work)? I mean, isn't that something that you, as a customer, should expect?
A good, and better, comparison is Audible. Once you buy a piece of content from Audible, it's stashed in your "library" and you can download it again and again as many times as you want. Since the Audible player has to be "activated," there's no danger from their perspective of you sharing the file. It's come in handy for me because I don't have to sweat my downloadable content if I'm wiping a machine or something.
Last but not least: What ruckus would you raise if Apple stored the information on what songs you ever downloaded on what computer, and then went to check if you actually did erase the disk without making a backup?
Again, I'm not sure I see your point. In purchasing music from the Apple Store, I can only listen to it on three machines at a time. Why can't I re-download it onto three machines? Apple would have no reason to check to see if I erased it because I'm allowed by their license to make three copies of it. I really don't understand your argument.
Wrong. iTunes will be out for Windows later this year.
I didn't say what will be -- I'm talking about today.
Wrong. You can have the file installed on up to three computers at the same time, and can freely move it from one to the other. This is only an issue if you want more than three "friends" to listen, in different locations, at the same time.
Subtract one "friend" from each Mac you own and want to authorize for friends. Added to which, to let those friends listen to purchased software, you have to give them your Apple ID password and use one up one of your "authorizations." I have four computers -- I can only listen to my music on three. Isn't there something wrong with that?
If your hard drive dies, you can't re-download it.
Wrong.
As of today, you can't. Unless they change that policy, you have to rebuy to redownload.
You're batting.0000 so far.
I don't like DRM either, particularly, but how about some INFORMED criticism?
Dude, I'm not talking out of my ass here. I've bought music and tried the service. Have you? If so, try sharing the music you've purchased and let me know what happens. Try redownloading a file from the iTMS. Try listening to it on an Apple machine.
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
No. But as I've said before in this thread, a CD is a physical medium. If I've downloaded software from a service (Handango, Amazon, what have you) on the Web and the file gets deleted, I can almost always log in and re-download it. That's one of the advantages of buying software over the Web. I would expect that the iTMS would offer those same advantages.
Whatever, dude. If you want to be an AC troll, that's your business. I have a Mac, I have an iPod, I've bought music from the iTunes music store. I'm not talking about things I haven't experienced. The difference is that every piece of hardware and software I own isn't built by Apple, so there are limits on how I can use the music I purchased.
All it stops me from doing is reasonable things like listening to my music on my hardware MP3 player or on an MP3 playing program that's not iTunes.
It doesn't stop you from doing any of those things, you dweeb.
Uh... do this: buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, then try to listen to it on a RAM-based MP3 player. Or a software player that isn't iTunes. YOU CAN'T.
It's way easier to drop an MP3 into your P2P program of choice than it is to rip a CD.
Uh... where you do think MP3s come from? It's not difficult to rip a CD -- it's just annoying to have to buy an AAC, burn it to CD, rip it to MP3 and retag it just to use it legally as they wish. Then they can put it on P2P networks if they so choose. I'm not defending that and you know it.
Believe it or not, there are people out there who use this system every single day, and they're not having anything like the problems that you, a non-user of it, are complaining about.
Whatever, man. Bully for them. Like I've said several times, I've used the service and, despite my issues with the quality of the music (which ranges from good to miserable -- listen to Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" and tell me if you'd pay for it) I think it's a pretty good cut. It's just not as good as it could have been in my opinion. If that makes me a "dweeb" or whatever schoolyard name-calling you want to indulge in, then so be it.
You're crazy. Well, maybe not crazy. Maybe you're just dumb. Here's a clue for you, free of charge:
Wow, are you always this much of a jagoff or is it just when you're posting anonymously?
Here's whatcha do. You download music from ITMS. You burn that music to CD, like, immediately. At that point, you have something that is completely equivalent in terms of what you can and can't do to a store-bought retail CD.
So, like most DRM, it comes down to being annoyware. That's my point. All it stops me from doing is reasonable things like listening to my music on my hardware MP3 player or on an MP3 playing program that's not iTunes. Oh, unless I rerip the songs and retag them (since CDDB can't figure out what the song is unless you've got the full album).
So, in effect, you can make slightly worse-sounding MP3s with some inconvenience and effort. So why not just sell me MP3s to begin with? Believe it or not, there are things that people want to do with their music that doesn't have an Apple logo on it.
Why can't they just sell you MP3s? Because you might share them. Hence, the whole line about "not treating the consumer like a criminal" is hooey. That's exactly what you're treated like.
No one's denying that you can burn the tracks to CD, and that's a great thing, but am I seriously the only person on Slashdot who is the least bit annoyed that "burn it and rerip it to CD" is the only option if you want to, oh, I dunno, play a song on the 95 percent of music jukeboxes or mobile players that don't support AAC or that want to play on (gasp!) a fourth machine?
Slashdotters defending DRM... am I crazy or am I the last sane one? I'm not sure sure anymore.
Your an idiot....they are not limiting you to Macs and iTunes as a method of DR Management.
Name calling. Nice. If you don't think that the Mac --> iTunes --> iPod connection isn't in place as a form of rights management, you're mistaken. You think it's a happy accident that you can't freely make copies for all of your machines? What if you have four Macs? One at work, one for yourself at home, a laptop and one for the kids? Isn't it kinda of absurd that you can't play the songs you buy on all the machines?
The Music Store tunes can be burned to cd's and DVD's, played on multiple computers (up to 3) at a time and transferred without restriction onto ANY MPEG-4 AAC capable player See for yourself [apple.com]
That link doesn't say anything except that "not all players support AAC." Er... yeah. The only one that does is the iPod. Whether new AAC-compatible players will respect the iTunes DRM scheme remains to be seen because right now there are no other players that can play them.
It is by far the most reasonable form of anti-piracy protection out there. I don't mind paying for music as long as they are reasonable in their restrictions.
I don't mind paying for music either, but I don't want to buy music that is tied to anything -- platform, player, "authorization" or anything else. Steve made a big show at the launch about "not treating the consumer like a criminal." If he meant that, he would have found a technological way (watermarking or what have you) to release MP3 files that could be used on any player and with any software. I'd be smooching his ass if he'd done so, but this AAC business is no better than WMA.
I wonder if you'd like to give away your services for free just because I think what you do isn't worth paying for. Ok, maybe idiot was harsh...but please just know the facts before you speak out.
Music is worth paying for, and I buy a lot of music. I've bought music from the iTunes Store and, right now, CDs are a better deal. $9.99 for an album locked to a platform and a player that I have to worry about backing up lest I lose it vs. a piece of durable, physical media free of any kind of DRM with the added bonus of lyrics and liner notes for a few dollars more.
I'm not talking out of my ass here -- I've tried the thing, and while I think the interface of the iMS is fantastic, I'm just not really thrilled about the implementation. If that makes me an idiot in your eyes, I can live with that.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is going above and beyond the call of duty: They're workng overtime with hardware vendors to ensure that in the future nobody, including independent content creators themselves, will be able to generate, distribute, or play any media without express permission from the distribution cartels.
I still stand by what I said: Apple is only letting you play songs on their computers with their jukebox software and with their handheld MP3 player. Burning CDs is all well and good, but the inability to use any software or hardware except that provided by Apple is unacceptably restrictive DRM, in my opinion.
Yeesh, man, chill out. Of course you can burn a CD, but having to burn to a CD and rerip as MP3 to get rid of the DRM isn't the point. You can get around any DRM if you're willing to take a generation loss and deal with headaches. To say that Apple's DRM is consumer friendly, though, is a joke.
Forgot about that feature where you can share music with up to 3 friends (provided they also have iTunes), didn't you?
No -- are you always this pleasant when someone disagrees with you? You can't share your iTunes Store music with your friends unless you're willing to give them your Apple ID password -- something that most people probably wouldn't be too kosher with doing, especially since if you ever wanted to authorize another person, you'd have to deauthorize someone else. It's a real headache.
And if my dog eats my CD, Tower Records or Sam Goody won't replace it for me for free.
Again with this snarky attitude. My point is that a music download is NOT a CD. If I buy a piece of downloaded software, most places will let you re-download it as long as you have your login. It's one of the nice things about paying for something that doesn't have a physical medium attached to it. Why is the iTunes Music Store so different?
Really, dude, it's possible to have a civil conversation about this.
And Apple has been the most consistently anti-DRM company you can name besides the P2P companies themselves.
Music from the Apple Music store can only be played on Apple computers, on Apple's MP3 software and on Apple's handheld device. The files have your name embedded in them and won't play if you want to let a friend listen to a copy. If your hard drive dies, you can't re-download it. How much more DRM-friendly can you get?
If MS had come up with the Microsoft Music Store with the same restrictions, the press would be tearing them apart.
Because Microsoft does it to lock people into OS dependency maybe? There's a big difference between putting a music store in a music app and bundling a browser/media player in an OS.
You're right. The different is that Apple does both: you're hardware locked into your OS (yes, yes, Yellow Dog notwithstanding) AND the browser/media player is bundled into the OS. Huzzah!
That number's a bit skewed though -- all of the preorders were $15 copies of the OoT disc. Most of the copies of The Wind Waker haven't been paid for yet, and it's not inconceivable that any number of those preorders won't get bought.
Not saying it won't be a best-seller or that it's not worthy of it; it's just not what you'd call a typical preorder situation since the "preorder" entailed buying a $15 game, which a lot of people probably did regardless of their intent to actually procure TWW.
No doubt... selectively remove the Greedy first-shot while leaving in the updated X-Wings at the end... snip out the new Sy Snootles song and dance number... replace Jar Jar's patois with an alien voice and subtitles...
And remove what must, must, must be the worst line in the entire Star Wars Saga:
Compare the pre-special edition versions of the SW trilogy with the special editions of the Star Wars trilogy and I think you'll find you're mistaken. The thing that made the SE's worth buying wasn't the extra footage (totally agree on the Greedo thing) -- if you compare them side-by-side, the SE footage is much, much clearer and brighter.
I'm not saying that Lucas wasn't pulling a milk, but the SE tapes are significantly better than the ones that came before.
How do you know the songs you want before you buy them? Most of the time, the songs I end up really appreciating on a good album aren't the ones on the radio.
I'd hate to see the industry turn to an "only hits allowed" situation where the gems that get buried on albums end up never getting produced.
Shouldn't they at least release that movie before we start awarding it Oscars?
Serkis did a fine job as Gollum, but looking at the five fellows who got nominated for Best Supporting Actor, he just doesn't stand up. I don't think it's bias against CGI characters so much as it is that his character just wasn't all that. Heck, he reminded me a little too much of the Gollum from the animated movie (which Jackson has cribbed extensively from).
To say that Nintendo has "tons" of first party titles, "all top notch" is delusional. Metroid's fine, if a bit overrated; Mario was a disappointment; Zelda remains to be seen; Luigi was a major disappointment.
I'd say that the original post that I quoted is about right: there are maybe 5-8 exclusive games that are pretty solid for the GameCube and two dozen or so other cross-platform games that are pretty good.
I have a GameCube too there, Fanboy, so, yeah, I know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I agree you could end up with about 20 okay games for the XBox, about 5-8 of them exclusive, but only half of those are truly MUST HAVE titles.
Really? Can you name an upcoming game worth buying? I sure as hell can't think of anything.
Okay, I'll feed you. There are plenty of exclusive games recently released and coming out on Xbox... MechAssault, Unreal Championship, Crimson Skies, Sega GT, Ninja Gaiden, Doom III, DOA Volleyball, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Star Wars: KOTOR...
But the real story is that platform independent games -- which represent the vast majority of gaming these days -- are almost always superior on the Xbox, whether it's graphics, sound or online. NHL 2k3 isn't that different among the consoles, except that you can play online on Xbox. Same deal with Ghost Recon.
There are tons of good games for the Xbox. Here's a list of some of the best from IGN. Like MS or not, it's a great console.
Slashdot Mirror
Ohh, it's the old "physical vs. immaterial goods" argument. When you went to buy the CD, were you interested in the music on it, or the physical medium?
Not sure I see your point... obviously I wanted the music. But if you're going to give it to me in a downloadable format, shouldn't I get the typical benefits of said format (redownloadability)?
And even in your software counter-example you have to use a qualifying "almost always".
Right... almost always. I said "almost always" because that's been the case in every situation I've experienced, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Not sure what that proves.
I'm curious: why are you defending so staunchly not being able to re-download music you've purchased in the event of a crash (or if you're away from your computer and want to, say, redownload them at work)? I mean, isn't that something that you, as a customer, should expect?
A good, and better, comparison is Audible. Once you buy a piece of content from Audible, it's stashed in your "library" and you can download it again and again as many times as you want. Since the Audible player has to be "activated," there's no danger from their perspective of you sharing the file. It's come in handy for me because I don't have to sweat my downloadable content if I'm wiping a machine or something.
Last but not least: What ruckus would you raise if Apple stored the information on what songs you ever downloaded on what computer, and then went to check if you actually did erase the disk without making a backup?
Again, I'm not sure I see your point. In purchasing music from the Apple Store, I can only listen to it on three machines at a time. Why can't I re-download it onto three machines? Apple would have no reason to check to see if I erased it because I'm allowed by their license to make three copies of it. I really don't understand your argument.
Heh. No one's ever accused me of being a Linux lover before. Whatever. I'm done with you, troll.
Wrong. iTunes will be out for Windows later this year.
.0000 so far.
I didn't say what will be -- I'm talking about today.
Wrong. You can have the file installed on up to three computers at the same time, and can freely move it from one to the other. This is only an issue if you want more than three "friends" to listen, in different locations, at the same time.
Subtract one "friend" from each Mac you own and want to authorize for friends. Added to which, to let those friends listen to purchased software, you have to give them your Apple ID password and use one up one of your "authorizations." I have four computers -- I can only listen to my music on three. Isn't there something wrong with that?
If your hard drive dies, you can't re-download it.
Wrong.
As of today, you can't. Unless they change that policy, you have to rebuy to redownload.
You're batting
I don't like DRM either, particularly, but how about some INFORMED criticism?
Dude, I'm not talking out of my ass here. I've bought music and tried the service. Have you? If so, try sharing the music you've purchased and let me know what happens. Try redownloading a file from the iTMS. Try listening to it on an Apple machine.
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
No. But as I've said before in this thread, a CD is a physical medium. If I've downloaded software from a service (Handango, Amazon, what have you) on the Web and the file gets deleted, I can almost always log in and re-download it. That's one of the advantages of buying software over the Web. I would expect that the iTMS would offer those same advantages.
Whatever, dude. If you want to be an AC troll, that's your business. I have a Mac, I have an iPod, I've bought music from the iTunes music store. I'm not talking about things I haven't experienced. The difference is that every piece of hardware and software I own isn't built by Apple, so there are limits on how I can use the music I purchased.
All it stops me from doing is reasonable things like listening to my music on my hardware MP3 player or on an MP3 playing program that's not iTunes.
It doesn't stop you from doing any of those things, you dweeb.
Uh... do this: buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, then try to listen to it on a RAM-based MP3 player. Or a software player that isn't iTunes. YOU CAN'T.
It's way easier to drop an MP3 into your P2P program of choice than it is to rip a CD.
Uh... where you do think MP3s come from? It's not difficult to rip a CD -- it's just annoying to have to buy an AAC, burn it to CD, rip it to MP3 and retag it just to use it legally as they wish. Then they can put it on P2P networks if they so choose. I'm not defending that and you know it.
Believe it or not, there are people out there who use this system every single day, and they're not having anything like the problems that you, a non-user of it, are complaining about.
Whatever, man. Bully for them. Like I've said several times, I've used the service and, despite my issues with the quality of the music (which ranges from good to miserable -- listen to Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" and tell me if you'd pay for it) I think it's a pretty good cut. It's just not as good as it could have been in my opinion. If that makes me a "dweeb" or whatever schoolyard name-calling you want to indulge in, then so be it.
You're crazy. Well, maybe not crazy. Maybe you're just dumb. Here's a clue for you, free of charge:
Wow, are you always this much of a jagoff or is it just when you're posting anonymously?
Here's whatcha do. You download music from ITMS. You burn that music to CD, like, immediately. At that point, you have something that is completely equivalent in terms of what you can and can't do to a store-bought retail CD.
So, like most DRM, it comes down to being annoyware. That's my point. All it stops me from doing is reasonable things like listening to my music on my hardware MP3 player or on an MP3 playing program that's not iTunes. Oh, unless I rerip the songs and retag them (since CDDB can't figure out what the song is unless you've got the full album).
So, in effect, you can make slightly worse-sounding MP3s with some inconvenience and effort. So why not just sell me MP3s to begin with? Believe it or not, there are things that people want to do with their music that doesn't have an Apple logo on it.
Why can't they just sell you MP3s? Because you might share them. Hence, the whole line about "not treating the consumer like a criminal" is hooey. That's exactly what you're treated like.
No one's denying that you can burn the tracks to CD, and that's a great thing, but am I seriously the only person on Slashdot who is the least bit annoyed that "burn it and rerip it to CD" is the only option if you want to, oh, I dunno, play a song on the 95 percent of music jukeboxes or mobile players that don't support AAC or that want to play on (gasp!) a fourth machine?
Slashdotters defending DRM... am I crazy or am I the last sane one? I'm not sure sure anymore.
Your an idiot....they are not limiting you to Macs and iTunes as a method of DR Management.
Name calling. Nice. If you don't think that the Mac --> iTunes --> iPod connection isn't in place as a form of rights management, you're mistaken. You think it's a happy accident that you can't freely make copies for all of your machines? What if you have four Macs? One at work, one for yourself at home, a laptop and one for the kids? Isn't it kinda of absurd that you can't play the songs you buy on all the machines?
The Music Store tunes can be burned to cd's and DVD's, played on multiple computers (up to 3) at a time and transferred without restriction onto ANY MPEG-4 AAC capable player See for yourself [apple.com]
That link doesn't say anything except that "not all players support AAC." Er... yeah. The only one that does is the iPod. Whether new AAC-compatible players will respect the iTunes DRM scheme remains to be seen because right now there are no other players that can play them.
It is by far the most reasonable form of anti-piracy protection out there. I don't mind paying for music as long as they are reasonable in their restrictions.
I don't mind paying for music either, but I don't want to buy music that is tied to anything -- platform, player, "authorization" or anything else. Steve made a big show at the launch about "not treating the consumer like a criminal." If he meant that, he would have found a technological way (watermarking or what have you) to release MP3 files that could be used on any player and with any software. I'd be smooching his ass if he'd done so, but this AAC business is no better than WMA.
I wonder if you'd like to give away your services for free just because I think what you do isn't worth paying for. Ok, maybe idiot was harsh...but please just know the facts before you speak out.
Music is worth paying for, and I buy a lot of music. I've bought music from the iTunes Store and, right now, CDs are a better deal. $9.99 for an album locked to a platform and a player that I have to worry about backing up lest I lose it vs. a piece of durable, physical media free of any kind of DRM with the added bonus of lyrics and liner notes for a few dollars more.
I'm not talking out of my ass here -- I've tried the thing, and while I think the interface of the iMS is fantastic, I'm just not really thrilled about the implementation. If that makes me an idiot in your eyes, I can live with that.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is going above and beyond the call of duty: They're workng overtime with hardware vendors to ensure that in the future nobody, including independent content creators themselves, will be able to generate, distribute, or play any media without express permission from the distribution cartels.
I still stand by what I said: Apple is only letting you play songs on their computers with their jukebox software and with their handheld MP3 player. Burning CDs is all well and good, but the inability to use any software or hardware except that provided by Apple is unacceptably restrictive DRM, in my opinion.
Yeesh, man, chill out. Of course you can burn a CD, but having to burn to a CD and rerip as MP3 to get rid of the DRM isn't the point. You can get around any DRM if you're willing to take a generation loss and deal with headaches. To say that Apple's DRM is consumer friendly, though, is a joke.
Forgot about that feature where you can share music with up to 3 friends (provided they also have iTunes), didn't you?
No -- are you always this pleasant when someone disagrees with you? You can't share your iTunes Store music with your friends unless you're willing to give them your Apple ID password -- something that most people probably wouldn't be too kosher with doing, especially since if you ever wanted to authorize another person, you'd have to deauthorize someone else. It's a real headache.
And if my dog eats my CD, Tower Records or Sam Goody won't replace it for me for free.
Again with this snarky attitude. My point is that a music download is NOT a CD. If I buy a piece of downloaded software, most places will let you re-download it as long as you have your login. It's one of the nice things about paying for something that doesn't have a physical medium attached to it. Why is the iTunes Music Store so different?
Really, dude, it's possible to have a civil conversation about this.
You can't stream songs downloaded from the music store. It will prompt your friends for your password. Try it.
And Apple has been the most consistently anti-DRM company you can name besides the P2P companies themselves.
Music from the Apple Music store can only be played on Apple computers, on Apple's MP3 software and on Apple's handheld device. The files have your name embedded in them and won't play if you want to let a friend listen to a copy. If your hard drive dies, you can't re-download it. How much more DRM-friendly can you get?
If MS had come up with the Microsoft Music Store with the same restrictions, the press would be tearing them apart.
Because Microsoft does it to lock people into OS
dependency maybe? There's a big difference between
putting a music store in a music app and
bundling a browser/media player in an OS.
You're right. The different is that Apple does both: you're hardware locked into your OS (yes, yes, Yellow Dog notwithstanding) AND the browser/media player is bundled into the OS. Huzzah!
Actually, they don't top off at $10... was looking at getting Ice Cube's Greatest Hits and it was $14.99. CD was cheaper.
For what it's worth, Media Jukebox has had this functionality for a couple of years now. Nice to see Apple finally catching up. :)
Er... what do you put a mouse on in a bean bag chair?
Not trolling, just asking. One advantage of console games is that they're optimized for a controller that you can hold in your hand.
That number's a bit skewed though -- all of the preorders were $15 copies of the OoT disc. Most of the copies of The Wind Waker haven't been paid for yet, and it's not inconceivable that any number of those preorders won't get bought.
Not saying it won't be a best-seller or that it's not worthy of it; it's just not what you'd call a typical preorder situation since the "preorder" entailed buying a $15 game, which a lot of people probably did regardless of their intent to actually procure TWW.
No doubt... selectively remove the Greedy first-shot while leaving in the updated X-Wings at the end... snip out the new Sy Snootles song and dance number... replace Jar Jar's patois with an alien voice and subtitles...
And remove what must, must, must be the worst line in the entire Star Wars Saga:
Say it with me...
"Now -- THIS -- is podracing!"
*shudder*
Compare the pre-special edition versions of the SW trilogy with the special editions of the Star Wars trilogy and I think you'll find you're mistaken. The thing that made the SE's worth buying wasn't the extra footage (totally agree on the Greedo thing) -- if you compare them side-by-side, the SE footage is much, much clearer and brighter.
I'm not saying that Lucas wasn't pulling a milk, but the SE tapes are significantly better than the ones that came before.
How do you know the songs you want before you buy them? Most of the time, the songs I end up really appreciating on a good album aren't the ones on the radio.
I'd hate to see the industry turn to an "only hits allowed" situation where the gems that get buried on albums end up never getting produced.
Shouldn't they at least release that movie before we start awarding it Oscars?
Serkis did a fine job as Gollum, but looking at the five fellows who got nominated for Best Supporting Actor, he just doesn't stand up. I don't think it's bias against CGI characters so much as it is that his character just wasn't all that. Heck, he reminded me a little too much of the Gollum from the animated movie (which Jackson has cribbed extensively from).
Your .sig makes your comment rather hilarious. Or ironic. Or something.
Who's trolling whom?
To say that Nintendo has "tons" of first party titles, "all top notch" is delusional. Metroid's fine, if a bit overrated; Mario was a disappointment; Zelda remains to be seen; Luigi was a major disappointment.
I'd say that the original post that I quoted is about right: there are maybe 5-8 exclusive games that are pretty solid for the GameCube and two dozen or so other cross-platform games that are pretty good.
I have a GameCube too there, Fanboy, so, yeah, I know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I agree you could end up with about 20 okay games for the XBox, about 5-8 of them exclusive, but only half of those are truly MUST HAVE titles.
And the GameCube is better how?
Really? Can you name an upcoming game worth buying? I sure as hell can't think of anything.
Okay, I'll feed you. There are plenty of exclusive games recently released and coming out on Xbox... MechAssault, Unreal Championship, Crimson Skies, Sega GT, Ninja Gaiden, Doom III, DOA Volleyball, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Star Wars: KOTOR...
But the real story is that platform independent games -- which represent the vast majority of gaming these days -- are almost always superior on the Xbox, whether it's graphics, sound or online. NHL 2k3 isn't that different among the consoles, except that you can play online on Xbox. Same deal with Ghost Recon.
There are tons of good games for the Xbox. Here's a list of some of the best from IGN. Like MS or not, it's a great console.