It's actually quite a silly, inane screed that shows complete ignorance about why the industry actually makes that "military porn" and how good or bad it is for them. It just tells people what they want to hear in emotional, rabble-rousing language and style. And those who are too ineloquent or dim-witted to articulate the same sentiment, and instead can come up with nothing better than absurd analogies to used cars, admire it. It absolves their greed and their blame in creating the current situation. It's the publishers' fault!
The repeated quoting of a long post to give the neogaf equivalent of a "Like" with no further commentary or acknowledgement of counter-arguments isn't exactly a hallmark of intelligence, is it? But point taken.
You've got a real knack for calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid and ignorant, don't you? It's not good etiquette, and it makes you appear very negative. I dare say I don't like your attitude, sir.
Now, let me sum this entire argument up with an example of mine.
I bought Master of Magic back in 1993 for $50. I still play the game today. I have to run it in DosBox to play it in Win7 and I no longer use the 3.5" floppys to intsall it as I have the files saved on a CD, but even today twenty years later I can still enjoy playing my game that I bought.
You see, it's a product that I paid money for, so I own it and can use it whenever I want to. Just like the Lord of the Rings hardcover book box set I bought over twenty five years ago, I can still break out my books and read them today too. Just like all of my DVD's and blu-rays that I own. Just like My ColecoVision that I bought back in the eighties and all of the cartridge games that I own for it. They are all playable today, so I don't feel bad about having paid upwards of $40 - $50 dollars for most of those games. All of my Transformers that I still have in a closet somewhere, if I had the urge to break them out today and set them up on a shelf in my kitchen, I'd be able to do it. Without paying any fees or royalties to Hasbro.
You see, when a customer purchases a product, they have the right to keep it and use it for as long as they own it. Video games are no different, and if they become different, then they are no longer products worth paying money for. If the customer wants to play Simcity twenty years from now, they should be able to. I own every Simcity game up to and including Simcity 4, but I won't buy Simcity 5, because if EA pulls the server plug then my money is wasted. It's not a good purchase for me. If consumers want to trade a game in for credit because it was not all it was advertised to be, they should be able to. Just like I could sell my ColecoVision and all of it's games today, or I could sell my Transformers if I so desired to.
This entire argument is about protecting consumer rights, and not enabling an industry to destroy said consumer rights.
You seem to be just fine with losing consumer rights, in fact you welcome it if it makes the industry stronger. The reason why Faceless's post keeps getting quoted is because people disagree with you,
and people agree with him 110%. It's not about screwing "the man", it's not about lemmings running off a cliff just because it's popular, it's about people not wanting to lose their freedoms and rights.
Period.
And if the "industry" needs to destroy consumer rights in order to sustain itself, then it deserves to fail. But even if it does fail there are plenty of indie and small developers who disagree with you and Microsoft, they fall on the side of Faceless and the "mob" as you call it here on GAF, and they will continue to make games that do not infringe on consumer rights, and they will be successful. Because they get it. And they aren't hampered by consumer rights.
The video game crash of the 80's didn't destroy the industry, it revolutionized it.
Maybe we need another revolution....