Wtf are you talking about, how am I censoring anything?

Demanding balance is forcing it. There is no reason it should be balanced. If they want to tell exclusively male stories they should be able to, just the same as if a company wanted to tell exclusively female stories. They should not be forced to alter their creative vision.

Why does it need to be balanced? That's forcing it, seizing creative freedom, and thus sexist in itself.

Why is there no female lead in AC: Liberation!? I call sexism!

It's messed up that there was no male lead in AC: Liberation. I call sexism.

Was about to say the same thing, there's a hell of a lot more involved than just animating them.

WHERE WAS THIS!?!? I am so sad that I missed it :'(

Again, ignorance, ignoring all the reputable sources that say otherwise. And what does any of it have to do with money grubbing exactly? Do you even know what the point of the whole move was? It would have benefited developers who in turn would have more money to fund more content for the end user. But I guess your ok…

I posted a link. Do your research. Being ignorant doesn't make it false.

You can blame the greedy for that. A simple code system like PC games would have worked fine, and wouldn't have needed a check in, but wouldn't allow for resale. The greedy who feel they are entitled to a "refund" by reselling the game after they play it demanded a system in which they could continue the used market.

The daily online check was to confirm you aren't duplicating the game and running it on multiple devices, nobody likes DRM but it's there for a reason. While a bit overboard it was part of the larger picture that was beneficial.

You're point was to show you're immature and have to resort to childish insults? K.

It's well known, I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over it. I'll give you a link tho since you seem to be in denial. https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+…

Way to show your age.

They aren't anti-consumer policies, as you aren't one of their customers if you buy used, you are a customer of Gamestop etc. And you can look it up yourself, its somewhat subjective but it seems to be quite obvious that they had the same plans until they saw the backlash.

Like I said, not to sound trolly, these are just my opinions is all. And yes inferior, this is actually the second time that someone has pointed that out, its a commonly misused word imbedded in my mind lol. I guess the first party situation remains to be seen. As for the Sony controller I've always found it to be…

Microsoft didn't force them into the contract. They were happy to make halo at the time and happy to make it a trilogy. Just like they now signed a contract to make Destiny a trilogy. Were they forced into that one too...?

Off the top of my head, lack of money to invest in first party titles, an uncomfortable controller, a in-superior online setup and infrastructure. Not to sound trolly, like I said they each have cons, but you asked.

That may be, but its not like it was a secret. It's a well known fact that the beta is on XB1.

Even if that were the case, which its not. They WANTED them to make more of a hit franchise, which is common sense, they didn't force them to do anything.