Microsoft boss defends Xbox One price

...Arguing the value of a system versus its cost is old hat in the video game industry. It's the go-to tool for any console manufacturer facing criticism about pricing decisions, but given Microsoft's other recent PR stumbles specifically, confusion about its policy on used games (which is still persistent, despite the company putting out a clear statement on the matter right before E3) and its required internet connection -- Mattrick's argument is falling flat.

"Isn't this pretty much what Sony was saying last gen about their outlandish pricing?," noted one forum user on GameSpot. "The sign of a wise man is the ability to learn from others’ mistakes."

Not helping things was Mattrick’s tone-deaf reply to a question last week about that required Internet connection.

"We have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity -- it's called Xbox 360," he said.

>>Now the divorce is no fault and the lawsuit comes afterwards for the child support which doesn’t even have to go to the child.<<

Sadly, there is still spousal support. The original idea was to keep women who stayed at home for their entire lives from becoming destitute.

Of course, it became perverted by a legal system dedicated to cutting men’s gonads off.

In California, the “rule of thumb” is 40% of the difference in the net for 1/2 the length of the marriage (either party can be the higher wage earner and thus the payee). But that is only for marriages < 10 years. After that it is whatever the judge (guess the most frequent gender) decides is “fair.”

No fault (”Dissolution of Marriage”) merely removed the requirement of a specific harm done to the marriage which did not inhibit the divorce but rather assigned weight to spousal support (the “wronged” party ended up with substantial legal presumptions).

How do I know all this? When my lawyer told me to BOHICA, I fired his A and spent months in the law library teaching myself family law.

I represented myself in pro per and filed motions that ended up with the ex asking for the easiest way out.

What was funny was that on a personal level her lawyer and I got along great: he had my sense of humor and I could tell he despised my ex almost as much as me.

Since we settled after I filed a killer motion under the “rebuttable presumption of decreased need” under then Cal 4801.5(c) dealing with meretricious relationships (she was living with some guy), there wasn’t a conflict of interest.

Yes Virginia, there is an alimony.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.