I just love debating this. Yes, I have XBlive, I do not have a PS2, and I am pissed EA does not support live (I want SSX online damn it). And some people say EA has a legitimate argument for not supporting live. They are only slightly correct. Here is my fair analysis of the situation. Let me know if you have anything more to offer: For games with viable subscription business models (e.g. Everquest), I understand how the XBlive service fee would be seen as detrimental. That makes sense. I personally have no interest in that model, because although I am willing to pay $50 to play dozens of XBlive games a year, I will never be willing to pay $100+ a year per online game (and that doesn't include the retail cost of the games). But that reflects my personal interest and pocketbook, and I know that other people feel differently. Where I strongly disagree with EA is their blindness for a business model where online capability actually increases sales. Would RTCW, Outlaw Volleyball, or Midtown Madness 3 have sold nearly as well if it weren't for the online capability? No way. This business model is mutually beneficial to Microsoft and software developers like EA. EA's stance hurts them (I won't be buying SSX or Madden, I'll buy Amped2 and NFL2K3), it hurts gamers, and it hurts Microsoft. I think it is a mistake. What do you think?