You obviously have a lack of commonsense and poor reading comprehension skills if you don't understand that WITHOUT a GOLD membership the GAME/S would NOT be FREE ....won't respond further since I cannot make it any clearer /

its a matter of perspective. For those of us who have happily been paying for LIVE for 15 years these games are free as an eagle soaring majestically into a wind turbine.

The article headline could be libelous if they were marketing 'anything' for public consumption.....everything is silly to people who skirt around facts just to win a point ...but yeah, whatever, it is Libelous if offered as free without prior warning to the consumer that monies will be exchanged. It doesn't matter that I have a law degree for over 15 years, but you have your opinion, and I'll have my legal expertise and commonsense ... /

That's still not libel, because the article itself does qualify what's required to get it for "free".

Libel also assumes that damages are incurred either emotionally or physically(or however that is termed for corporate matters). If anything, MS probably wants to push this notion of "free", so probably doesn't have a problem with it. In fact,MS own marketing prominently displays "free".

http://www.xbox.com/en-us/l...

So, it's not really libel to use the companies own terms for it.

The company itself can be said to be misrepresenting the nature of "free", but a company/person can not make libelous statements against themselves....or maybe they can, but I"m sure they can't seek remedy. If by chance, the term "free" is misrepresented, then having a law degree, I'm sure you're familiar with all those terms and conditions attached to every word in marketing material and sign ups, making it perfectly legal.

Furthermore, on the news side of things, since the definition of "free" can be ambiguous in this case, due to people's notion of calling the games free, or qualifying it as "free with subscription", it becomes more an opinion that the games are free....and opinions can't be libelous in most cases.

I would think with a law degree of 15 years, you'd be able to note the subtle nuances of why in no way would this ever hold up as a libelous statement. Heck, without a law degree, I knew this, and easily verified it through Google search to make sure I wasn't off in my assumption.

Personally, I wouldn't take your law degree if you can't actually know those nuances, doesn't matter how long you've had them.