Q u o t e: However, whether this is your final conclusion or not, saying that something does not properly refute or that their are holes in my arguement without pointing out such holes is non progressive, just as saying that my argument accounts for all possible counterarguemts. Instead please point out how those rebuttals don't nullify such counterarguements.
"Properly refute" is a subjective evaluation. Whether something constitutes a "hole" in your argument is a subjective evaluation. The whole concept of "should" is a matter of perspective. The counter-arguments for both sides are here... rehashing what's already been said is a waste of time. I will however make one exception, just for you:
Q u o t e: Lets face it, some people think it should be P2P and others not. There are points of merit on both sides of the argument, and a decision beyond that is simply a matter of personal opinion / preference.
Q u o t e: I think this whole issue boils down, at its heart, to a single question:
Do you think D3 needs more frequent content updates, patches, fixes etc etc than D2 had?
The majority of people don't think so it seems, and I can respect that, even though I disagree with it.
I would boil it down to a different question:
Do you think D3 needs to add to it's core features, (things as important as the game being able to run crash free, from the first quest assignment to the last boss kill), the integrity of the multi-player community?
Some people say yes (and are willing to pay for this), other people are of differing opinions.