Outside of usual suspects, I don't think many publishers will even implement this. It will just be bad press. I bought Uncharted: DF soon after launch, enjoyed it, gave it to three of my friends. We all bought  Uncharted 2 later day one, we all gave it to other friends. More people enjoyed the game, they had more money. Then Uncharted 3 came with an online pass, none of us bought it. I'll never support practices like this.

A bigger chunk than in the past? That still doesn't negate the fact that it is still a small slice of the pie, and that Sony is still primarily invested in consumer and pro-grade electronics as well as music and movie production. And I really could care less about you not talking about anything outside of gaming, I am, and that is because when you make a ridiculous claim that one company is more "gamecentric" than another, suddenly that companies other endeavours become relevant. Clearly you have a bias, and clearly you don't want to talk about the contextually relevant fact that the company is NOT "gamecentric" because it destroys your argument. 

You guys are hilarious. MS's first press release focused on the casual side of things, their E3 press conference will focus mainly on the games. This was a brilliant strategy because the people they were trying to appeal with in the first conference are not likely to be interested in E3 and would have missed the very marketing MS wanted them to see had MS focused on the games instead of the other features.

That doesn't make sense... PCs do HAVE DRM.  Used game sales on PC?  Yeah.... no.

-__-

Disappointing to see Sony allow DRM. From what I understand EA is the only (major) publisher pushing for this. If Sony had done a Nintendo they might have got an EA boycott but EA would have been the biggest loser in all this. Microsoft would gain little with EA exclusivity and EA would lose heaps of money on missed PS3/PS4 sales.

They do have, but the price tag on Steam games is so low that even if you could sell games you would gain almost nothing. Also, there's more to PC games than Steam. I have quite a few retail games here that can be easily sold thanks to not being tied to any kind of digital store.

bold 1: And I'm very aware of that, I mentioned it on the post you quoted. Almost every single post on this thread is speculation and/or wishful thinking, we still don't have a 100% answer to this question, we just have to wait (maybe we'll get a full answer during E3).

bold 2: I'm also aware of that, in a previous post I mentioned that when 3rd parties do this DRM for the PS4 it will be exact same as online passes, the only difference is that instead of online it will be the whole game. The companies that implemented online passes this gen didn't care about the people that don't have a steady internet connection in their house, they won't care now. I don't know what's the percentage of people who have a gaming console and don't have any sort of internet on their house (and I mean that completely no internet to even activate a code); gaming is a very expensive hobby, so I imagine this people are a minority.

EA, Activision and Capcom are the ones that most definitely are going to jump ship on the DRM thing first, if those companies see an increase in profit thanks to pay walls, other big 3rd party companies are going to follow suit. There're still going to be exceptions, but if companies do indeed see more money coming from DRM then the majority of publishers (and maybe even Sony) then most games on the system will have pay walls.

bold 3: of course not every developer/publisher is going to have DRM. Like I mentioned above, my fear is that if the majority of 3rd party publishers implement DRM, then the majority of the games will have a pay wall. Would you like to give me some examples of those PC games (that are not digital downloads)? I can only think of indie and some very few other games, can't think of any game that comes from a big 3rd party publisher.

Whatever happens this is going to be a very interesting gen, and for the worse imo. 

And if you consider that other interview, in which they said that you dont need internet connection at all to play games, then the only way they can add the DRM is for multiplayer stuff; making it like this gen and the online passes.

If you consider that other interview, in which they said that you dont need internet connection at all to play games, then the only way they can add the DRM is for multiplayer stuff; making it like this gen and the online passes.

Witcher 2 was originally released with DRM, then rereleased the title without DRM that they're never releasing another game with DRM again.  They've already announced Witcher 3 for the PS4.

Also indie developers do matter to push the point across.  While indie games on the PS4 are going to be encased in DRM only usable on one account(or maybe two consoles like PS3 does it,) since they're digital, most indie games on PC have no DRM.  These are the same games that sell millions of copies so the developers off them at cheap discount prices, through indie bundles at costs as low as $.01 or $1, etc.  Most indie developers are gamers themselves and know being tied down by DRM pisses people off and make most people pirate the games with cracks than actually purchase them, since they're not going to actually own them either way.  Also, I'm not really a fan of the term "indie developer."  I use it because it's common to use, but Insomniac Games is an indie developer if you want to use the meaning of the word. 

Rockstar made a statement just recently.  As long as the developer makes a game that the gamer will keep for two months, the used sales for that game won't affect the developer as after a two month period, the game has sold most of what it will sell at that point and most people will have lost interest.  I find that it's less than two months, maybe one month, but the idea comes across the same. 

Also, like you said the same developers that are doing online passes may do the offline pass.  May.  We don't know for sure, because people being pissed about the Xbox DRM and finding that these games have DRM of their own just won't buy them.  A lot of smaller developers won't do it because they don't make sales for their games as it is, and what's the point in adding a pass that locks out a total of 100 used games and possibly losing half of their sales because of it?  Once EA releases Dragon Age 3 and have single player DRM on the PS4, the game will bomb so hard that either the next EA game won't release on the PS4 or they'll have no required pass.  As of now we have no idea of any of this.

What we do know, 100% for sure, is that the PS4 does not require a pass for used games.  That is a fact.  Developers can choose to have one, but we don't know what developers will or whether they have the balls to do so or not.  But The PS4 does not require a pass for used games.  That is a fact.  We do know 100% that every game on the Xbox One is tied down with a pass.

I thihk people should wait until it's clarified and when we see that almost no developers use this.  Having the option to doesn't mean they'll do it.  They've had the option to do this on the PS3 like with the online pass.  They could very well have blocked out the entire game.  EA blocked out the entire Alice 1 from Alice Madness Returns which is on every disc, but even they didn't block the entire game, meaning both Alice 1 and 2.