No, I don't think they would. There is no expectation of being able to truly own digital copies of things. Whether or not that really makes sense from a consumer rights perspective, there it is.

It's pretty galling to watch the game industry act like it's entitled to something that no other industry gets. Why on Earth do they deserve a percentage of the transaction every time a copy changes hands when they have already received payment for their part? These companies think they can kill off the mid tier and go all in on "AAA" stuff, spending $30 million, $40 million, $50 million, $100 million per game... and then blame everyone else that their finances suck and they're all going out of business.  If they want a cut of used game sales, then they need to get in on the used games business by actually selling used games. They are no more deserving of a percentage of every used game sold than is the person who bought the game new in the first place.

If people are willing to pay $60 for a game, DRM or not and it contiunes to sell well then the publisher will keep the price at $60. Just look at CoD on Steam.

I remember buying a Steam code for $45 dollars only a couple weeks out from BLOPS 2's release for my brothers christmas present last year. It may be harder to find... slightly, but they're there.

I don't think anyone doubted it being capable of playing used games. There is just a lot of ambiguity with regard to how this will affect the consumer, as even MS don't seem to know the answer to that.

This is a great post.

I can't really add much to it, but I'll say this: I sympathize with everyone who wants to protect the video game industry. It's bad for all of us when a studio closes or a publisher has to sell off its properties. But no amount of great games or profitable companies is worth forfeiting your rights as a consumer.

There is a very simple relationship between publisher and consumer. They make and sell the games, we buy them. That's it. After we buy them we own them and have the right to play them, resell them, or throw them in an incinerator if we so choose.

You can only sell the things you make once.

Cool-microsofts used game policy is no longer a gestapo policy but a stalin-stasi policy.

only the chosen are allowed to sell used games?ms not only participates but also knows exactly who is selling when his copy,how much money the retailer want and who is buying.They now even missuse existing infrastructure that does not belong to them.
fuck u ms-the same greedy us imperialism "want to control everything " shit as always.

- this user was moderated for this post by amp316 

Ok so even though this means gamers can still trade in games like we do now, now we all of a sudden care about small businesses and their profit margin? Gimme a break.

Why is it ridiculous?

Its a pre-owned car. Its a pre-owned game. The only difference is the cost.

Would you send the car manufacturer a cut of the money you just got for selling your car? Would you send Naughty Dog a cut of the money you get for selling Uncharted 3 to a friend?

If youre gonna try shoot something down, at least try shooting it down. Dont throw a pathetic little paper ball at it.

Thats better. Its not so hard to actually write down an argument instead of spraying annoyance all over the thread, is it?

_______________

Can I sell my software to someone, just as I can sell my hardware to someone?

Edit - Using DVDs and Blu-rays would be a brilliant example, too.

Considering you avoided my question, Ill take that as "Yes".

Microsoft and the Publisher should not get money for 2nd hand games. I should be able to sell Halo 4 to a friend. I shouldnt have to trade through a specified game store. I should be able to sell the product I bought to anyone I damn well please.