why does everyone assume every publisher wants more DRM? was it confirmed somewhere?

We're the ones who will be giving them their profits, so their policies need to cater to us first. If we're not going to support these policies, they need to find another way.

But if people are borrowing or renting games more often than they buy them how are publishers making profits?

Sony will compromise, MS will always choose publishers over people.

Gamers first, as we are the ones who support there business. We are the ones who really help decide what there next game is. If it don't sell or makes a huge loss, it's doesn't get done again, simply as. If anything, all companies should be against as it will hurt them more than us.

what happens when more people play a used game more than bought it who wins in this situation?

Publishers should be there to invest money in order to make a return, not rig the system. Gamers are the consumers, they are the industry.

Gamestop.

You would think common sense would tell you that console manufacturers would choose gamers first as they are the source of money, but I guess common sense isn't as common as one may think. Or perhaps greed just blinds people.

No used gamers is like a dream for some publishers where they can sell you hyped up junk like Aliens Colonial Marines and then you have no option to sell it back.

Right, because no game publishers or developers have made profits.

They should please shareholders 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Normally that means the customer is always right. Meaning if the customer says DRM sucks then MS shouldn't implement DRM. However when a business becomes so confident of it's ability to dominate the market or secure a sizeable market share, then pleasing teh shareholders means abusive practices towards the consumer to increase profits.

Let5s see if some publishers put their money where their mouth is if most don;t want this sort of DRM. If Sony releases a neutral platform (i.e. DRM has to be implemented by the publisher, which they can do on PS3 and 360 already if they wish), then let's see if those anti-DRM puhblishers release DRM free games on PS3, even if they have to comply with MS's compulsory DRM.

MS's alleged DRM is not for the benefit of the publisher, it's for the benefit of MS. The fee MS is charging goes to MS, the publisher must piggyback on MS's own money-making venture.

It'll also be interesting to see whether Sony as a publisher implements DRM on their DRM neutral platform. Sony went in for online pass on its games, so it will probably implement DRM on it's own games for PS4.