Smart move by Sony, leaving it open for publishers to implement buy not requiring it for all games; that should make plenty of gamers happy, which is important for Sony, because those are most of the people who will buy the PS4; to the extent that either console penetrates the mass market, Microsoft will likely do better there.

So now the ball is in Microsoft's court. I suppose there are any number of routes Microsoft could take with this, but my guess is that it will be at least somewhat more restrictive than what Sony has done, if for no other reason than that they seem committed to the cloud. It's a tradeoff for gamers, rather than a losing situation; having your profile and game data in the cloud allows you to get access to it from anywhere, at the potential expense of not having as much flexibility with what you do with that game. The key thing for Microsoft will give gamers as much leeway as possible without sacrificing the advantages of the cloud. I'm looking forward to hearing some clear answers from them soon.

He was talking about the online pass thing right? You were talking about it being okay if Sony does it right? Well what is the "it" that you were talking about? Sony fans complained about that online pass aswell. Did MS implement the online pass? If not, then you must have been referring to this new drm thing and thats why i brought it up

lets boycott any 3rd party publisher who thinks blocking use games is a good idea

If I bought a game used I'd have been more than happy to pay for the online pass if I wanted to as well.  Online pass and your game being tied to your account are entirely different. In 10 years when PSN and XBL no longer support PS3 and 360, I won't be able to play online regardless.  Even games I own that have no online pass won't be able to go online.  However, in 20 years when XBL no longer supports the Xbox One, I'll no longer be able to play the game at all.

In short, the online pass ties down online to an account.  This new restrictive DRM on the Xbox One ties online and single player to an account.  That's the difference.  PS360.  No online.  Xbox One.  No games period. 

You didn't understand me. S.T.A.G.E could have just won the argument by saying "Well yes, Sony does a corporate lockdown on gamers as well, but far less than what Microsoft do".

But no. He had to prove that Sony is complete gaming-focused and it always does it right by justifying the online pass, saying "more than happy to pay for them". Now you come to me and tell me that Sony fans complained about that online pass. You're further helping me with my argument. S.T.A.G.E condones something he shouldn't, just because Sony does it.

EDIT: For the record. I'm not justifying MS by saying this. What they're doing is horrible. Happy now?

I think that will be complicated to do lol its too many to go after lol

I'd rather not have to pay anything at all. Read my other answer.

I haven't bought an EA game in awhile.  ME3 probably and before that...probably a Madden.  I never made such a vow but unless I am absolutely positive a game will be good of course I will.  I won't be able to resell if I don't like it (which I do with most of my games cause I'm very selective about my permanent collection).  This policy will lead to less pre-orders and more dissatisfied customers before being reversed.

The thing is though now you can't lend those games out. Or do you mean permanent as in "no way I'm letting others touch these games".

I like to lend out my collection from time to time.

Hopefully it will be like region locking on the PS3. Any publisher could implement it but in the end only 1 did.