I own my game but laws protect me from replicating said product and/or profiting from it. EULA is not set in stone it is more of a guideline. If EULA was truly set in stone I could not resell my videogames, plain and simple. I sell my product, just like someone sells a shoe, book, phone or anything else for that matter. EULA works in full force on fully digital items and because of what MS has now done, we have just gained a glimpse of a near future many can claim they saw coming but not so soon.

As for Microsoft, again, its not just the publisher who gets a cut its also MS and that could screw up used game sales royally because the bottomline is going to suck for Gamestop next gen and they will probably strike back on the gamers hurting MS in the end. No one is saying dont respect the law, its that they dont respect first sale doctrine.

First sale doctrine protects creator and funders product from copyright infringement while leaving ownership in the hands of the user. They are only to profit off of the copy they purchased. Reproduction for profit is not allowed.

Microsoft is saying you can't sell your game they are just saying the next purchaser must also pay a royalty fee.

I assume the main issue is if someone wants to take their game to friend and play they would have to pay a fee to play the game on the machine, it's a tough call but I would error on the side of caution and require a fee to access the game from another console.

Also Eula isn't a guideline it's a legally binding contract between you and the purchaser and ms isn't saying anything against first sale doctrine you can still sell your game, please explain where they are denying you this.

Microsoft never stood in the way of selling your game, correct, but they are putting more supervision over your ownership like you're a child and "we're watching you". They've tied a game to every account and that takes the fun out of gaming. If your friend wants to play your game, he must have your account on his console, which is ridiculous. This is no longer just about MS this is a gamer rights issue which is being threatened because either MS is out of touch or its us.  For the first time in a long time after MS press conference thousands to millions of gamers stood together on the issue. Sure we've calmed down but that doesn't mean we aren't steamed about our rights. Its just that in the moment people use up their energy venting. Youtube is a testament to that. MS has more opportunities to clear to air with gamers, but lets see. Things like this piss off the hacker groups as well, so what happened to Sony this gen could happen to MS next gen if they choose to.

To be more specific the license is seperate to the physical disc. You are free to sell or trade the disc how you please it just doesn't come with a license to use the game. You see when you buy an XBone game (whether digital or retail) you are buing a license for your account to install and play the game. When you install the game on a seperate account you are going to have to pay basically a change of ownership fee much like you would if buying a used car as each license can only have one owner at a time.

Easy way to counter this for retailers like Gamestop.

Just hike up the retailing price for XBone games!

Lets say the activation fee for a used XBone games will be $20-$40, and that Gamestop will sell a used game for $20. If a new game is originally to be sold for $60, then Gamestop and other retailers should just set the retailing price of their XBone games to $80 or even $100, and inform the customer of MS policies towards used games. Simply just raise the price of ALL XBone games by the amount of the activation fee.

My bet is that MS will forfeit pretty quickly, and IMO retailers should do this.

That's what the OP meant by corrupting laws. It's pretty amazing they pulled something like that off, now that I think about it.

Hiking the price of Xbone games is what people are expecting that I've spoken to. MS might have just screwed their consumers. Gamestop wont accept profit losses at the range in which MS is about to make them have. On multiplats the PS4 versions will be the most desirable for sure and this will only make them even more appealing.

Ah, licencing laws. Good times. I own the licence, not the game etc. Still, as game licences are eternal (that hasn't changed has it?), I should be able to sell that licence on, don't you think? Especially if I buy a disc with it on.

In the normal case of all games before (except recent PC gen and next gen), a licence for a game is presumed to also exist along side the media, a media with data stored on it and a licence that you buy. This is then yours to do with as you please, lend it to friends, sell it, burn it in a ritual fire or even play it. When you do these things, lending it to a friend/selling, you are giving up your licence to play it whether temporarily or permanently.

If by some of what MS is saying is true, you can still do all the above just with heavy restrictions. This is what people are not happy about. This form of licencing does already exist on XBL and PSN to a degree. But people aren't complaining about downloadable games, they are talking about physical copies.

Developers want to bring the PC market model to console, but look at all the big third party games sells on PC compared to what they do on consoles it's not that great. They want the PC model on console but expect to retain the same sale margin I don't think that will happen, I wouldn't be surprise if we see games selling consistently lower next gen compared to what their predecessors did this gen.

Let take a step back.

If the law told you that air and water are merchandise that you don't have a right to access anymore, would you accept or worse, defend this because this is the LAW ? If the law said jews are not humans and you have to declare them to the police, would you do it because this is the LAW? (Godwin point yes, but trust me these are the same people)

Well people defending these circumventions of EULA or consumer laws with TOS which are merely very weak contract between a consumer and a corporation that should exist in the first place, and which are most times even invalid as some of the conditions of these contract go against some actual constitutional rights like property.

But the point of this topic is not to say "well is it legal?" but "should we even remotely accept it or fight it"?