We accept the fact that digital content is not eligible for resale because of the way the technology works. The ease of distribution makes it so that it would be too easy to distribute games far and wide to thousands of people without losing access to the content yourself. With physical discs, their is no reason to have this restriction. The lack of such restriction is the reason that I buy games on consoles and not on a PC.

As for entertainment experience ummmm, so? Books are an entertainment experience and I could sell those. CDs are an entertainment experience. Movies are an entertainment experience. When I gave my friend a copy of 1984 I didn't have to write a check to George Orwell.

As for game companies needing a way to make a profit, I have an idea. Make good games. Take a look at the weekly sales charts. Just Dance 4 is still up there after 34 weeks. Arkham City is up there after well over a year. Red Dead Redemption is selling well over 3 years after its release. Mario Kart Wii is the 26th best selling game this week, and it's been available for over 5 years and it still retailing for $40! Why are these games still selling? Because people enjoy them. People enjoy them enough that they tell their friends about them, they enjoy them enough that they'll buy them years after original release (in the case of Mario Kart at near full price), and they enjoy them enough that they keep them so that the demand for new games outstrips the supply for old games.

Its funny to read peopels post bashing anti used policy on cusumers and how we own teh game when we buy it. Most of you don't r realise that none of us really own the game we purchase. You own only the license to play it.  Thi s kind of thing have beebn happening for a very long time and it even happens on ps3 games. heres  one prOof from sony exclusive Resistance 2. qUOTE " Here is an extract from Sony's EULA for Resistance 2 (http://us.playstation.com/games/useragreement/resistance-2-ps3.html):

GRANT OF LICENSE. SCEA grants you a non-exclusive right to use this software for personal, non-commercial play on a PlayStation® computer entertainment system only. You may not (i) rent, lease or sublicense the software, (ii) modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, (iii) attempt to create the source code from the object code for the software, or (iv) download game content for any purpose other than game play. You have no proprietary rights in any game content including game play statistics. SCEA may modify such content at any time for any reason. This software may include time and use restrictions. For time and use restrictions regarding this software, visit www.us.playstation.com/support/useragreement." The only difference this time around the publishers and developer are havign a close watch because of piracy. Yes it is piracy when you lend your license to yoru friend who refuses to pay for a gme and reaps the benefits of palying the entire sp campaign and then multiplayer. You want to play buy the game . Can't affordit, wait til it drops. not hard right? Forgot Steam incoporates similar policy to Used Game adn RM. Games on steam at the start are at tiems more expensive then retail stores. Its not as cheap as peopel make it sound like and some games youa re forced to launch it throught steam and be online like metro 2033

How can anyone support this abomination? You couldn't be more wrong, developers make millions of dollars making their games, it's not my fault if they spend too much on developing their games so they can't sustain a decent profit, why should i suffer for it? I mean how hard is it to keep the budget low and still make a decent game? Indie developers can and have made some of the best games on thousands not millions of dollars. You don't throw money at a creator and get innovation, you require good ideas. Money is only needed in a huge quantity to get good graphics, which to be frank don't need to get any better now. Game development itself should be about gameplay first and graphics later.

And you say developers must do this to make more money, but NO NO THEY DON'T. In fact blocking second hand games we only kill off this industry and fewer new IPs will happen as less people will be able to afford to play those games, reducing revenue for gaming shops, developers and publishers. Also, who are you to say we can't sell what we are finished with? This is pure greed, greed that will destroy my favourite hobby and we have every right to bash these policies until they are dead. I'm still amazed and very angry that anyone could support this.

But to me this is not about bashing the Xbox, it's about making it clear what companies can and can't do with their many loyal customers. If this measure becomes common place in the industry, i foresee a 2nd video game crash happening in a few years

RANT OVER

its not good for me

People also forget that consumer protection laws and common law override EULAs in most cases.

The only thing, even, preventing us from having the right to copy the software for personal use is that the DMCA illegalizes the circumventing of copy protection systems, but otherwise we have many more rights than the EULA suggests.

Tell that to millions who praise games like halo 4, metro, uncarted series, god of war and so on. The thing is why should gamers  suffer and not get good graphics f gamers are too cheapsakte to pay fro full price and rely on borrowing games  from friends.  If more peopel bought teh game rather then lending games from friends nad not pay for it then the less chance of this happening.  B locking gamers whi are too cheap to pay for full price game is good. i hope it works out well. its time we support good developers for their hard work as too many this gen got closed . Secondly gaming is not meant  for everyon. if you can't afford it then its unfortunate. i mean people who belong to very low to low socioeconomic category should focus more on how to support themselves and or family instead of gaming. if you are in the middle and can't afford all of it,, then how is it a big loss? if you can't afford it straight away wait til it gets cheap. you don't have to buy it straight away right?

The thing is you have to accept these terms before using the game and it has breen happening even before the ps2 days. If yo ugive it to your friend to finish the game then you will be breaking the law as thats renting it to him which states in the law . Once you agree you have to follow it regardless on how you feel as the law is the law.  rEGARDLESS OF YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS,, YOU WOULD WIN THER LAWSUIT WITH THEM IF YOU WERE TO SUE THEM BASSED ON THE SAME POLICY MS IS ADOPTING INTO XONE.  soory for the caps.
 Wouldn't suprised me if ps4 will have it as publishers will force sony to do it.

Pubs and revs will not.....NOT make more money due to this. Overall games sales will decline as people have less money to buy new games.

Is it necessary to buy every game? if thats the cse games prices will drop quicker right?

No, it's publisher and developer friendly, not consumer friendly. There really is no argument for how this benefits consumers in any possible way.
Imagine if a car manufacturer were to go the same route and state that people who purchased their new vehicles would only be allowed to resell them through the means of the original company which would get paid again for the same product, even if it's a smaller part than the first one, with the plea being that without this arrangement they could go out of business.
I don't think many people would consider that fair to the customer at all, only when we're talking about video games is this even feasible since it's not taken seriously as a product on the same level as many other things.

If you run a business that could topple entirely because someone sells your products second-hand after they've owned it themselves for a while, you're quite simply shit at running a business and need a new gameplan.
Developers and publishers need to start putting the budget where it matters and stop with platform exclusives, or even timed exclusives, now there are two things that are hurting the industry.

Defending DRM and/or anti used games policies as "consumer friendly" shows a real lack of ability to reason and a lack of understanding of what the term "consumer friendly" implies. Anything that strips consumers of freedom of choice, control over their own owned property and the resale of said property or any form of strict restriction, be it digital or otherwise, anything mandatory showed down ones throat simply for owning a product or subscribing to a service is NOT consumer friendly. It's not that hard to see.