The auction house is set up. People start buying ($), selling($), trading points & virtual assets (trophies, costumes, in-game items) as part of a trading system. This creates a virtual economy (you played Diablo II, you should know about the SoJ). Suddenly you mix money and virtual points (similar to LoL's Riot points) and things get a monetary value. Sony (much like Blizzard with DII) can then inject virtual assets out of thin air and make money, since they would be the only ones to exchange virtual assets (out) to money (in).

This can easily leed to a creepy money-making scheme (slippery slope).

Oh I totally agree on that part. The auction on its own, is a great thing, something I'd like to have.

Apart from arguing how Sony has (and I'm sorry but this is really tin hat territory) to still be competitive to function in an auction environment, please explain how this is like DRM.

The one facet of your argument that you're still not conveying is how they are the same. In this post you only explained the auction, and your fears on what happens with auctions (which still isn't even confirmed how it will work), and forgot to answer my question right above of "How is bolded like italicized".

Fair enough, thank you for the  feedback.

The DRM is in place to ensure that

1) People don't pirate games.

2) People buy from the content provider the content they buy (and not second hand).

This is for monetary reasons because 1) is obvious and 2) used game sales return nothing to the content maker. As much as the auction provides a real danger of over-monetisation (much like f2p models and the evil EA speach - ask badge), so does DRM (especially to control used game sales).

Happy you're still not answering the question.  You're just saying DRM is good, auction house is bad, people are hypocrites to not like DRM (Well Microsoft's way of doing it anyways).

Auction House: Monotizing your personal goods.

DRM: Restricting use of your personal goods.

Notice how these two statements aren't equivalent or anywhere near being the same?

Hey Kryta, he asked "how is bold like italicised". My answer is that they are both means for the companies to suck more money out of us. I then went on to explain exactly how.

With the way you lay it out, Sony is putting money into your hands. But after I described the virtual economy to prof, it should be clear how that isn't the case, but is rather what they would like you to think.

Fair enough, thank you for the  feedback.

The DRM is in place to ensure that

1) People don't pirate games.

2) People buy from the content provider the content they buy (and not second hand).

This is for monetary reasons because 1) is obvious and 2) used game sales return nothing to the content maker. As much as the auction provides a real danger of over-monetisation (much like f2p models and the evil EA speach - ask badge), so does DRM (especially to control used game sales).

I'm sorry Happy, but the only similarity you can draw is that controlling a person's property makes MS money in the same way that a conspiratorial Sony abusing the market would make money.

Yes, both cases can make money....but breathing air doesn't make me anything like a dolphin.

DRM degrades the value of items while a theoretical auction house creates value for items.

Say for example, I preorder a game and get a skin, but don't want the skin. I can trade this skin through the auction house, which thereby creates a profit for myself, offsetting the cost of the game. This is how auctioning creates value from digital property.

DRM on the other hand, degrades value, because it creates an environment where I am paid less for my property, and must pay more for the same property. Ie, Trade in value goes down while used game price goes up. This occurs since Gamestop must recoup costs. The consumer must pay the difference because the consumer doesn't have any other options.

So yes, both things make the respective companies money, but that is a tertiary significance. I'll not even get into the market manipulation conspiracy case you're trying to build, which I feel is the similarity you're trying to link, because to say that one potentially morally abhorrent monetizing thing is as bad as a definitely morally abhorrent monetizing thing is wrong.

That's like saying that I shouldn't buy a gun because that makes me very similar to a murderer.

I called it a slippery slope, much like allowing people to buy guns is. Let's not get into the glaringly obvious. True that the auction system gives gamers the ability to monetize their virtual assets and redeem them at a later date, but it also empowers Sony to monetize things that normally have reasonably no value if they so wish to (which they will). The fact that people will continue to support that though is what makes this worse, but I guess there is a market for everything.

Yeah let's avoid that whole gun thing because I disagree off the bat lol.

You agree that both gamers and Sony are empowered. Good.
DRM empowers MS, and undermines gamer assets.

Not to mention that one is optional and another is not, I'm sure you can begin to see pretty comprehensive differences between the two ideas.

Furthermore, Skins, dlc, and games are already traded on ebay. This is no different, and actually, from a business angle it makes more sense for Sony to run this type of auction than ebay, who collects 10% along with paypal who collects 2% in fees. In the end, this will help lots of gamers get to experience more games, and will "incentivize" people to buy games through pre-order with bonuses, than to buy used. Think about it, if you buy day one, and get a dlc or skin that could give you 5-6 dollars in points, why wait for a game price to drop even 10$, when at that point you're making the difference almost negligible.

Yes, this idea is designed to increase sales. Yes, this idea is designed to make money.

But the way in which DRM makes money is much much different.