so thi is Sony's answer to used games. nott bad.

We're up in arms about Microsoft taking away consumer rights just because they can.  No they're not the only ones, and I'm sure Sony would do it to (Their music arm has).  You have to stop companies from taking away consumers rights cause the second you let them, they take more.  This is why most people, not just Sony fans, are up in arms with against Microsoft.  So how is Sony making an online auction for users to monetize their digital goods with as bad as what Micrsoft is doing with our consumer rights (DRM)? This all comes back to, how is Auction House = DRM?

I understand that they are not the same, but listen to this vid which Badge likes to post, it is scary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

What does Sony giving you a chance to monetize said virtual goods bad?  This also comes down to user choice.  EA is making anti consumer choices.  Think they'd continue trying to sell guns and ammo if people don't buy?  People should be bitching and complaining.  Sony is actually giving users an option to sell your virtual items.  What Sony is doing, if this article is even remotely right, can only be good.  Finished up a DLC you're never going to play again?  Sell it to someone else.   This gives consumers a way to sell digital items that you'd not have been able to do otherwise.  Reading the article again, I'd also like to point out that the writer speculates this is how Sony was planning to handle used games.  I really don't see how he came to that conclusion really, so if that's what's bugging you, it's purely speculation as is the article.  Though my last words, if this article is right about Sony creating an auction house to sell your virtual goods, which you've bought and is never able to sell, good for Sony.  This is quite possibly the first legit way to resell digital games.  Not even Steam has this option (Which I wish they did).  Which comes back to point, how is this auction house, which gives users more power to do what they will with their goods, as bad as Microsoft's attempt to take away your power with your goods?

Kryta, the good side exists. I never negated it... (Didn't I already say this??) It's the negative side that is alarming, and I've gone over it in detail. A virtual economy in which Sony can instantiate any number of digital items they want at no cost, costing gamers their points (and most likely money) for something that has only a perceived value, but no tangible value.

This isn't true though.  This creates a digital economy for users to profit, or reduce losses on spending.  You're completely glossing over this.  You'd be right if users didn't make money.  Sony can take a piece, but I'm making money. E.g. if I don't want the costumes for Street Fighter 4 anymore because I traded the game in, I'll put them up for auction and hope someone bids a decent price.  I get rid of DLC I'm never going to be able to use again, someone else gets DLC for a cheaper price.  I got my money's worth by getting use out of the costumes, so whatever I get back is good (Which is the basis of why people trade games even at a few dollars).  I really don't see how your arguement holds any merit.  You're just assuming users making money off digital goods is bad.

No I'm not, I really am not :) I said it almost 4 times now I understand the value to be able to auction off your virtual assets (costumes, items) which no longer have value to you and you'd like to redeem. What I am saying is that it enables Sony and partners to set up the market in order to profit by merchandizing immaterial addons. It isn't so far from the Ritticello vid.

Except, you don't make money with Ritticello.  You're other flaw in your argument ignores that the market is already set up.  Sony spent 7 years building it.  Microsoft spent 10 just on games, plus more in the PC space.  Steam set up a market on PC, etc.  The market is already set up, this just lets competition take over as now users become sellers instead of just consumers.  Plus there is no difference in the goods market.  Clothes, cars, houses, etc.  Market exists due to demand of product.  Digital market exists because we want digital goods.  Difference in the virtual space, is that it's all controlled.  This idea in the article, actually takes control away and gives it back to users.  Microsoft is trying to add another layer of control.  Sony is trying to take away one.

Okay, you make a decent point. Before I go, how would you contrast the viability of the markets (as they were, you mentioned Steam, MS's virtual market) with the Ritticello vid?

I ask, since your most potent argument is "The markets were already there so why fuss now?"/

Well, markets are based on supply, demand, and competition.  In the digital space supply and demand are controlled.  Demand isn't in as much control, but after costs are covered, you're not sitting on dead stock to clear out so prices stagnat.  Next is competition. 

Steam's competitors aren't as popular, nor are they as robust.  Steam has one other competitor, piracy.  Piracy, believe it or not, keeps Steam in check.   If there was no piracy, I can assure you, there'd be no sales every week on big titles. 

Console space has little piracy, so for the sake of discussion we'll say it's not there (Yes it is, but Sony and Microsoft have done a very thorough job to make piracy neglible.  It's also why publishers blame the used market now).  So supply and demand are still in control.  Prices are generally higher because piracy is not a competitor.  Competition is the key difference.  Microsoft and Sony are each other's competitor.  Nintendo as well, but to a smaller degree due to current Wii U userbase.  The Wii early on was actually a greater competitor but another discussion for another time.  Back on point.  Microsoft and Sony compete with each other, but publishers ultimately hold key on price.  Publisher's aren't going to change prices between platforms since that competes with themselves (e.g. EA isn't going to put the price down for Battlefield 3 on PS3 vs 360 since that'll affect profits).  Sony created PS + to compete with Microsoft, and that helped with prices.  The other competitor is the used game market. 

Used game market is more affected by supply and demand vs competition.  If there's a lot of supply vs demand prices go down.  Low prices on games creates competition to retail games on the digital platform (Not DLC or consumables[e.g. bullets]).  Prices can go lower on the digital space because now publshers have to compete for dollars, since they see no money from used sales.  Which leads to Microsoft and their DRM.

Microsoft wants control on the used market.  If they control supply, demand and reduce competition, they'll get closer to getting full control of the market and they can keep prices higher.  This is why they're trying their hardest to push this DRM through.  This anti-consumer tactic also removes our ability to become a seller and gets rid of a large competitor, us.  Now come in what this article suggests.

Sony is adding another form of competition.  By giving users the right to sell (Which we should have by default and have never been giving the ability to do in the digital space), they're actually creating more competition.  This actually creates competition in the DLC space now since there's very little (Most DLC sales are either marketting ploys, or used to push the sale of a retail game).  This also adds more competition for retail games.

What Sony is doing, if this article is correct, is adding more freedom to the market.  Supply and demand is controlled, but by adding another layer of competition this leads to a more free market, which is more than what Steam currently is, and is the exact opposite of what Microsoft is trying to do.