I dont think the used game market has the publishers/devs consent does it? The final result is the same, more people enjoy the game and the dev/publisher doesnt get money for their work

so you didn't read the second part i take it...

edit: just maybe you'll read it the second time through...

                 once transferred the original seller's rights end and the buyers begins.

WIth the advent of achievement something ninty fans know nothing of, theres what we call on other consoles trophy/achievement whores.

These folks buy or rent a ton of games to fill thier need to see the little box pop up saying they've passed another milestone.

MS current game plan slaps the very addicts in the face! They're going to need a Playstation 4 or better yet a 12 step achievement program to help the poor souls MS created out of this mess.

MS you should be ashamed! poor gamers.

I agree with statment "make better games" theres only a handful I'll keep, the occasional stinker I'll play for 1000 gscore Avatar last airbender worst game ever.

These devs just lost the 10000 units gamefly would've bought. Anything rated under a 8.5 and is new I.P. probably wont get a sniff.

PS I already bought both next gen console's the wiiu doesnt count graphically as nexgen but at least it found its way to HD.

I did, like i said it doenst change anything,  the result is the same, also by your definition piracy is not bad  either? so i can buy a game and i have the rights to put it online because i bought it? can i hack a console and cheat online because i bought it? 

I don't see that as contradictory or hypocritical. It's still walling off the number of people who can play a game from a single purchase. If my understanding of it is correct that number is 22. With totally open sharing and trading there is no limit to the number of people who can play a game from a single new game purchase.

The family sharing, and the single give away policy are an attempt to strike some balance between what's perceived as consumer demands and publisher rights (note, trading used games is not seen as a right by these people, otherwise they would not be trying to violate that right, well maybe they would, but that would turn them from being greedy to pure evil). If I was anti-used games I would see this solution as a reasonable middle ground. Though if I was an anti-used game extremist I would see this as MS caving in to whiny fanboi demands. I would be disappointed in MS for comproimising, but I would still support MS on the basis that they tried and they've achieved some level of control. Hopefully they'll do better next time. Or they'll go all digital and the subject of trading in disc based used games will become a non-issue.

I recognise an inconsistency in my own view here. I accept that downloaded games can't be freely traded among gamers. But in theory there's no difference between a disc based game and a downloaded game. I would actually like it if there was trading among gamers of downloaded games, but I'm not going to strongly advocate for it. And at least until now it's probably been in the too hard basket from a technical implementation standpoint.

There's always shades of grey, but people do need to put lines in the sand as well. Rationally or irrationally my line in the sand is: my disc, my right to do with it as I will and the game should remain functional, unless I physically or electromagnetically damage the disc.

You guys are totally missing the point.

A person who buys a used game is not the same as a pirate because the game was paid for. A pirate steals. The publisher doesn't deserve any money from a game I sell to a friend. Just like Warner bros. doesn't get money when I sell my movies. Apple doesn't get money when I sell my ipod. GMC doesn't get money when I sell my car. Why should game developers be any different? If you guys don't mind not being able to resell the things you own without kicking back some money to the original maker of the product, more power to you, but that is not how things work in the marketplace.

no i don't have to accept that. 

the funds from the resell of my current car will go towards the purchased of my next car.  the funds from the resell of my current home will go towards the purchase of my next home.   similarily, when people resell their games they are typically putting those funds  towards their next game.

the contribution is not 100% but it's not 0% either.

a lot of people rely on the that resell value to support their gaming hobby.  i know your a well-to-do business owner but most people aren't as affluent as you and me.  if you cut out parts of the market that rely on more fugal means of contribution, our industry will very quickly find, imo, their isn't enough market to be sustainable.

Like I said, you are totally missing the point. You could make that statement for any product on earth. Car manufacturers gain absolutely nothing from used cars sales, same as pirating(I know cars can't be pirated). Movie studios gain absolutely nothing from used movie sales, same as pirating. Apple gains absolutely nothing fom used ipod sales, same as pirating. You are assuming developers deserve compensation beyond the original purchase, which is just wrong and is not how the real world works. Pirating is bad, but to equate people that pirate to people that buy used games is wrong. Equating pirating to used games sales is wrong.

You DO realize that a game uploaded to the internet was in most cases bought as well?

The main difference between a person selling a game and a person uploading a game to the internet is that by uploading a game to the internet, the bought disc is kind of being cloned, whereas there is still just one copy when a game is sold.

You can bring up legal definitions as much as you like, from the developers/publishers point of view, there is simply indeed very little difference: they only get money from the first person who bought the game new.

In practice, devs/publishers hate the used games probably even more, because on current consoles playing used games is much more common than playing pirated games, meaning: in practice, used games reduce the money they make more than pirated games. And that's the only thing that matters to them.

you bought a game.  A game as in one, singular, or less than 2.

we should have the right to transfer our digital purchased be it steam, psn, or xbla.  it is wrong that we don't already have that, imo. ..but that transfer needs to be one-to-one.  in piracy where one game becomes dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions is wrong.   it's wrong unless that original purchase was for an unlimited distribution like when sony buys a game for ps+ distribution.   sony makes an agreement with the seller (dev/pub) and pays an agreed upon fair price (>>>$60) for larger distribution volumes.