I think that buying a console on principle versus buying one due to unchecked fanboyism is a good idea. But the OP is flawed in thinking that one principle (state of the industry relative to used games or digital distribution) is the end-all be-all factor that should lead someone to their purchases.

To call people hypocrites for not buying an Xb1 if they don't like the effect which used games have had on the gaming industry is a little insulting and a lot of oversimplification. I personally don't think either used games or DRM is a bad thing under the right circumstances. But anyone on either side of the fence has to make a decision based on all the factors...not just the policies of the company in relation to the state of the industry. Like what games are on the machine, which purchase offers a better value, the aesthetic appeal of the console relative to your home (because believe it or not this is important to a lot of people given the consoles will be supported for 10 years), what's under the hood (same reason as how it looks on the outside...we may be using these consoles for a long time and it doesn't hurt to offer games that look good both now and in 10 years), and many more.

But if you want to look at just principle you can't forget about how the company's policies affect indie developers, how these companies treat their employers, or how these company's profits contribute to anyone but the stock holders.

Point is Sony may do some of these things better and Microsoft may do some of these better. There will have to be a compromise on the consumer's part to buy the console that he/she deems the better OVERALL package because one machine won't do it all best. So making a blanket statement about principle and acting like someone is a hypocrite for not buying a specific console based on that one principle is not really a useful resolution for how to choose a nextgen console, in my opinion. It's going to take the consumer to base the purchase on a look at the whole picture to see which company offers a product that most aligns with that consumers principle(s) instead of taking one aspect of the company and spending 4 or 5 hundred dollars based off that one sentiment.

You make a very good point, and I agree completely.

Personally, I don't buy used games very often, mostly because cheap games can usually be picked up on Steam and that's where I get most multiplats. Those exclusives I really want on PS3, I tend to buy near launch.

But in my view, it is absolutely your right to resell games that you have purchased, and if a publisher is not making a profit with their game, they need to reduce their development costs, not introduce ridiculous rules against selling your own products. Plenty of games turn a profit despite the existence of used game sales, so it is no excuse for those games that do not. If your game is selling 5 million copies and not turning a profit, if you have reached the territory of the top 1% of games and you are still losing money, your problems go far beyond used game purchases.

Mismanagement is a problem and they really need to fix that. High development costs is something that they probably cant stop using because there might be a lot of people that will just ignore a game or talk bad about it because it doesnt look as good as others. I think you as a moderator have seen a lot of that, users insulting cod devs/activision for reusing the same engine over and over again. But when Jim Sterling made that articled that devs with high costs need to be more like activision instead of blaming second hand everyone there agreed wtf is with that?

Edit: well he didnt write that they should be like activision, but it seems he wanted to say that

Oddly enough, no. Nobody's even mentioned Activision recently; they're all too busy trolling the Xbox One.

Anyway, he said that Activision manage to turn a profit without relying on sneaky tactics like prohibiting used game sales. Like it or not, their games are popular. That doesn't mean that every company can be like Activision and rehash an FPS franchise every year. That won't work, because there aren't enough FPS fans to buy all of them. It just means that other companies need to understand how much their games are going to sell and plan their development accordingly.

LOL. Are you serious?

Weird, but i guess you are right, maybe when cod: ghost releases people wil start hating on them again, especially on the next gen versions.

I think devs/publishers should at least try with this method, and if it doesnt work like expected just eliminate it. Who knows, maybe at the end it could work for them and xbox one ends up being as good as steam.

Xbox is just wiping out a whole market.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but it simply doesn't work that way. God of War 3 was an excellent game according to critics and millions of fans alike, but in terms of used sales, gamestop was flooded with used copies. Single player campaign games get traded in much easier than fighting, racing, multiplayer games, hence Santa Monica making God of War: Ascension a multiplayer game. The problem is not the game and its quality, but its genre.

People should just buy what they want. Just because some choose to not buy second hand, it don't mean they support what Microsoft does. Just buy whatever console you want. But this just sounds like flame bait and is completely absurd

agreed i'm really tempted by just looking at the nintendo forum lately since you don't get any good/relevent discussion/info from the other.... it's just a pissing contest.... I will buy an XB1 and will never buy a PS4 unless sony splits up and the entertainement dept becomes independant then maybe....

and buy now most hardcore gamers must know which one they will get so what's the point for sony fans to come here to bitch about stuff that will not concern them at all.... do they still think MS will be so successful that sony might do the same.... if not why bother, their choice is made, mine has always been clear.... enough with the useless thread poluting the forums....