If it is anything like other DRM systems, pirates will probably be able to play their games with no problems while paying customers get saddled with the headaches.

Used games are just the current scapegoat for poorly run corporations.  It's especially ridiculous when studios are shutdown or have mass layoffs before a game even sells one new copy, much less used ones.  What will happen when they kill used games and costs continue to rise?  I imagine they'll probably target retailers in general and try to move towards 100% digital.  Not sure who'd be left after that.  I suppose the console makers themselves.  Somebody with $40 won't suddenly spend $60 just because you take away the $40 option.

The idea of being against used anything is the most absurd thing I've heard of in my life.

Willingly throwing away your consumer rights so mega corporations can squeeze even more money out of you. Sounds like a great idea.

Used games aren't negatively impacting the industry at all. In fact it fuels new game sales. This is 100% proven. If developers are struggling then they need to fix the REAL problems in this industry. Huge overbloated budgets and waaaay too long development time.

Correct.

I'm not going to argue it either way, thread is purely made for people to air their views really and I'm looking for opinions mainly from people who fall under the bolded. I think there's a fair few here who do.

Cool, but at this point I doubt they will surface.

Sorry about that, my grandmother just popped round for a cup of tea and his comment basically summed up the OP in a few words.

I think that many will be thinking that the "used game" industry isn't a bad one in principle but that they are against it because it is abused by the likes of the big chain stores. i.e they give very little credit/cash for the used game and sell generally very close to the full RRP and make a large profit on that. These people likely think that some profit should return to the developer/publisher - understandably.

Microsoft's DRM in principle should allow this, I would expect that under the terms of used game sales being allowed with the Xbox One, Microsoft will definitely be taking a chunk of that profit, of course the likes of the chain store will also receive some profit as an incentive to support and allow the function in their store. I would also expect that the developer/publisher receives a slice of that too.

Of course who receives what percentage is likely going to be unfair since we are at the mercy of Microsoft from the get-go.

Theoretically though, apart from making an actual law to force this profit share to take place in each individual country which would never happen, Microsoft's strategy in this area seems about as fair as possible.

Of course this doesn't take any civil liberties into account at all, isn't designed with the consumer in mind and is likely only a profit making measure for Microsoft itself to benefit with the publisher/developer benefitting more of an incidental consequence somewhat.

My point then is that there's been a lot of negative interpretation of this new DRM system, but it is the only DRM system that will allow such a profit share to take place - at the expense of the consumer - obviously, hence the outcry.

The thing is, over my time of 7-8 years at VGChartz I've frequently read that this is exactly what people want - i.e money going back to the publisher/developer from used game sales and that GameStop and the like are evil for not profit sharing.

This in my opinion where we are now creates a hypocritical stance by those members.

Sorry if I'm not addressing any one person's comments directly at this point, just wanted to clarify exactly what I mean.

This is my opinion also.

I'm not going to argue it though, I'm heavily into civil rights and likely biased to that area so doing anything like connecting to a server to authenticate my game, even if it's only once is unacceptable to me on a moral level. I wouldn't go so far as to boycott anything over it though unless it was more than a minor hinderence to my life etc.

I really don't think it's possible to force a profit share for used game sales with developers/publishers except with taking the drastic measures MS are with the Xbox One. I'm surprised at the negative outcry from members here the last couple of weeks over the announcments, from members who have been noted for supporting such a profit share.

These same members have happily discussed throwing away their civil rights with regards to telling me that the only reason someone would want a hacked console that enables homebrew is for piracy etc and like to put themselves forward as whiter than white in that regard.

I ask those people, considering that MS is now basically enabling a profit share for developers/publishers, should that idea not be supported by them?

Think I'm kinda repeating myself here though.

Of course Nintendo doesn't have anything against the second hand market because most of there first party games sell very well. I also have a good feeling most of there first party games don't have nearly as big of a budget especially when systems like Wii/WiiU powerwise are behind the 360/X1 and Ps3/Ps4. I'm not calling Nintendo out or anything, it's actually extremely smart on there part. 

I'm not against used game sales but I'm against piracy. However, Xbox One will stop piracy just as much as the PS3 or PS4 stops piracy. You think just because there's DRM to screw over the average consumer that the device won't be hackable? If it is eventually hacked, pirates are free to do whatever they want and your paying customers continue to get screwed.

Used game sales are not the same as piracy. It's a physical copy with ownership being lost between the previous owner and ownership gained towards the next owner. Yes, it's unfortunate for developers that Gamestop is profiting as the middle man for those who don't sell the games direct to the buy themselves, but ownership is still transferring from one person to another.

I do support the online game pass. With the sale of the used game, single player is being transferred from one person to another, and there has to be one way for a third party to get money without screwing the user over 20 years down the road by making the game completely unplayable. That's where the online pass comes into play. Online pass is actually a good aspect of DRM where publishers can get paid for a used game purchase as long as the new owner wants to play online. They're using their server bandwidth, even though most games are P2P, so why shouldn't they be paid? Additionally that single player content is still available in 20 years when online wouldn't be available regardless of their being an online pass or not.

As someone who collects games, I see an issue with used games being tied to the console and being unplayable in 20 years. Something like the online pass makes no difference to me because it is developers trying to get money but what does it really lock out that's not going to be locked out in the future anyways? Nothing.

There are also games I may have missed out on previous gens and I might not find out about them until a gen after. An example is Dokapon Kingdom and Dokapon Journey. I didn't play either game until the Wii U and 3DS came out. I saw them in stores, but hey, just another shovelware game right? No. If these were on the Xbox One and the Xbox Three is out, Xbox One no longer works, etc. These are two games I never would have been able to play. These games are also offline multiplayer with up to four people, so these are single player games that even if I had them I wouldn't be able to play when the Xbox One no longer supports games.

So for me, I like to play games, but I'm also a collector. Regardless of my opinion on what comes out, I will never get an Xbox One. At the same time, I do buy some PC games, entirely locked with DRM as PCs are now, I'll explain the only time I buy games. Humble Indie Bundles, when I can get a game I know is good for $5 or less, etc. All my PC games I've paid less than $5 each. Left 4 Dead 1 and 2? Less than $5 for both. Alan Wake series? $1. All the Humble Indie Bundles, the average price depending on the games unlocked. Anything on GOG? I've never purchased anything on GOG that didn't have a ridiculous discount. End of the World Sale for GOG? 75% off most titles? I'm there.

That's the only time I support PC gaming. When I can get the games for dirt cheap. While I like playing 60fps over 30fps, any PC game that's on consoles unless it's locked by DRM(digital titles being locked I'll get them on PC) then I get the game on consoles. Tomb Raider? Console. The Saboteur? Console. You get the idea. I'll get some games that are DRM free on PC though. Dragon Age Origins and Awakening on PC are DRM free, and good thing because PC is the way Dragon Age is meant to be played. The console versions take the same game and make it multiple times worse, framerate issues, no strategy overview, etc.

Playstation Plus is nothing but digital content as well. Something I subscribe to. It's $50 a year and I'm getting $50-$100 a month in digital content. I own a PS3 and Vita, so I'm getting all the possible benefits. I'm cheap and I see this as being well worth the cost. With five games being offered a month, some PSN, PS3, PSP, and Vita, each game comes to the price of less than $1 per game.

There's my entire stance on the subject, and as you can see. I support digital only and DRM as little as possible. I support it, because I'm a gamer and I'd be missing out on playing a lot of games, but only when it's not available DRM free and only when it's cheap as I possibly can get it.

*edit*

While I'm not against used game sales, I buy just about every title new unless it can't be purchased new, so I support developers through first hand sales.

I'm not sure i get what you mean

Hypocritical people who claim to be against used game sales AND DRM? Im not sure if i've ever seen somebody like that so could you give some examples of the users you saw on here who actively do that?

I almost feel like you made that up at this point

@Euphoria14
If you are against DRM and for used game sales so much why do you have specs for your "gaming" laptop in your sig?