I had an interesting discussion with a friend yesterday. Although we often have the same opinion, we had completely different opinions on this issue. That's why we made a bet out of it. And so the question for everyone:

what would be worse for you: used game ban or always online compulsion? Can you choose a side?

After Microsoft wanted to enforce a used game ban and the always online principle with the last Xbox (luckily this project failed due to the boycott of the players), I would be interested - which would be worse of both if it were now a reality? Do you see both as equally bad or are there even people here who would have had no problem with either? oO I'm really looking forward to the result and your thoughts / arguments.

When I get to the conclusion that one of those options is worse, I start thinking about how bad the other would be, which leads me to the conclusion that this other option is worse, thus making me think about how bad the first one would be. And so on.

I only buy used or discounted digital games and I don't always have an internet connection available, so, when talking about my gaming habits, I'd be screwed one way or the other.

Both suck big time. I'll slightly give it to always online. I moved into a new spot recently and didn't have internet for several days. I don't get used games very much on current consoles.

None of those, affect me in the slightest. They could do that and I wouldn't even notice. But I would vote against both if they were on a ballot.

I voted both being terrible, but I don't buy used games for current gen hardware. So as far as that is concerned, it is a non issue for me. Needing to be online all the time however, would be a problem. Not so much at home, but I am someone who plays my Switch on the go. Part of what makes that option so viable is running the software natively, without the need for an internet connection. If I had to always be online, it would impact that aspect of my gaming greatly.

Having said that, one would have to consider game preservation. Unless these games were made eternally available via online store for download, not being able to go on ebay in the future to get ahold of games you may have missed would be a major hit.

So my answer is split...for current gen always online would be worse. For game preservation however, no used games wpuld have the potential to be worse.

Both equally terrible. I won't support that. As someone who collects that ruins the hobby. A big part of collecting is finding games years after release used. I just picked up Wolf Fang and Strider 2 for PS1 recently. If they had that back then I would have 2 drink coasters.

Both options are terrible but If I have to choose one, it would be always online. I don't buy used games, so this doesn't/will affect me.

Used game ban has no impact on me, as I don't buy used games. Online only would hardly ever be annoying to me, as 99% of the time I game at my house and I have spectrum with virtually no outages a year (maybe a few and not usually when I'm gaming). So if I had to pick one, I guess online only?

Both are terrible. If you have kids, you'll be glad used games still exist. Always online sucks as well since my kids play on my primary ps4. When my internet sputters I can only play disc games on my ps4 pro, the rest is all locked.

PC already has a used game ban of sorts, since everything is digital. Always online, is a far bigger threat to keeping me from enjoying my games, than a used game ban.