I have never seen any indication that the used market was significant for PC games. PC games can often be had for a lot lower price than console games, especially when considering Steam sales or equivalent. I don't see how this individual case warrants special attention here when it is common for multiplayer games especially. There have been games that for years have had a unique key for online play and once used thats it for being used except for perhaps the single player part of the game. You can give away the username and password to the game as well if you sell it.

There have always been cases where the terms of sale have proved to be unacceptable for some, take the iPhone for instance. Even a desirable physical product can be saddled with terms and conditions which are unsavoury for many people. I don't see how these terms and conditions are an affront to you, the games they sell can be classified as a service which they have deemed to be non-transferable. I cannot see how your rights are affronted here in that they are delivering the stated goods under the terms and you are free to accept or decline their offer.

As a counterpoint to the people without internet, there are also many people who cannot easily pack a disc with them when they want to play games. It may be limited space, lack of an optical drive or a desire to share the game with another person. These people are already excluded, but you address no time to discuss their needs because their needs have already been affronted as the status quo?

As a publicly traded company Ubisoft has a mandate to give the maximum profit to its shareholders that it is capable of. Since they have invested likely considerable time and effort in producing this scheme, it must stand to reason that they also believe that it will increase their profitability. Outside of an assumption, is there any evidence to contradict the assumption that they are carrying out their mandate in the best way they see fit?

I don't know what the used market for PC games is like, though I agree it's not as prevalent as that of the consoles. THat said, I cannot imagine what other reason they would have for this RM, since it's certainly not to stop piracy. And no, you can't give away your name and username for these games - they're tied to your Ubisoft account, which is said by Ubisoft to be impossible to sell because it contains personal information. I don't know what personal information would make it impossible for you to sell it outside of your credit card info, bu I'll take their word at face value until given reason to do otherwise.

The terms and conditions are not acceptable to me as a person who holds the status quo of consumer rights to be superior to these new proposed terms.

Concerning solutions for people who cannot easily pick up discs: there are already solutions for those problems, such as purchasing games through Steam. The status quo already addresses the needs of people who cannot abide by the need for physical media, because that is the nature of the market.

I have no doubt that they think this is for the best, of course, but you will forgive me if, after similar fiascos throughout the past few years (Spore is worth mentioning and has been brought up before) I anticipate them as being wrong.

LOL. Some responses are quite unbelievable.

Khuutra has pretty much nailed the issue with some excellent posts, however, I'd like to point out that the size of the PC second hand market doesn't really matter, as this scheme (and others before it) are effectively a trial run before they're brought to consoles. In essence they're seeing what the market can bear and what people will put up with before going for the bigger prize of console second hand sales.

That's why it's imperative that console owners also make a stand, otherwise you'll be having to activate your games and tie them to your PSN/ Live account before long. As Galaki says, some responses in this thread are unbelievable and certain people need to leave aside their petty tribalism and get much more clued up. Comments about MMOs or along the lines of 'well, everyone has internet access these days' are ignorant at best.

These companies are not your friends, they're international mega-corps who only exist to make money for their shareholders. Trying to defend their anti-consumer actions as if you were taking sides in a football game is quite ridiculous.

Equally, PC owners in general and the ones protesting against DRM in particular are not your enemies. Quite the contrary, if companies can be persuaded to drop these schemes due to consumer backlash, they'll be doing you a favour. Look at how EA have responded to the Spore/ Mass Effect debacle- they've dropped the stick of SecuROM activations, instead they have introduced the carrot of rewarding the purchaser by giving them extra in-game items, items which are not available if the game is bought second hand. This wouldn't have come about if everyone had just rolled over and accepted their DRM. Now it's how it should be- give people a reason to buy your game and they will do; make your game 'worse' than the pirated offering and that's what they'll gravitate to.

In the end, we're basically all consumers and we should be sticking together against companies trying to erode what we've traditionally accepted, otherwise we'll all end up shafted.

No, I was commenting on the crazy claim that 25% of Americans don't have access to the internet.  It had nothing to do with the video games.

They don't let you install software on the machines here either, but they do let you access the interne from your own laptop via wireless.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/home-internet-access-in-us-still-room-for-growth-8280/nielsen-internet-access-household-income-february-2009jpg/

Everybody should be able to access the internet, but only 74% actually have internet access at home (92% of 80%), meaning 26% don't.

Somehow I don't think that playing computer games is high on the priority list of those people...

See I don't mind tying my games to my PSN and I think that's the way it should be done.

I rather my cash gets in the hands of the developers to fund more games than in gamestop pocket...

You're all arguing like all those publishers are making billion $ on your back.

Check the numbers, they aren't . They are barely breaking even and games get canned every year because of that fact...

The only companies making billion on customer's back this gen are Gamestop and Nintendo.....

The value of selling console games used is in the lack of prevalence of piracy and the consideration that the price of the software tends to stay higher for longer. At least the way I see it anyway . With faster depreciation and that piracy option, I doubt that the used market is particularly valuable. However I suspect the value of giving away content is considerable, sharing games in essence. In addition to this, whilst most don't opt into the idea of selling their games, their anger comes from having the option taken away.

So if they refined the idea so that it could be given away once or twice you would be less opposed to this form of DRM? So in essence whats the compromise position which lets them try out their new fangled anti-piracy, which also makes you happy? If their system works, it will benefit you as a paying consumer because it would force others to toe the line as far as paying for their content which increases the overall pool of money to bring content to you.

Does not Steam require a fast internet connection because updates are compulsary? In addition, do you not have to log in on occasion? Sorry im ignorant here as Steam charges my country the same price in local currency but with U.S.D. which means every game is about 2-3* more expensive than in the store.

And they will keep losing money if they don't do what the consumers want. Consumers DO NOT want this shit, they should be more complaiant with consumers, which they are not. They deserve to lose even more money if this is how they are going, and I will be very happy if they go under.