Xbox One's Pre-Owned Plan: Why this is a Serious

[Khaos_Kiwi]

*Warning this post is very long*

 

What Microsoft are planning:

 

They are planning on forcing used-game retailers such as Gamestop and Game (UK) to scan traded games into a system which will unlock the codes of those games, Microsoft server-side. The idea is that you're always online, more or less, so it checks the validity of the game you're playing, as in, it checks if the pre-owned game has been traded through proper channels.

 

The goal here is to get SELECT retailers to increase the prices of their pre-owned games, while also making it impossible to trade pre-owned games in any other way, because those game codes haven't been reactivated by the retailers.

 

So say for example, ebay. I bought a game on ebay, I switch X1 on, pop in the game, and it tells me I need to validate the signature code of the game. Then it says nuh-uh, this is a pre-owned game that hasn't been re-activated by an official licensed Microsoft-approved retailer. This forces me to trade with who they say I have to trade with, and in the end just ensures that pre-owned game money goes back to them, and the retailers with their permission are forced to up their pre-owned prices, killing things like ebay and play.com.

 

 

Why you should not support this:

 

I've read a lot of comments from people advocating this used sale fee being paid to Microsoft and the publishers, and have to shake my head. People have lost sight of their basic consumer rights, and the reason why they should be protected.

 

There are a lot of people arguing about why developers should get a cut from used sales, but the logic is skewed in many cases. A lot of people are obfuscating the issue by saying developers deserve payment for their work.

 

Well, developers are paid throughout the production of a game from a development budget. Technically, they have already had their money. The only thing they are entitled to from a game sale is a small royalty payment, which is a small percentage. That's it. They are not entitled to double- triple- quadruple-dipping on the sale of their product.

 

If a game developer is short of cash, it is probably due to a couple of reasons:

 

- They went over their development budget, and spent more than they could afford.

 

- Their funder (usually a publisher) didn't pay them on time, or withheld payments for some reason. I've read a few interviews of game developers who said that publishers were not satisfied with milestones during development, and withheld money because the language in the contract was ambiguous.

 

These financial issues are nothing to do with the end consumer. If a developer enters into a contract that will not reimburse them the funds required to complete a project, then they need to hire someone who can properly negotiate a contract to ensure the development budget covers the cost of development.

 

Secondly, we've all heard a few publishers recently complaining about games failing and not meeting sales targets, and being considered failures even when they sell well. Why? Because the development budgets are so bloated and ridiculous that the sales expectations are completely unrealistic as a result. In short, they blew too much money on game development and/or marketing, and now can't recoup that investment.

 

This could be addressed by more careful management of available funds during development, which is an internal company management and accounting issue that should not be passed on to the end consumer. We should not be financially responsible for poor business decisions made by a company.

 

Thirdly, the issue of piracy is bandied about a lot. Yes, piracy does have some impact on sales, but it is still debatable how many extra sales would be made if piracy did not exist. DRM has done nothing in the past to prevent piracy of games or other software. DRM is far more effective at controlling the legitimate consumer by restricting casual sharing, resales, game longevity in the market, and many other factors. In short, DRM is designed to make the paying customer pay more, to make up for the perceived 'shortfall' due to the piracy problem. It is a form of consumer control, and it should not be applauded or excused by anyone.

 

Lastly, when you buy a physical copy of a game, regardless of the licensing agreement that is attached, you are buying a physical product that it is your right to resell. You enter into a contract of sale at the point of sale. The EU court passed a ruling that software can be resold, regardless of what is written in the EULA, and any support services related to that product are also transferred to the new owner. Consumer rights under sales of goods acts trump the EULA. The EU court also extended this right to digital software.

 

If this move by Microsoft was ever to set a precedent, then it could spread to other forms of media, so each time you sold on a music CD, you would have to pay the original artist 90 percent of the sale, each time you sold on a movie blue-ray, you would have to pay the movie distributor 90 percent of the sale, and so on. This could form an endless loop where the producer of a product receives endless income beyond the market price of a single item.

 

This is a gross infringement of your right as a consumer, as the money is no longer going to you, who originally purchased the product (whatever it is). If I buy a music CD for $15, I'm entitled to sell that on and get my money back (or even make a profit) if I so desire. If you are seriously telling me that I should need to give 90 percent of that sale to the artist of the album ($13.50) in order to support that artist (again), and any consecutive seller would have to do the same, potentially multiple times, then you are frankly deluded.

 

For a game to be resold, it has to have been bought at full price at least once. Second-hand games don't magically appear out of thin air. Someone originally bought it at full price, and the developer and publisher received their money (and royalty) from that sale. If they miscalculated their sales targets and grossly underestimated their revenue from sales, that is an internal management and accounting problem for that company, and the cost of their incompetence should not be passed on to the end consumer.

 

A game is like any other product, and should fall under the same consumer laws and market forces.

 

Finally, if a game is being constantly resold and traded in, you have to question the reason why? Why are gamers not holding onto that game? Is it purely because they cannot afford full market price for a product and need to constantly resell to afford the next title? Or is the game simply not considered good value for money, and not worthy of keeping a game collection?

 

Only developers can really answer that question. As a game collector, I hold onto those titles that I enjoy and value, that I know I will want to play again.

[Waingro]

Excellent points. But most of the people on here are kids or man children incapable of civic minded discussions.

[gtamann123]

It is ridiculous. I love used game sales and very single game I own on ps3 was bought used. Being able to sell games that you have purchased is a right everyone should have. It I buy a Chevy Suburban at full price and then 10 years later I sell it used to someone else. Why should GM be entitled to a cu of the sale of that vehicle. I paid full price for it and they got their revenue there. I think the same goes for video game.

[MrcTOtheJ]

OP gets it.

 

If Sony goes this way with the PS4, you can bet my ass that I'm finally gonna make the jump to the PC for my main gaming platform.

 

This does more to hurt the consumer than anything, why shouldn't I be able to let my friends borrow one of my games? I worked for it, I paid for it, why can't I share the love so to speak and let my best friend borrow a game to see if he'd want to buy it or let him borrow it so he can beat it and give it back if it's something he likes but dosen't want to blow $60 on?

 

Not only that I buy used games allot, why? Because I'm a damn cheap skate and allot of the games now a days just aren't worth it. They can't be hurting the Publishers or the Devs that much anyways as they seem to be able to dish out new titles every year with bigger and better budgets? That dosen't make much sense to me. Someone may say investors, but if a company keeps floping...who in the right f*cking mind keeps investing?

 

I also trade games allot because some of them, while great are the type of game that no matter how much I enjoyed after one run, I'm done really. (I.E Far Cry 3) There are others like GTA and TES I keep for life but allot of the time unless it's mind blowing at sometime it'll go towards a Pre-Order for something else. It saves me some money.

[Mista J]

Even though I rarely buy used games, I think this is bullsh*t. I don't want to pay $30 bucks five years down the line for a game that was released at launch. Microsoft are really going to f*ck themselves over this gen. It's a shame since I'm an Xbox fan, but they've pushed me into the controller of their biggest competitor and the sad sh*t is they don't care if they lose customers, I think their too arrogant as a company to admit they're wrong.

[wannaslide]

I was under the impression the reason for this is ,because you can save the game to the hard drive and then you don't need to put the disc in to play once saved ???if this is the case then you have to understand why they have made it this way . Also I thought the game can only be linked to one account at a time and you can remove it before you sell it ,then making it so the new owner wont have to pay rights when they put it in their console ? i'd like to know more about all of this ,even though I mostly buy new games and don't bother selling them because you really don't get enough for used games anymore .

 

[Khaos_Kiwi]

My main reason for posting this is to enlighten people to exactly what kind of anti-consumer behaviour you will be reinforcing if you accept these greed tactics.

 

It doesn't matter whether you buy used games or not. Or even how Microsoft want the Xbox One to work. If not having this used game plan means that there forced game installation policy does not work any more, then change it!

 

You shouldn't NEED to install a game to the hard drive. It should be an OPTION- something some people seem intent on giving up these days...

 

There is no excuses. There is no other reason behind wanting to implement this plan apart from CORPORATE GREED.

 

We need everyone to understand this, because in the end, we all want the same thing. No matter what console you support, this is bad for all of us. WE are on a GAME"S forum, because we all love games (in particular GTA ), and polices like this are going to negatively affect our common, and and fantastic hobby of GAMING.

[corvettelover]

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

 

Wish we could just forget all this digital integration non-sense and go back to DVD/CD's with a simple disk check.

 

EDIT: Actually, this is better than PC for now, atleast you'll be able to buy second hand.

[sal7252]

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

 

Wish we could just forget all this digital integration non-sense and go back to DVD/CD's with a simple disk check.

You have to see it from Xbox/PCs/PS POV, the app age is sucking a lot of business from consoles & PC, they need to find a way to maintain.

 

Expect PS to do this too.

[LSSDLSPD]

They completely agree with you............

[Mokrie Dela]

Finally I'm home

Thanks op

 

If what you've said about the EUs ruling is true, Microsoft Are going to have a hard time

 

I am strongly against this as well as the dlc/exist e content bullsh*t. Its nice to meet someone who knows what consumer rights are and aren't prepared to bend over for companies

The rumours of this on X1 have alienated me from that platform

MS now have to work hard if they want my money

 

Unfortunately were in the minority

Too many people are charmed by the marketing and common consensus and will happily sell out. Gaming is heading down a dark path a d there's nothing anyone can do to stop it

[Khaos_Kiwi]

Unfortunately were in the minority

Too many people are charmed by the marketing and common consensus and will happily sell out. Gaming is heading down a dark path a d there's nothing anyone can do to stop it

The thing is we at least have to try! I know that I'm not gonna bend over and let Microsoft completely f*ck up what gaming has always been like for me for as long as I can remember.

 

Unfortunately there will always be those who support due to either sheer ignorance or blind 'fanboyism'. The only thing we can do is let people know what they will be getting into if they choose to support this.

[Exkabewbikadid]

 

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices. For example, I was able to buy Sleeping Dogs off of Steam for 10 USD only 6 months after it's release. They're banking on the thought that most people won't feel ripped off if they can't resell a game for which they paid a small fraction of it's initial retail price.

 

The tricky part with reselling digitally distributed games such as those on Steam is that they are fundamentally tied to a service. In that case if a Steam game were resold, would Steam no longer be obligated to provide digital distribution of game files, updates, achievements, etc.? I would argue that they most certainly would be obligated to continue to provide those services since they are tied to the single license key that they received payment for in the first place.

 

When Steam no longer offers consumers a level of value that obscures it's anit-consumer rights practices, then Valve will find themselves in a whole heap of sh*t just like Microsoft is in now. I have noticed Valve trying to curb the discounts back in recent Steam sales. I have no actual data to support this, but during the last holiday sale, it looked like they were trying to raise the discounted prices anywhere from 2 to 5 dollars on average from previous sales. I think they are slowly trying to push to see what consumers will tolerate and it concerns me.

[Otter]

When I was ten years old or so, I saw projectionists picketing outside of the theatre. They were being displaced; technological advances were making their jobs obsolete and they expected the world to care.

 

The world did not care.

 

I don't care for Gamestop - they've been skimming the general public for years without producing anything of value on their own. It's a scam. So big whoop.

 

And I sympathize with the concept of "used games". But I think it's time to face the facts: things have changed. Technological advances are making our old notions of "ownership" obsolete. The fact remains - people will keep buying and pirating games and the world will move on. All the angst and consumer outrage would be better spent preventing child abuse in third world countries. But no, the world doesn't care about that either.

 

Bottom line? Microsoft and game studios don't owe you jack sh*t. I don't mean that as a slight to you, or anyone here, but the concept of "consumer rights" is so ass-backwards in this case that I can't even begin to understand it.

[AceRay]

If Sony goes this way with the PS4, you can bet my ass that I'm finally gonna make the jump to the PC for my main gaming platform.

Exactly my thoughts on this. I'm actually preparing for what specs I should get for my PC and where I'm going to buy it just in case Sony shoots fumbles with this open goal and the PS4 continues down this sh*tty route of fees and TV. I'm seriously hoping it isn't the end of console gaming.

 

Anyone else remember the good old days of the original Xbox when you just slap in a disk and play? There wasn't any of this extra sh*t like online TV or whatever and it was fun because you played a game. Can we go back to those days?

[corvettelover]

 

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices. For example, I was able to buy Sleeping Dogs off of Steam for 10 USD only 6 months after it's release. They're banking on the thought that most people won't feel ripped off if they can't resell a game for which they paid a small fraction of it's initial retail price.

 

The tricky part with reselling digitally distributed games such as those on Steam is that they are fundamentally tied to a service. In that case if a Steam game were resold, would Steam no longer be obligated to provide digital distribution of game files, updates, achievements, etc.? I would argue that they most certainly would be obligated to continue to provide those services since they are tied to the single license key that they received payment for in the first place.

 

When Steam no longer offers consumers a level of value that obscures it's anit-consumer rights practices, then Valve will find themselves in a whole heap of sh*t just like Microsoft is in now. I have noticed Valve trying to curb the discounts back in recent Steam sales. I have no actual data to support this, but during the last holiday sale, it looked like they were trying to raise the discounted prices anywhere from 2 to 5 dollars on average from previous sales. I think they are slowly trying to push to see what consumers will tolerate and it concerns me.

They're basically at the top of their segment, so they don't need to be as competitive. IMO Origins sales have been so much better than Steams, because they are playing hard catch up with Steam.

 

Right now, Valve doesn't have much to worry about, that is why their sales are starting to suck a bit.

 

Amazon (I know, they don't have a game client) and Origin beat the hell out of Steam good sale price wise at the moment IMO. Maybe once Origin gains some more traction Valve will be more competitive. I do not think it's right all the free passes Steam seems to get considering it is fairly heavy "DRM" everyone is supposedly against. But this is going offtopic. Reason I keep naming Origin? It's the only game laucher/hub/updater that comes close to Steam, and it has a fairly large userbase now.

 

 

I think this is probably a big mistake on Microsofts part, and most likely Sony too assuming they're taking the same route.

[DarrinPA]

 

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices.

It's actually because The U.S. Copyright Office stated that "the tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the First-Sale Doctrine and critical to its rationale"

 

The First-Sale Doctrine protects us against repeat payments to the maker when something is sold used, but since digital copies aren't tangible, they ruled that the law doesn't count. BUT the Xbone is still using discs, thus Microsoft is breaking the rules and infringing on our rights as spelled out in the First-Sale Doctrine.

 

 

Bottom line? Microsoft and game studios don't owe you jack sh*t. I don't mean that as a slight to you, or anyone here, but the concept of "consumer rights" is so ass-backwards in this case that I can't even begin to understand it.

American laws say otherwise. I'm not sure what the Canadian laws are, maybe Microsoft will be free to continue this practice on your country, but other countries are going to see this end up in court.

Edited May 26, 2013 by DarrinPA

[darthYENIK]

The problem is, it's not wrong to let someone borrow your games, or for you to sell your games, or transfer them, or even share them. And MS and the rest of the games industry wants to make it wrong. They want you to feel like you are commiting a crime. And that is wrong.

[Exkabewbikadid]

 

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices.

It's actually because The U.S. Copyright Office stated that "the tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the First-Sale Doctrine and critical to its rationale"

 

The First-Sale Doctrine protects us against repeat payments to the maker when something is sold used, but since digital copies aren't tangible, they ruled that the law doesn't count. BUT the Xbone is still using discs, thus Microsoft is breaking the rules and infringing on our rights as spelled out in the First-Sale Doctrine.

Indeed, the existence of physical media is the defining difference in all of this. Yet, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in favor of reselling digital-only software. So MS could also potentially be sued in Europe should they ever go all digital with these practices. Not sure what will happen to Steam and the like, but supposedly Steam was recently sued in Germany.

 

 

All the angst and consumer outrage would be better spent preventing child abuse in third world countries.

Well, you goddamn better believe at this point I'd give 500 bucks to starving children in a third world country before I gave it to Microsoft for their trumped up console.

[Khaos_Kiwi]

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices. For example, I was able to buy Sleeping Dogs off of Steam for 10 USD only 6 months after it's release. They're banking on the thought that most people won't feel ripped off if they can't resell a game for which they paid a small fraction of it's initial retail price.

 

The tricky part with reselling digitally distributed games such as those on Steam is that they are fundamentally tied to a service. In that case if a Steam game were resold, would Steam no longer be obligated to provide digital distribution of game files, updates, achievements, etc.? I would argue that they most certainly would be obligated to continue to provide those services since they are tied to the single license key that they received payment for in the first place.

 

When Steam no longer offers consumers a level of value that obscures it's anit-consumer rights practices, then Valve will find themselves in a whole heap of sh*t just like Microsoft is in now. I have noticed Valve trying to curb the discounts back in recent Steam sales. I have no actual data to support this, but during the last holiday sale, it looked like they were trying to raise the discounted prices anywhere from 2 to 5 dollars on average from previous sales. I think they are slowly trying to push to see what consumers will tolerate and it concerns me.

Yeah and the reason why Steam has those sales that do exist for console games, is because they have competition. Their cheap prices and sales is a competitive advantage.

 

It really gets me how people think that if Microsoft went digital only that, we too would see Steam style sales and pricing but there is now way that will ever happen. Any extra profit from digital only/no used games would just be used to pad there profit margin. This is because they would have no competition, therefore no need to lower the price. E.g "You want to play GTA V on Xbox One, then you HAVE to buy it from us". There is no other option, so they could theoretically keep the price as high as they wanted for as long as they wanted.

[meson1]

 

The goal here is to get SELECT retailers to increase the prices of their pre-owned games, ...

No. There are two goals none of which is to increase the prices of their pre-owned games. However increasing the prices of pre-owned games might be a consequence.

 

Their actual goals are:

1. Because you install the game completely to the XBO and play without the disk, they want to stop you buying it once and passing said game around all your friends so that they can all install it too.
2. The second goal is to get a slice of the pre-owned game market. Right now, MS and game publishers see no money from this and at the moment they see every pre-owned game sold as the sale of a new game lost.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support the way they are going about this used game stuff. But I felt you got your facts wrong with respect to their goals.

[DarrinPA]

Only a matter of time, we've had stuff like this on PC, except it seems to have been met with praise mostly (STEAM, for example)

Honestly, I think the only reason Steam hasn't been lambasted for it's anti-resales practice is due to the frequent sales that offer games at heavily discounted prices.

It's actually because The U.S. Copyright Office stated that "the tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the First-Sale Doctrine and critical to its rationale"

 

The First-Sale Doctrine protects us against repeat payments to the maker when something is sold used, but since digital copies aren't tangible, they ruled that the law doesn't count. BUT the Xbone is still using discs, thus Microsoft is breaking the rules and infringing on our rights as spelled out in the First-Sale Doctrine.

Indeed, the existence of physical media is the defining difference in all of this. Yet, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in favor of reselling digital-only software. So MS could also potentially be sued in Europe should they ever go all digital with these practices. Not sure what will happen to Steam and the like, but supposedly Steam was recently sued in Germany.

 

 

I'm glad that the European courts have realized the need to protect it just as much as physical copies, considering that they both contain the same content. I'm not sure that US courts will be as progressive.

[GTA 360]

I agree with OP on this one 1, they're conning people out of their hard earned money and people that can't afford new games will be forced out of gaming altogether if they have their own way.

I've already bought a PS3, I'm preparing for the playstation takeover.

[Finn 7 five 11]

When I was ten years old or so, I saw projectionists picketing outside of the theatre. They were being displaced; technological advances were making their jobs obsolete and they expected the world to care.

 

The world did not care.

 

I don't care for Gamestop - they've been skimming the general public for years without producing anything of value on their own. It's a scam. So big whoop.

 

And I sympathize with the concept of "used games". But I think it's time to face the facts: things have changed. Technological advances are making our old notions of "ownership" obsolete. The fact remains - people will keep buying and pirating games and the world will move on. All the angst and consumer outrage would be better spent preventing child abuse in third world countries. But no, the world doesn't care about that either.

 

Bottom line? Microsoft and game studios don't owe you jack sh*t. I don't mean that as a slight to you, or anyone here, but the concept of "consumer rights" is so ass-backwards in this case that I can't even begin to understand it.

I would rather consoles could play used games, but at the same time I completely agree with everything you said.

 

What happens if companies lose money because of lack of used games? Too bad, they should have seen this coming, and i'm 100% sure they did, it happens, businesses boom, business die, businesses that can't adapt anyway, it happens. The people who lose their jobs will find others, and new jobs will be opened with the expansion of digital services because buying physical now has 1 less advantage.

 

And yep, they don't owe us sh*t, so many people feel entitled, like the V kids who think they are entitled to information because they bought all of Rockstars games...Nope, the only thing you are entitled to is the games you purchased, that's it, end of story.

[ll rdny ll]

The problem with fighting this is, the Xbox one won't need the disc after you install the game. So theoretically, with no used game restrictions, the could be losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Without the restrictions, what's going to stop one person from buying the game, and letting everyone they know install the game, on their system? Its either this, or a full on used game ban. Besides, if you have a job, chances are you're going to buy games new. The only games I've ever bought used, are games I missed out on because I jumped into the current gen about 5 years into its life cycle.

 

My point is, they have a system, and it will be fine. Times change, these companies will either adapt, or fade away.

[HaythamKenway]

The problem with fighting this is, the Xbox one won't need the disc after you install the game. So theoretically, with no used game restrictions, the could be losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Without the restrictions, what's going to stop one person from buying the game, and letting everyone they know install the game, on their system? Its either this, or a full on used game ban. Besides, if you have a job, chances are you're going to buy games new. The only games I've ever bought used, are games I missed out on because I jumped into the current gen about 5 years into its life cycle.

 

My point is, they have a system, and it will be fine. Times change, these companies will either adapt, or fade away.

So why not do this like it's now? Pop in a disc and play? Why should I install games on a console? Not having to install games was one of advantages consoles had over PCs.

 

Why do I buy used games? Not all that many games really deserve the $60 price tag. I buy games I really want and I'm sure I'll enjoy at release. I'm going to buy GTA V at release for $60, because I know it'll be worth it. I'm not going to buy Arkham Origins on the release day, because it might be a rehash of AC. I don't know how it goes in the USA or in Great Britain, but here, in Czech Republic, the official price cuts on new games aren't as fast or big as on used games, so it's better to buy games used.

[Happyness]

Even though I rarely buy used games, I think this is bullsh*t. I don't want to pay $30 bucks five years down the line for a game that was released at launch. Microsoft are really going to f*ck themselves over this gen. It's a shame since I'm an Xbox fan, but they've pushed me into the controller of their biggest competitor and the sad sh*t is they don't care if they lose customers, I think their too arrogant as a company to admit they're wrong.

I thought you were a die-hard xbox fan, what happened lad? (no sarcasm)

[JOSEPH X]

Great points, well put Khaos_kiwi.

 

See how stupid this. The publishers want a cut from further sales of a license which I have bought from them. It's my license, so I should also get a cut if the person I sell it to sells it on again. Otherwise, what is the point of me getting a single penny when I sell the game?

 

Of course I shouldn't get a cut on further sales of the game, and neither should the people who sold it to me.

[reform]

I totally agree with your "Why you should not support this:" section, but as for the "What Microsoft are planning:" section, there are a few big errors.

 

The pseudo-always-online nature of XBO is intended to resolve the issue of XBO games no longer requiring the disk once the game is installed on your console. Even with games you love, there is no longer a reason to hold onto the physical CD. The online check prevents, for example, my entire social circle froom buying just one coppy, and all of us installing it on our consoles. When a disk that's been installed on an account on one console is installed on another account on another console console, the original console loses the ability to play the game.

 

Also, it does not prevent you from trading used games through non-MS approved vendors. The MS approved venders do indeed unlock the game for resale, but if you skip them entirely and just sell directly to someone, the buyer can still play the game, but would have to pay the unlock fee themselves, and this unlock fee would be included in offical retailers resale prices anyway.

 

Nothing stops you from selling on used games just as you did in the past.

 

The real issue, is that there should not be a fee to unlock preowned games. Rather, upon installation of a preowned game, the original owners installation should be invalidated without any transaction fee.

 

[JOSEPH X]

Nothing stops you from selling on used games just as you did in the past.

But it stops you buying used games as you did in the past. You would have to pay the publisher for a game that they have already sold - which leads to a potentially infinite amount of revenue from the sale of one game.