So how big of an impact has piracy really had on consoles, which are all closed systems? Piracy has always been a huge factor on the open PC platform, but is the problem really so widespread and detrimental to publishers on consoles to justify locking down software to this extent?
The 360 has been hacked to use pirated software for years, but that requires hardware modification to make it work, and clearly the 360 has still seen massive sales success on all fronts. Piracy on PS3 doesn't seem to be nearly as widespread as on 360, despite several big scares that could've opened the floodgates. The 3DS might start seeing piracy issues soon and the Vita is still secure.
The only systems that have had huge drops in support from publishers due to piracy that I know of are the Dreamcast and the PSP, and both of those cases seem to be because there was no advanced hardware mods required and all you had to do was copy some files onto a memory stick or a CD. Once these easy modes of piracy became common, publisher support dropped like a stone. And I don't forget the R4 for the DS, but that system was still hugely successful.
It seems to me that console manufacturers have gotten much better at quickly being able to combat advances in pirating their consoles through firmware updates, and with the Xbox One always being online, it would be trivial for MS to push such updates to every console as often as they wanted to.
It seems to me that due to the always-online nature of the Xbox One, piracy could easily be dealt with through constant small updates to combat any progress made by hackers. I don't see how an account-based game DRM solution is necessary on a closed platform that has the unavoidable ability to get constant patches from Microsoft.
As for used games, I don't buy them at all, but there are plenty of good people that would affect, and there is plenty of data out there showing that used game sales help to spur on new games sales quite a bit.
I find it extremely concerning that I cannot lend a physical copy of a game I bought to a friend for them to try it out to see if they want to buy it. Among my local gaming friend group, I can count well over a dozen purchases of new games this generation that wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't been lent the game to try it for themselves.
Also, a publisher wouldn't have to worry about lending a game to someone else so they can beat it in a few days if their games were more richly replayable and had more content in them. I'm sure that publishers that shit out uninspired 4-6 hour linear shooters would like to stop game lending while Bethesda doesn't care much at all if someone lends their copy of Skyrim or Fallout to a friend for a while.
Let me get this straight:
You guys prefer an environment where we can pay $60 for a new game, and get back $15 for it when we sell it 6 months or a year later, so that someone else can buy it for $40 and the publisher gets nothing while GameStop takes an easy $25?
What if someone told you you could buy new games digitally at your convenience upon release for $60, and then whenever you wanted you could trade it back in for 25% of the price of the new game? And that GameStop wouldn't be able to siphon off profits so easily anymore? That publishers would be paid for every game purchased?
Why is everyone so angry when we don't know how the proposed system works yet? Because if it worked like what I just said, that would be a good deal for everyone except GameStop.
You're making more unreasonable presumptions about all of this than the people you are addressing are.
The right to access and take advantage of a second hand market.
And to lend a physical copy of an entertainment product to a friend, which is how every other successful delivery form of media has worked forever.
