My assumption is backed by existing software out now. Yours is backed by nothing but the assumption that the EU *might* rule said DRM as anti-consumer (which judging by Diablo 3 and UbiSoft's shit DRM, that's a big fat 0 chance).
This doesn't interfere with the selling of your game, it simply makes sure you can't play it once you have sold it.
Which is ok to me. If I sell a physical object, I can't use it afterwards. But right now licenses are tied to a single account with no way of transfering it. They will however have to make these licenses transferable, sellable to be in accordance with this ruling.
I agree with you in that this ruling will only push companies that allready employed anti consumer tactics like allways on DRM, online passes and other scams to just push even further into this direction.
And I will say this: If they do... well I allready stopped buying EA games, and I don't really care enough for gaming companies to do well. The market is big enough for me to chose companies that don't intend to fuck me over.
It might be a bad thing for enthusiasts, but I got to say, if you are so dependant on anything that you're willing to just take up with every new scam that is put into place, then you don't deserve any sympathy.
That doesn't preclude intrusive, always-on DRM from ensuring authenticity at all because license transfer is a separate concept.
Agreed, I worded it poorly, but it would still require license transfer without the interference of the holder of the authentication servers. At worst you would have to go through a license transfer on their end.