I can understand where some people are coming from. They feel like this is going to have a big negative impact on the number of games that they play and how much it will cost to play those games.
However, the games business is just that, a business. Just like you don't owe anything to Publisher X, they don't owe anything to you. If they want to put a system in place to ensure that every game sold they get a cut of, that's well within their rights and it would be irresponsible of them NOT to take action.
Also, please go read the article again:
If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do. While our sources were unclear on how exactly the pre-owned customer side of things would work, it's believed used games will be limited to a trial mode or some other form of content restriction, with consumers having to pay a fee to unlock/register the full game.
This would allow used games to continue to be sold at outlets such as GameStop, while also appeasing major publishers who would no longer have to implement their own haphazard approaches to "online passes".
It sounds like it will work just like an online pass. You purchase the
USED game from Gamestop (or wherever else), you bring it home, you make an online purchase of the online pass and the game is now yours.
To take this a step further, contrary to popular belief console makers and Gamestop aren't stupid. I can guarantee that if the anti-used methods are in place you'll see Gamestop and the console manufacturers come to one of the two following agreements.
- Gamestop will have a way of purchasing the $X activation code directly from console manufacturers and include it in the used copies, just like Arkham City.
- Console manufacturers will set up a system where Gamestop will be able to enter a serial code from the used game they just purchased and deactivate it's registration on Sony/MS server for $X.
The Console Manufacturer's will get a cut for implementing and maintaining this system (essentially ensuring they're receiving a royalty from used sales) and the publisher would get a cut as well ensuring they receive money for their game being sold used.
The second method would be preferable since it would eliminate the need for customer intervention in the process.
At the end of the day, i don't think there is any publisher who wouldn't agree that used game sales have an overall positive affect on the total dollars spent in the games industry. In a perfect world, they would want to be able to foster a healthy used game market, but that market is only beneficial to them if they're getting a cut of the profits. With the proposed "anti" used game methods (I don't like the use of "anti," I believe it's going to be a "used game profitability" method) , they'll be able to do just that.
