You create a situation in which anyone purchasing in the downstream market does not know whether the game they're buying is already tied to an account.
Your proposed "solution" still requires an internet-based DRM even for people who have the retail disc.
Your "solution" entails that someone purchasing a title may not be able to play it for a week; I don't know why anyone would consider that reasonable.
Your proposed solution requires that even if someone wants to go disc-less, the entire point of this pointless system, they would still need to put the disc in periodically defeating the entire purpose.
Your solution is not a solution. It creates multiple layers of DRM, not just one. All so that the few can install their games and eject their disc (for a week max).
Your solution is not "simple" in the broad view. It is simple for you, who wants to be able to pretend physical purchases are digital ones (while for some reason ignoring that you haven't even created a disc-less solution). It is needlessly convoluted for everyone else who is perfectly fine with the status quo.
And again, it has been suggested on here already that a system could or should be implemented to allow for private transactions i.e. not through a retailer middle-man, but for a fee, since that's the point of all this DRM, revenue extraction.
Take away the fee, and it's the same idea - self-deactivation for private transaction purposes - it is not a novel concept. And it defeats the purpose of the thread, that being the retail disc should not be tied to an account in the first place, it is a retail disc.
Four things:
1. How hard is it to understand that my system is currently the only one that still allows for the current system to be an option?
2.
"Your proposed "solution" still requires an internet-based DRM even for people who have the retail disc." No it does not. This is only the case if you want to go disk-less.
3. A week long wait a MAXIMUM. The next time the original owner connects to the internet, he can no longer play the game, and the second player is perfectly free to.
4. Concerning the fact that this is not a totally disk-less situation. Of course it isn't, but it's better than nothing. It doesn't take away
your ability to download games if you wish. You have three options in this situation, two of which are already available. If you don't like the third one, fine, don't use it. If you do want to go utterly and completely disk-less, then go DD only and don't complain. It's an
option for those who want it. You don't have to participate in it, so why are you complaining? My system allows for options, Harrison's does not.
You know, I just thought of something, since "Bob" in the example has to connect to the internet every week....then why does he have to have the disk? Oops, I think I found a hole in my plan, but this is a good hole, because guess what, dude: I just realized that you
can go disk-less forever. And yes, I know, a week still isn't as good as it could be, but Microsoft seems to be insistent that the console is connected to the internet periodically, isn't a week better than 24 hours? All I'm trying to do is make it less bad than Microsoft is making it.
Fresh Face, move along. This is not the proper venue for your
discussion. This is our thread for mobilizing and strategy planning for #PS4NoDRM and #XboxOneNoDRM. Go thread shit somewhere else. There's a reason why Juniors can't make new threads.
Back on topic, a Newsfeed has been added to the Xbone website as well. Both websites have now achieved parity. Ready for Wednesday!
Also, couldn't help myself but to register
XBONENoDRM.com
First, yeah sorry for hijacking the thread, though I'm not sure why you consider it idiotic. I mean, it's really simple and allows the gamer to keep things the way they are if they don't want to get into the whole disk-less thing -- basically,
it's exactly the same if you want it to be. Contrary to what you originally said, no it is perfectly in line with what this thread is for because it allows for used games. I wish you would have actually read what I said.
As for "There's a reason why Juniors can't make new threads," well, if I had been able to, I wouldn't have hijacked the thread, which is what your complaining about...