Why should anyone pay the developer/publisher twice for the same disc?

Well, why should anyone pay gamestop (twice for the same disc) ?

It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air.

But that is exactly what happens when a game enters the second hand market, an extra used copy suddenly appears out of thin air, and if it's sold again, another used copy, each time being played by somebody who could have just bought the game through a channel that supports the development of that product.

Gamestop doesn't make copies out of thin air, they buy used games and resell them. It's perfectly normal and legal to be able to do that. A game that you buy off the shelves is a product, not a service. Going to the theater is a service. The game developper and publisher should not get anything for second-hand games. The only difference between the game industry and any other industry is that they have the means to try and prevent second-hand, which in my opinion should be illegal.

Please tell me again why I can sell my movies in VHS / DVD form, but games in DVD should be forbidden ?

^This +1. Chindril makes many great points that I definitely agree with. If it's not a game, why should someone be able to buy/resell them, but as soon as it's a game stupid DRMs kick in to try and prevent it?

I understand piracy is a HUGE problem and that there aren't many ways to handle it. But the truth is, there will ALWAYS be a way to get around any DRM. People can copy files, hack into servers, steal keys and and do all sorts of stuff. For example, the game The Settlers 7 was a game that featured always-online DRM, much to the rage of fans of the series. Within a couple of months, there was a cracked version you could get through torrents. The DRM was quickly defeated and many people downloaded the game for free, thanks to the various tutorials on sites like YouTube.

There are better ways to handle DRM, and being always-online is a ridiculous, unattractive solution. Having to check-in every 24 hours is a ridiculous and almost worse solution, because it means you essentially don't own the game if you can't connect to the web, and you certainly can't play it if you can't connect.

I'm sorry, but anyone who truly supports Microsoft's decision and calls it "the future of gaming"? You aren't a true gamer, and don't understand the basic wants of the consumer of game consoles. The technology doesn't yet fully support "cloud gaming", as not everyone has even a decent internet connection. I certainly can't utilize any cloud gaming features, as my connection through Charter is fairly poor when compared to services in California. Until everyone has a connection like Google Fiber, cloud gaming shouldn't exist.

It's basically like a luxury item for the rich at this point. And Microsoft apparently doesn't give a crap to the "middle class" of gamers who don't have a reliable connection.

#PS4TheWin

But that is exactly what happens when a game enters the second hand market, an extra used copy suddenly appears out of thin air, and if it's sold again, another used copy, each time being played by somebody who could have just bought the game through a channel that supports the development of that product.

No, it's the same as a book. There's only one copy. Only one person can be playing/reading it at a time.

I bought an album on iTunes. Then my GF said she wanted that album. So I emailed a copy to her. Then a couple of my friends mentioned they would also like to hear it. So I setup a local ftp repository and point everyone there to download it. I don't see what the big deal is, iTunes still has my money. So what if ten people ended up with it from one original sale, right?

That's completely different. You're duplicating the album so that all 4 of you can be listening to it at the same time in different places.

People make all sorts of comparisons with current products, ie I bought the car so i can sell the car. But that argument is only valid because of the physical nature of the product, and also that the product immediately begins devaluing.

Have you ever bought a used game? They're almost always scratched, often so badly that they don't even work and have to be returned.
They do devalue greatly, and they are a physical thing.
e.g.

I've lost probably half a dozen games due to kids scratching discs beyond recovery

Consoles have always treated games as a physical thing that you have, you put in the machine, and you play.
PC's have evolved into the iTunes/Steam model, and consoles have also partially done this... but the culture of "the disc is the game" is still very ingrained and very strong. Tonnes of people lend each other games, and to them it's just as natural as lending a book or a DVD.

Suddenly switching over to treating the disk as a one-time--key and installer is a huge cultural change (not to mention the sudden requirement for daily Internet which is also a huge cultural change for many...), where suddenly an xbox jewel case is no longer the same as a dvd jewel case or a book, and it's acceptable/predictable for many people to be confused, outraged and angry at the source of this cultural change. Imagine if PVR's suddenly couldn't record TV, or DVD's didn't suddenly work at your friends house, or your book collection suddenly padlocked themselves only to be used when supervised by a reading authority... You'd be angry and confused, which is how many mainstream gamers feel about their physical game copies not being a physical thing any more.

And do you know how much money the developer makes on each used sale? Zilch.
This new system is much better for developers and it will be better for people who actually buy a lot of new games.

You've been misled. You know how much the developer makes off any sale, be it retail or one of these new license-transfers? Zilch.
The publisher has the rights to publish (i.e. sell) the game, that's why they're called the publisher.
The developer is paid to make the game initially. The publisher then gets paid by selling the game.
If a developer is lucky, he might negotiate to get a 1% royalty on every sale after (if or when) the first $n-million profit has been made...

So no, license transfers don't directly help out developers.

So if I give my friend Doom CD, I (or my friend) should have to pay iD for doing so? That's nuts.

Someone buys a game and sells that game to Gamestop. That developer/publisher still has that money. Now someone else buys the game from Gamestop. Why should anyone pay the developer/publisher twice for the same disc? Plus, when that person buys the used game, they still have to pay for downloadable content, online access. It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air.

Good point. I bought an album on iTunes. Then my GF said she wanted that album. So I emailed a copy to her. Then a couple of my friends mentioned they would also like to hear it. So I setup a local ftp repository and point everyone there to download it. I don't see what the big deal is, iTunes still has my money. So what if ten people ended up with it from one original sale, right?

I'll repeat myself: It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air. Like Hodgman said, it's one copy, one user. Only one person can use that disc and play that game at a time.

So no, license transfers don't directly help out developers.

Maybe not directly but is the publisher is making X% on a game licence transfer it makes it easier to repay that Y-million the developer got paid which makes it more likely the developer will see some form of payment.

I'll repeat myself: It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air. Like Hodgman said, it's one copy, one user. Only one person can use that disc and play that game at a time.

Which changes as soon as the disc no longer represents the game. You can play Xbox One games without the media. So if they made that change alone, and nothing else, it would be exactly like the iTunes example where everyone could install a copy and keep on playing. Personally I think this is a worthwhile line of development. Just like I no longer rent / buy DVDs, I don't want to rent/buy game media. I want it to all be streamed to my console.

People complained about Steam for quite a while, but now they are pretty much the gold standard for PC game distribution. There is pretty much no difference between the Xbox One model and the Steam model except that with the Xbox One you can still resell your games.

Guess I'm not a true gamer.

Well I guess my mom and dad are the target market for the Xbox One more than me... too bad they own a DVR and iPads.

Seriously, as much as I've tried to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, I think they're damaging their core consumers more than they need to in trying to push out into new markets. So far it just seems like a big, stupid, poorly executed gamble- at least so far.

The thing is, they aren't really pushing out into a new market. The Xbox 360 is already used more to watch movies and tv than it is to play games. Not much of a gamble when more and more people are ditching cable and streaming content from internet services like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. We haven't had cable TV for about six months now and all of our TV viewing happens on the Xbox. From what I've seen, the biggest problem so far is the price point. I'll still buy one on launch day, but I'd like to see them match the PS4 launch price.

Do you know one person that would buy a console just for those services. roku boxes are $50 and give you all the same services. Why pay 10 times that for the same thing. They are jumping into a new market at a price point way higher than just about any of the other devices in that market. Even many smart tvs are cheaper than xbox one.

I do actually agree with the property-rights/first-sale-doctrine view of things, and the problem, really, is the share of the pie that publishers give to studios and the size of budgets these days, not so much the amount of pie that the publisher collects.

But keep in mind again, this whole DRM/license transfer really is necessary for the distribution model Microsoft has chosen -- discs are no longer the thing you play, they're merely a means of distribution, on equal footing with digital downloads. There are advantages as long as they don't go entirely draconian, and they've done a terrible job messaging what those are, but I have no reason to think they'll do it in a way that's harmful to their business. The whole thing makes a lot more sense when you look at the disc as an alternative to download, rather than comparing it to disc-based games of yore. In fact, if you do have this kind of distribution model, then this DRM (or similar) is a *requirement* to be able to trade and sell games.

The worst bit of it in my mind is the 24-hour check-in. I think a better way would be to require that a new game be activated within the first 24/48 hours, and thereafter a license to play them is stored on the console. The stored license shouldn't expire, but could be revoked if you've transferred it to someone else. That way you could always play without being online, but still preserve trading/selling, and not allow one game sale to be duplicated over and over.

I'll repeat myself: It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air. Like Hodgman said, it's one copy, one user. Only one person can use that disc and play that game at a time.

Which changes as soon as the disc no longer represents the game. You can play Xbox One games without the media. So if they made that change alone, and nothing else, it would be exactly like the iTunes example where everyone could install a copy and keep on playing. Personally I think this is a worthwhile line of development. Just like I no longer rent / buy DVDs, I don't want to rent/buy game media. I want it to all be streamed to my console.

People complained about Steam for quite a while, but now they are pretty much the gold standard for PC game distribution. There is pretty much no difference between the Xbox One model and the Steam model except that with the Xbox One you can still resell your games.

Guess I'm not a true gamer.

If the streaming of games is as good as you say it is, then there's no reason for the used games lockout, is there? Frankly, if I really wanted my games streamed, downloaded, or in the cloud, I would just skip the X1 and just get an OnLive console and be done with it.

Well I guess my mom and dad are the target market for the Xbox One more than me... too bad they own a DVR and iPads.

Seriously, as much as I've tried to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, I think they're damaging their core consumers more than they need to in trying to push out into new markets. So far it just seems like a big, stupid, poorly executed gamble- at least so far.

The thing is, they aren't really pushing out into a new market. The Xbox 360 is already used more to watch movies and tv than it is to play games. Not much of a gamble when more and more people are ditching cable and streaming content from internet services like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. We haven't had cable TV for about six months now and all of our TV viewing happens on the Xbox. From what I've seen, the biggest problem so far is the price point. I'll still buy one on launch day, but I'd like to see them match the PS4 launch price.

Do you know one person that would buy a console just for those services. roku boxes are $50 and give you all the same services. Why pay 10 times that for the same thing. They are jumping into a new market at a price point way higher than just about any of the other devices in that market. Even many smart tvs are cheaper than xbox one.

I also use my Xbox to watch video at least as much as I use it to play games, and I don't have cable either, which is why the emphasis on Cable TV is so mystifying. The whole reveal might as well have been telling me it has fantastic integration with my land-line phone I also don't have.

What they should have done if they wanted to appeal to people like us is provide better functionality that integrates streaming services. But no, have a DVR without the ability to record anything. Super great.

What they should have done if they wanted to appeal to people like us is provide better functionality that integrates streaming services. But no, have a DVR without the ability to record anything. Super great.

This is what I'm hoping will show. If I can search across multiple streaming services that would be an insta-buy for me. Considering that sort of functionality is getting closer on Windows 8 (Search across multiple apps), I have high hopes for the Xbox One.