How so? Sony does not care what you do with the game you purchased new as a first user, they got their money.
That might be true, but you look at all of the game developers who support
some form of DRM, and you will see that all of them publish on a Microsoft or Sony platform. Think those restrictions do not affect you already? They are because PSN and XBLA releases are coded so that they are locked to one account. The PS3 and 360 are testing this technology already for use in future consoles.
Getting away? They did not even create this model and gamers have a choice to avoid the game all together. Most passes come with bonus content. But its also free with the game. Why should non supportive gamers get a free pass on a server for online games?
That is right, EA did. They, and THQ, WB and Sony(over Jaffe's wishes, hint, hint) are all guilty of charging $10 online pass. WB is the worst offender because in Arkham Asylum, the online pass unlocked Catwoman who you actually needed to complete the game 100%. It is disgusting how low these publishers will go to attack the used games industry.
I hope Sony conducts some extensive fan base research before deciding what "features" to implement on the next proposed Playstation. Here is a screenshot of today's poll at GameFaqs, and most people are not quite in favor of the rumored "features" that lots of folk are talking about.
First of all, that is not a scientific poll, and second, Gamefaqs polls are generally ran IP based, not trying to insult your intelligence here, but one nut with a IP reset button on his router could vote as many times as he feels like pressing that reset button.
That said, looking over the data itself, while the majority of those who voted are against Sony's proposed specs, I am actually amazed that some people are actually going along with it at a rate of 15.42%. Going one way or another is 31.26%. Why are these results staggering? Because Sony, with digital downloads, has already preconditioned us to accept this train wreck.
You sure that is the case? Sony isn't the only one going by this rule as Microsoft has also been rumored. And if that was the case, wouldn't the Online Content fee be slightly breaking this provision as well?
One could make that case on the online content, however, David Graham, or UltraDavid, a lawyer that specializes in video game matters wrote an article on SRK that PS2012 on gamefaqs summarizes quite nicely:
PS2012
Like the writer concedes at the end though, there is know way that argument would hold water in court. Even if it wasn't worded as an "Initial buyer reward" I doubt you would win that case. The thing is, online play is more of a post-sale service than a tangible product you own and can then re-sell.
The problem for most people I think is that games have given this service for free for so long that any change is going to be viewed as a "greedy corporation" sticking it to the consumer. When really all they are doing is effecting those who never paid for their product to begin with or those who wish to re-sell their product. Companies shouldn't worry about either of these groups.
Locking games to an account is a smart idea because, 1, used games will drop in price considerably because no one is going to pay $50 for a demo, and then you can just pay to unlock the game when you have the money. It might be similar to OnLive where they allow you to play 30 minutes of the game, then encourage to buy it, which, again, isn't that bad.
But, I see used copies going for maybe $10 at Gamestop and then you might pay a reduced fee to play the full game...or it could be like the Online Pass that EA adopted where you have to pay a $10 fee to access the online stuff.
I disagree for one simple reason, and that is that over time game disks age and break and so does the content in them. That is why there is provisions in copyright law, or supposed to be, that protect the consumer.
Now I say that to say this, Let's agree that Sony's Playstation 4 did what it was designed for, no BC and no used games. How long would you think that your copy of next year's Madden would sit there at, using your example here, $50? While realistically, it wouldn't because everyone here in America loves football, ficticiously speaking, it could go for however long EA wants that price point to be because it is only locked to one user.
it's not about what the consumer wants or not, it's about what the retailers want or not, retailers losing profit from used sales (100% for them) would lead to retailers to drop support for PS4, banning the console from the stores and all that, so, it's not gonna happen
