Next Xbox May Require Persistent Online Connection > From the Sounds of it.

reply to Metatron2008

Re: From the Sounds of it.

You are still using bullshit analogies. YOU can convert your own car. Again, if Ford did like the software companies they would simply disable the car so you cannot even use it should someone try to sell it to you.

reply to BF69
This is not a "new" versus "used" argument; this issue is about buying a product period. It's about buying a product (DVD) that is being disabled.

reply to BF69

reply to BF69
Sorry man, but even the Supreme Court has said that you have a right to resell your games and the only way you can sell your games is if you are able to find a buyer. IF, they remove all buyers from the market, then they have in essence removed your right to first sale doctrine. Your car analogy is just silly.

Even in the EU, which I expect to eventually come to the US, you have the right to resell your digital copies. So with a system like Steam, there should be a way to transfer the ownership rights to another user.

What I suspect is that ALL games will have an activation fee associated with them and the activation for the first buyer just happens to be a part of the original sale/price and paid separately by anyone buying the copy after that. Charging X for new and then Y for used activation however I think would cause a problem as they are clearly segmenting the 2.

I personally don't see a problem with what I mention above, but the used game market will have to adjust their prices accordingly. What wouldn't surprise me at all, by the greed of the industry, is if they started giving away the games (digital download, $10 for DVD shipment), but then charged $60 to activate it new or used. That would KILL the used game industry.

reply to BF69
So, the position you're advocating is once you buy something, it should have zero resale value, that you really should have no ownership rights whatsoever, and first sale doctrine is null and void.

Insurance companies would love you. "Yes, we know you paid $XYZ for it, but since it's actual value once you purchased it is zero, the amount we owe you on the claim is zero."

This is such an extreme position. The opposing end of the spectrum should be "Since I can't sell it, and since it is of zero worth to me, I should only pay what it's worth, which is zero." Everything I want I shall simply take, and it's free, with no repercussions. Fair and balanced. Two ridiculous extremes.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Metatron2008
On another site I read where MS may allow used games to install on a different XBOX provided the original owner removed it AND you pay them some sort of "activation" fee. In practice this means you would buy a used game disc for $10 and then have to pay MS another $10 to install it. The article suggested the used game disc market prices would probably drop since folks know the disc itself is useless without paying for it to be activated on their system. The article suggested Microsoft and the company that created the game would share the activation fee. The article suggested it's a way for them to profit off the used market.

In some respects this seems like the government. When a corporation makes money, it pays corporate taxes. Then it turns around and pays a dividend and shareholders pay income/capital gains taxes. When shareholders spend that money to buy something, they get taxed again (sales tax). Depending on what they buy (house, car, boat, etc.), they may then get taxed again each year they own it (property taxes).

Microsoft ~= government???

reply to Skippy25
I think what you'll see is something like what you suggest. Perhaps modified further by perhaps weaving a recurring fee into the equation. Everyone wants what they sell to be completely disposable with a short shelf life so consumers are forced to continually buy more.