http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in ... 39870.html

I will not buy any system or games that further this trend. Piracy looks much better all of a sudden.

Can you sell purchased games on Steam? If not, there isn't any where to go.

Don't have a steam account.

Okay... I can understand why people want to be able to buy used games. But even moreso, I can understand why people want to be able to sell the old games they no longer play. However, from a business perspective, it makes absolute sense. And when you think about it, it makes sense for gamers as well.

For example, (these are loose figures I remember seeing online somewhere, but I'm sure they're VERY close) Heavy Rain for PS3 sold 2 million copies. However, there were over 3 million PSN accounts that had trophies for Heavy Rain. So Quantic Dream lost out on 50% more sales due to the used game market. That's a huge chunk of revenue they're missing. And it's developers like these who push the boundaries of gaming that suffer the most from the used game market. EA can suck up the losses of used games, and do things like day one DLC to make extra money off of a game. But smaller developers and publishers putting out innovative games that may not sell as well will not. And what we will end up with is just a bunch of Activisions and Capcoms putting out a cookie-cutter COD or no-longer-survival-horror Resident Evil game because they know they will sell by the millions.

I gotta ask... When you go in to your local GameStop and pick up the newest game and they have a new copy for $60 or a used copy for $55, which one do you buy? Isn't that extra five dollars spent worth it to know the money went to the developer and not GameStop? Very rarely it seems are the used game prices more than $10 less than the cost of the new game. Just seems worth it to me to spend a few extra dollars knowing I'm supporting the industry and not simply a retailer selling it back at over a 100% markup.

All that said, you have, and should have, every right to not buy the new consoles that come out if they have used game restrictions. Its always best to speak with your money. I generally do whatever I can to not buy used, and only do so when something is out of print. Also, as a PC gamer, we have been dealing with this for years. An all digital, no used game console, is the way of the future. Used games can only be around as long as physical media is around. And I'd say that's got one more console cycle in it, at best.

Physical games didn't have to be sold back, you could just trade with a friend.

Same concept still applies: if you like a game, you should want to support the developers who worked the long hard hours to make it. And trading games with friends doesn't help them in the same way that buying used doesn't.

Maybe my friend goes and buys their game because he liked it. If I don't like a game I now have no recourse if it is DCR . Can't resell it.

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratu ... -2012.html

EA, worst company in America.

bigbadberry3 wrote:http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in ... 39870.html

I will not buy any system or games that further this trend. Piracy looks much better all of a sudden.

This rumor manages to pop up every time a new console generation is on the horizon. Happened with the 360 and PS3.

The stupid part is this isn't something that might happen. IT HAS HAPPENED. Ubisoft does this s*** with most of their games. Lots of publishers use Online Pass and similar strategies that attempt to pitch basic game features as "add-in-content" out of the box, but only for the initial purchaser. Used buyers have to re-buy it. Call it Uplay or whatever you want, it's all abominable.

Used book stores exist.
Used video stores exist.
Used music stores exist.
Why should games be different? Videogame publishers need to stop being disgusting monstrosities and re-evaluate their approach. Stop worrying about keeping people from buying your games in ways you don't want them to, and stary focusing on making people WANT TO BUY YOUR GAMES.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
This rumor manages to pop up every time a new console generation is on the horizon. Happened with the 360 and PS3.

The stupid part is this isn't something that might happen. IT HAS HAPPENED. Ubisoft does this s*** with most of their games. Lots of publishers use Online Pass and similar strategies that attempt to pitch basic game features as "add-in-content" out of the box, but only for the initial purchaser. Used buyers have to re-buy it. Call it Uplay or whatever you want, it's all abominable.

Used book stores exist.
Used video stores exist.
Used music stores exist.
Why should games be different? Videogame publishers need to stop being disgusting monstrosities and re-evaluate their approach. Stop worrying about keeping people from buying your games in ways you don't want them to, and stary focusing on making people WANT TO BUY YOUR GAMES.

I agree, I definitely don't think this will happen unless both Sony and Microsoft jump in to this together. It's not that videogames should be different from music/book/video stores... It's that they can be different. Book, music, and video stores don't have that option of online registration. But I definitely think a lot of these companies would do it if they could. Online passes, extra missions for new-buyers... it makes sense to me. Protecting profit on their investment seems like a wise thing to do for the publishers/developers. Like the example I used of Heavy Rain... A really unique, interesting, investing experience, and they deserve those additional million sales that they missed out on.

And bigbadberry, trading a game with a friend, giving him the possibility to play through it without buying it seems a lot less likely to get a sale than simply a pretty in-depth demo released along side the game. Take the time to put out a demo and you can have the same effect (increased sales) without the risk.

Nevertheless, I don't think this will even be a talking point too far in the future once consoles go all digital.


Side note: EA is not the worst company in America. Videogames are a luxury. They don't matter. No one is entitled to playing videogames, no one has to buy from EA. There are worse companies that actually matter.

takethewall wrote:

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
This rumor manages to pop up every time a new console generation is on the horizon. Happened with the 360 and PS3.

The stupid part is this isn't something that might happen. IT HAS HAPPENED. Ubisoft does this s*** with most of their games. Lots of publishers use Online Pass and similar strategies that attempt to pitch basic game features as "add-in-content" out of the box, but only for the initial purchaser. Used buyers have to re-buy it. Call it Uplay or whatever you want, it's all abominable.

Used book stores exist.
Used video stores exist.
Used music stores exist.
Why should games be different? Videogame publishers need to stop being disgusting monstrosities and re-evaluate their approach. Stop worrying about keeping people from buying your games in ways you don't want them to, and stary focusing on making people WANT TO BUY YOUR GAMES.

I agree, I definitely don't think this will happen unless both Sony and Microsoft jump in to this together. It's not that videogames should be different from music/book/video stores... It's that they can be different. Book, music, and video stores don't have that option of online registration. But I definitely think a lot of these companies would do it if they could. Online passes, extra missions for new-buyers... it makes sense to me. Protecting profit on their investment seems like a wise thing to do for the publishers/developers. Like the example I used of Heavy Rain... A really unique, interesting, investing experience, and they deserve those additional million sales that they missed out on.

And bigbadberry, trading a game with a friend, giving him the possibility to play through it without buying it seems a lot less likely to get a sale than simply a pretty in-depth demo released along side the game. Take the time to put out a demo and you can have the same effect (increased sales) without the risk.

Nevertheless, I don't think this will even be a talking point too far in the future once consoles go all digital.


Side note: EA is not the worst company in America. Videogames are a luxury. They don't matter. No one is entitled to playing videogames, no one has to buy from EA. There are worse companies that actually matter.

Go ahead and protect your profit, I'll protect my money and my investments. Oops. Look like the company lost a sale and any positive advertising from me. And I can't trade my friend so they'll never purchase a game from the manufacturer.

Oh and EA is a bad company with horrible customer relations.

The rest of my post is only available as DLC.

Here is my .02 cents, used games will be around until there are no more physical games to purchase. To say that buying and selling used games is taking profits from the developers is like saying that buying and selling a used car is taking profits from the manufacturer, it's down right stupid. The developer makes back their money 10 fold on initial sales, and any subsiquent sale after initial release is due to those snobs that only purchase new games, which frankly is stupid on so many levels. Also keep in mind that unless you buy direct from the developer you are purchasing an already purchased game. Stores must first buy the games in bulk in order to sell to them to, just like they have to buy everything before they can sell any item to you. The purchase price is store pricing hence the reason that everything has an MSRP value.

Also keep in mind that services like Blockbuster and Gamefly allow you to rent games, the developer already made their money when those services bought those games, you could easily charge your friends a rental fee, it's the same thing. Don't worry about the developers, they're making out just fine. I will continue to buy used gamesas long as it's a decent savings to me, if the price difference is only $5 between new release and used I'll get the new copy, just sayin'.

Im sort of torn on this. Ive always hated the online pass but now I understand why. I would be upset if I was missing a third of my potential profit too to help develop new games. Lets face it, we dont let friends 'rent' games. We let them play until they beat it or are bored with it... for free. I see the point and now I am sort of with TTW and the online pass thing. Even if MW3 sold 10 million games and $60 million (thats an example), I bet 3 million would play from a hand me down from a friend or family member later as the game becomes a classic. I kind of agree of spending atleast $10 to play on their own system. Maybe Gamestop should include another online pass from the manufacturer with each game they buy that requires it, that is also included in the used $55 used pricetag. It sounds fair-er. Even tho Id still only want to pay mo more than $45 used, I guess I can get by with the fact that everyone needs to make money. Whatever.

The thing I disagree with is having a totally digital gaming world. I see bad pirating problems with that. I also dont like not being able to trade games in. I look forward to that with older games that collect dust. For example I just traded in 3 games last week and got more than $60 store credit (preordered AC3, woot). Granted it was a +50% trade in value special, still, it helps and makes me more likely to buy more games when I get something back. Same thing goes for stupid games that I wish I never got, cough.. Dark Souls.. cough.. Batman.. cough.. Oh excuse me. those dam allergies get me every Spring.

For the record, I only buy used games when they are like 3 for $35 or $20 a piece, like Fallout New Vegas which I got not even that long after it came out for $20. With a traded in game credit I also got the strategy guide. Other than that I usually just buy new for DLC stuff and to avoid online pass repurchases. Also some things that are hard to police are things like game sharing and people that play the entire game on the original owners system, like a little brother or something.

takethewall wrote:Side note: EA is not the worst company in America. Videogames are a luxury. They don't matter. No one is entitled to playing videogames, no one has to buy from EA. There are worse companies that actually matter.

EA is a blood thirsty company that will squeeze every cent from their customers. They are easily the worst Co. in the gaming industry...

But takethewall is right. Monsanso, Goldman, Countrywide, etc...
These people destroy lives and move markets.

RCA wrote: EA is a blood thirsty company that will squeeze every cent from their customers. They are easily the worst Co. in the gaming industry...

But takethewall is right. Monsanso, Goldman, Countrywide, etc...
These people destroy lives and move markets.

You're absolutely right, they're terrible. But like you said, there are worse ones that matter.

bigbadberry3 wrote:
Go ahead and protect your profit, I'll protect my money and my investments. Oops. Look like the company lost a sale and any positive advertising from me. And I can't trade my friend so they'll never purchase a game from the manufacturer.

Oh and EA is a bad company with horrible customer relations.

The rest of my post is only available as DLC.

Protect my profit??? The only thing I "profit" from publishers and developers making more money is a wider variety of games to play. PC gamers have been living like this for years and years, it's the way things will be going forward. So have fun playing your PS3 for the next 20 years.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:Here is my .02 cents, used games will be around until there are no more physical games to purchase. To say that buying and selling used games is taking profits from the developers is like saying that buying and selling a used car is taking profits from the manufacturer, it's down right stupid. The developer makes back their money 10 fold on initial sales, and any subsiquent sale after initial release is due to those snobs that only purchase new games, which frankly is stupid on so many levels. Also keep in mind that unless you buy direct from the developer you are purchasing an already purchased game. Stores must first buy the games in bulk in order to sell to them to, just like they have to buy everything before they can sell any item to you. The purchase price is store pricing hence the reason that everything has an MSRP value.

Also keep in mind that services like Blockbuster and Gamefly allow you to rent games, the developer already made their money when those services bought those games, you could easily charge your friends a rental fee, it's the same thing. Don't worry about the developers, they're making out just fine. I will continue to buy used gamesas long as it's a decent savings to me, if the price difference is only $5 between new release and used I'll get the new copy, just sayin'.

It just plainly Is taking profit from developers. Auto manufacturers have found ways to cash in on used car sales, like certified pre-owned (the same as asking more money for premium video game content in used games like online passes).

I don't know why you call me a snob for only buying new, and I am baffled that you say it's "stupid" to buy new. I'm well aware that it's been purchased from the publisher already but that doesn't mean that if they run out of stock they won't buy more.

As far as the rental thing goes, there would be no reason to rent if publishers but out demos of a decent length. Which I'm sure they would in an all digital/no used game future.

alms24sebring wrote:
The thing I disagree with is having a totally digital gaming world. I see bad pirating problems with that. I also dont like not being able to trade games in. I look forward to that with older games that collect dust. For example I just traded in 3 games last week and got more than $60 store credit (preordered AC3, woot). Granted it was a +50% trade in value special, still, it helps and makes me more likely to buy more games when I get something back. Same thing goes for stupid games that I wish I never got, cough.. Dark Souls.. cough.. Batman.. cough.. Oh excuse me. those dam allergies get me every Spring.

I agree. The resale of games by the original purchaser would hurt the bottom line of developers, and this would be something they'd have to weigh with this strategy going forward. I know that I probably won't be able to buy as any games as I would, but overall no used games seems as if it would be beneficial for them.

The gaming industry has become an entertainment giant, almost eclipsing Hollywood, the COD franchise alone made more last year than films, and while I understand that a game costs more than a movie, the shear number of sales of new releases loomed over practically all movie tickets sold. With the exception of the small game developers the game developers are not hurting for money. In this market and economy used games are just good business, otherwise the likes of Gamestop and other stores that make 95% of their money from game sales would go belly up. Stores like Walmart, best buy and others that only sell new games only make a meager 2% of their money from game sales. Personally used games are a better value for the money, and rentals would still exist even if there was a substantial demo for every new game released BC the people who have Gamefly have it for the the sole purpose of achievement hunting or bc they plan on playing it then trading it, so why waste the money to buy it when they can just pay a flat monthly rate and rent it.

alms24sebring wrote:Im sort of torn on this. Ive always hated the online pass but now I understand why. I would be upset if I was missing a third of my potential profit too to help develop new games. Lets face it, we dont let friends 'rent' games. We let them play until they beat it or are bored with it... for free.

The problem with this mindset is that it assumes that every rented, borrowed, or used game is a lost sale. This is not true. And there's certainly no proof that those things account for "a third" of lost "potential profits."

Things to keep in mind:
I've been playing demos since the mid-90s. Demos help you decide if you want to purchase a game. PUBLISHERS THEMSELVES are often directly responsible for these demos. Yet one could argue that the demo might be enough for some players, and those players may never buy the full version of the game. You could consider those players as "lost sales"--but demos still happen.

I have purchased a huge number of games based on rentals and borrowed copies. And I have friends who are open about their piracy habits who happily admit they pirate games so they can test them...then they often buy the game if they enjoy it. It's their version of the demo. I am NOT condoning piracy (ask any of my friends what I think of it and they'll tell you I've yelled at them a number of times). But from this line of thinking, rentals, borrowing, and even used sales can INCREASE sales. I've said it before: I don't have time for mediocre games. So if I'm doubtful about a game I probably won't buy. If I borrow it and it changes my mind, though? There's a sale. I'm not arguing that every borrowed copy will have this effect, but it does demonstrate that rentals do not exclusively equal lost sales.

What I'm getting at here is that this particular justification for online pass, always-on-DRM, day-one-DLC, and other such nonsense, is NOT VALID. There is NO DEMONSTRABLE PROOF that rentals, borrowed games, used sales, or even piracy are LOST sales. They are simply people playing the game without directly paying THE PUBLISHER for it. In two of these cases, the publisher ALREADY GOT THEIR MONEY for that copy of the game.

As an adult consumer AND a gamer, I look at the games industry like I would any other product/service industry. MY experience with the product or service MUST BE POSITIVE or I'm not going to be inclined to buy from that company again. I don't (well...didn't) put up with bullcrap from Comcast and I'm not going to put up with it from Ubisoft or EA or Activision or anyone else. If the company in question is not trying to make MY experience as a PAYING CUSTOMER postive, I AM NOT INCLINED TO GIVE THEM MY MONEY. Day-one DLC, online passes, always-on DRM, and other tedious limitations are not aimed at improving my expreience as the paying customer. They're aimed at making sure NON-PAYING users lose out. This is a backward approach. The correct approach is simple: make a product people WANT to pay for, and then present and support it with a quality of service that people will WANT to support.

For those idiot publishers out there, I will make it very, very simple to understand.

Here's a list of ways to make me want to purchase your game:
1: Make a GOOD GAME.
2: Make a HIGH QUALITY game that won't leave me spending hours fighting bugs and getting burnt out to the point where the game itself becomes unappealing to think about.
3: Offer exceptional customer service. THIS MEANS NOT TREATING ME AND OTHER PAYING CUSTOMERS LIKE POTENTIAL CRIMINALS.
4: Allow me to install my game (which I have paid for) as many times as I want, on as many machines as I want, WITHOUT having to call customer support and explain that I'm not a criminal.
5: Don't charge me $60 for a new game. It's not worth it. Half Life 3 won't be worth it. Diablo III is not worth it. The new Xcom won't be worth it. Call of Duty is sure as Hell not worth it.

And here's a list of ways to make me NOT want to purchase your game:
1: Make a crappy game.
2: Crap out low-quality mediocirty at regular, investment-safe intervals and slap a new sequel number on each one.
3: Play it safe. I don't want to play seventeen different versions of Call of Duty. Do something interesting or you'll loose my interest.
4: Treat me like a criminal. I have not stolen anything from you and I don't intend to. Precautions "just in case" are just as offensive as outright accusation. I don't like Walmart greeters checking my cart and receipt after I check out, and I don't like Sony assuming I'm going to steal everything I can get my hands on as soon as they look away. These companies have NO VALID REASON to consider ME a potential criminal, yet it continues to happen.
5: Intrusive DRM: I'm not interested in paying for a game that's going to restrict my use. Sure, I agree to an EULA when I purchase and use a piece of software. But if that EULA says I can only play it at my primary PC on sunny days when the wind is right, I'm going to pass on that particular purchase. Certainly it's POSSIBLE for this kind of DRM to happen. But it's not a good idea.
6: Day-one DLC and other delete-and-add content that should just be a part of the game. U-Play is a joke. It adds no value or content for me, it simply denies it to others. But it does it in a way that adds invonvenience for me, who I will restate yet again is a PAYING CUSTOMER. Which brings me to number 7.
7: Treat me like I'm stupid. Stop presenting your anti-piracy/used games/rentals approaches as features or content improvements. I know they're not. I can see clearly that they are not. Telling me that your day-one DLC was never a part of the game from the start is insulting. You didn't license the Dodge Charger for Driver: San Francisco so you could leave it out of the game...and then change your minds later and add it back. You made it day-one U-Play DLC to punish non-payers. STOP BEING DISHONEST AND SHIFTY ABOUT IT. It would go a long way toward improving the image of your company, your services, and your product. Being dishonest with your customers hurts everyone.

You'll probably notice that the second list is a lot longer than the first. The first list is also much easier to get right. So why is it that pretty much every games publisher out there manages to nail the second list all the way through, and only a few manage to hit even one item on the first?

<3 ^

Another voice in the debate...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s8aS4UWCJY[/youtube]

Ill be upfront and say that I dont know much about the gaming politics involved, but MoD as always, brings up good points. $60 is expensive, ok check. Some DLC is expensive especially at $15 for CoD. You would spend another $60 just on the 4 DLCs for Black Ops.

I think you are the only one I know that buys a game after borrowing, if its good of course. I or anyone of my friends never do that, even if its the best game ever. But at the same time, some people rebuy games a 2nd or third time. My friend just bought MW2 for the 4th time. I just think they may have the privilege to say that there are way more people that game share than people that are as honest as you, so thats why they may not trust the general population as much.

As far as stupid s*** like U-Play (and Playstation Home), absolutely stupid and a waste of memory. I dont wanna sign up for anything that shows my stats because I dont care. I dont look at anybody else's anyways and if I wanna see other's stats Ill just play the game. I guess Im primarily attacking Battlefield 3 here. I think another way to make good money is to bring back some classics, and I mean real classics that everyone knows, not alot of that crap Ive never heard of I see on the PS store.

I paid for the year membership of COD Elite when I preordered the Hardened edition, but thats just because it actually has a lot of stuff in it. I did not get the get the memberships when I got Forza 4 or Saints Row 3 bc frankly you don't really save any money in the end. I may renew my Elite membership bc of the additional content. Now don't get me wrong, I think Activision has contorted itself into an EA clone. EA is kicking itself for not thinking of Elite first, so I don't shed any tears for the developers like them. If Bethesda offered something like Elite for Skyrim or Fallout I'm sure more people would be applauding them for it, why you ask, bc Bethesda loves their customers and produces quality games, that's why they don't get a rash of sh*t when a game is a glitchy mess cough*Fallout New Vegas*cough. They new they kinda screwed the pooch with New Vegas, so they made Skyrim better. yes MOD, I realize that two separate teams made both but Bethesda as a whole stands for quality, same can be said for Cliffy B and Bungie. Moral of the story and my point being that as long as you don't continually mash out cookie cutter franchise games on a yearly basis and spend a couple years developing and testing games your customers will have no problem buying your games new instead of buying a used copy.

There will always be people that will buy used games, will pirate games, and will just borrow or rent games. If consoles opt for a fully digital game marketplace then the console fan base will die outright, if we wanted to do that we would be PC gamers.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote: There will always be people that will buy used games, will pirate games, and will just borrow or rent games. If consoles opt for a fully digital game marketplace then the console fan base will die outright, if we wanted to do that we would be PC gamers.

/thread

Bethesda makes great games. I could never get into New Vegas but I started playing Fallout 3 agian which almost all can agree is better. All games will always have glitches too no matter what. I think great games will pay of better in the long run with rebuyers and DLC stuff

DLC stuff is great, as long as I don't have to pay for it

Aww, game sharer, Im telling!!

I just think $15 for a few maps is alittle stiff.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Used book stores exist.
Used video stores exist.
Used music stores exist.
Why should games be different? Videogame publishers need to stop being disgusting monstrosities and re-evaluate their approach.

Physical media in those markets have also seen some move to a digital realm where forms of DRM exist. Both downloadable and streaming of video and music exist. Some of which has copy protection. E-books can be downloaded as well and as far as I know have copy protections built in. The difference in how each industry can approach the digital world likely has to do with the practicality of enforcement. Video and music are often viewed or heard in mobile environments. Books have generally always been to some extent, portable. And a lot of people carry their readers in place of a physical book. Consoles are generally fixed to a specific location. There are certainly some instances of consoles in vehicles, but that's not likely to be as commonplace as video and music. Regardless, I'm sure the same type of desires exist in the music and book industry to control the content and make profit. But this type of method would piss off a lot more people in those industries than it would be in the gaming industry if downloadable media became the only option.

With console gaming these days, many people are connected to the internet. I'm sure there are those that aren't but I have yet to meet any personally so I suspect that number is relatively small. Wifi is likely to be built into every next gen console, so as long as the house has wifi there is little reason not to be connected.

I do understand the limitations on used transactions and even allowing for borrowing games from a consumer standpoint, but if that's not the intent, then its possible that the game companies/publishers/console manufacturers can still allow for it. I don't think they will but they could effect a system where the unique ID can be sold to another party through some means that is tied back to the companies/publishers/console manufacturers where for a nominal additional fee, they can transfer the game and issue a new unique ID and invalidate the old one. Given how much a consumer might get from a used game store, and how much a used game store sells it for, there is likely a big enough gap there for the companies to make some money while still making the overall transaction more profitable and/or cheaper for the seller and buyer.

Another thing they might be able to do is even lease games. For people who don't necessarily like to buy and hold onto games, they might try and make it more enticing by offering games at lower prices to be used with a time limit. Could be a big plus for those who rarely replay games.

As for borrowing games, I could see the possibility that companies/publishers/console manufacturers could effect a way to manage your games and allow others to borrow your game for a limited period of time. Such a system might allow one to go into some menu, plug in their friend's gamertag, and a length of time the game will be available to them. The owner wouldn't need to give out a product key or the disc and would have no risk of being unable to get the game back from their friend.

I doubt we would see any of this, the move to purely digital media doesn't make it impossible for the traditional transactions to exist.

As for download only media, I'm personally okay with it and in many ways excited about it. I've always wanted to be able to store my games on the hard drive and not worry about having to switch discs. I do have some concerns though. My GF and I play our games on separate xboxes. We buy two copies of co-op games, but with single player games, we only buy one copy and play it separately. The Mass Effect series is one of them. No sense in buying separate copies, but we would like to play on our own consoles using our own gamertags. I'll be content if this will still be possible. I'll be ecstatic if it allowed at least the ability to let friends digitally borrow a game. Personally,I'm indifferent about used games though as I keep all my games anyways.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Stop worrying about keeping people from buying your games in ways you don't want them to, and stary focusing on making people WANT TO BUY YOUR GAMES.

Lastly, I'll say this. The things that would make people want to buy their games are going to be the same reasons people will want to borrow, buy used and pirate those games. In other words, if a company came with an absolutely awesome game, people will still borrow, rent, buy used and pirate the game in large enough numbers for publishers to be concerned about it. Its unfortunate, but its reality.

What happens if you ain't got no internetz

My main concern with this is that retro games will be a thing of the past, i don't know about all of you but i still pick up my NES and N64 every now and then, with these new rules, you can forget about collecting all the games and playing them down the road after newest console is released.