The future is here.

I really like this news (rumout) from an academic point of view, because it would be the real test to gaming DRM, when the console gamers would also have to make up their mind whether they are fine with it.

I was kinda hoping though that the next-gen consoles would allow only streaming games, but maybe it is better to save that to the generation after that. One step at a time.

And the part of not being backwards-compatible with PS3: of course not. That's what the PSN is for, you can re-buy your PS3 games from PSN to be played on your new console. Some of them will be even superior HD remakes with higher resolution and broken fog effects. I think it may be the game publishers who are pushing this the most, ie. if some next-gen console maker would say it will not have any DRM system to prevent second-hand games from working, then EA and Ubisoft would say "In that case expect no game releases from our company for your next console, period".

Of course if they can pull it through, it is also in console companies' interests to sell as many new copies as possible, because they get a cut from all console game sales.

Either the prices will go down, or then they will sell less games. Teenage kids have only so much weekly allowance to buy new games on their new console, so if they can't recoup any money from their older games, they will have to buy less, or cheaper, games.

It is not as if the amount of money people have, or want, to use on gaming magically quadruples by a new invention that blocks them from selling their old games away. They still have only certain amount of money to spend.

Earlier some console kid might have bought a brand new 60€ console game on release date, thinking he'll try to finish the game ASAP, and then sells it away for 30€, and buy another 50€ game for additional 20€. After this change, he'll have to think more carefully whether shelling out 60€ for a game is really worth it, or maybe he should buy some older 30€ game instead from the bargain bin.

Are you being sarcastic? Hmm, I thought you don't mind even always-online DRM, so why would console gamers either? After all, consoles are normally in the living room where internet is reachable, at least with wifi.

I don't believe it will kill console gaming, at least due to killing second-hand sales. After all, there hasn't been much of second hand sales market for new PC games either, unless you are looking for quite old PC games.

Meh, wont really stop me from buying it.

Console are transforming into barely functional PCs......

...and on the other side PCs will soon slowly but surely transform into dumb portable terminal.

Not sure which one is worse...

Well this all sucks. Its hard to say but doesn't that mean that kinda mean 15 years down the line the console is worthless? I can't imagine dusting off a PS4 years after it has passed away and thinking my games would still work. Thats a shame. I got a shelf full of SNES and NES carts and I KNOW that if I can find a working system I can still play them.

I think they are going to have to be very careful what the EULA's say, and no matter what I smell future lawsuits. There is no way this isn't going force some talk about what people are buying and what physical media constitutes. I'm assuming they will still use physical media, otherwise I don't know what the point of locking out used games would be.

They can do whatever the hell they want, but I don't really appreciate it when companies find ways to self police. Their perceived rights and morality tends to line up suspiciously with what is profitable. I managed to go 10 years buying only maybe 2 PC games because I didn't like what was going on in the market. I have no issues abstaining from console use.

The fault lies with the developers just as much as anyone else.

You do not need to spend 8+ figures to make a good game. You do not need to hire Patrick Stewart or any other high-priced voice actor to voice your characters. Were they to spend some of the massive amounts of money they piss away on making sure every strand of hair on every character flows correctly, on the story and have actual writing for the game, they'd probably see a much better profit margin.

And why should any of Gamestop's revenue go back to the publishers? Because they feel they "deserve" it? Bullshit. You want some of that money? Guarantee and recertify used games. Make sure there's no scratches. Make sure the case is unbroken. Make sure the manual is there. Make sure the cover art is fine. Don't sit there with your hand out and expect money for not doing a goddamn thing.

I don't shop at Gamestop for used games, but I do occassionally buy a new one if there's a good enough pre-order bonus. Even though I don't like them, I'll defend their right to not have to pay greedy publishers a single thin dime. Especially when publishers use stuff like Project $10 to sell online passes ostensibly because that used buyer is using so much server resources and whatnot, and then the company proceeds to shut down the server for the game (EA MMA online or whatever it is).

You know what? If the stupid twats want to assume that every person interested in a console wants to hook it up to the internet it serves them right, but I can guarantee working at Gamestop in a semi-rural area years' past that this is not the case for at least some of the people interested in console gaming.

You can call Gamestop a parasite, but most of its new console game sales are from trade ins. These asshats are looking to lose a great deal of money and statistics if this becomes real.

But it's actually not a problem ... revenue physical of new games is going down it's true ... by 3% a year ... and digital sales has increased how much? I bet by a lot, lot more.

I'm sorry I have no sympathy. If the publishers want to put a dent in Gamestop's business they should compete against Gamestop and offer their own services if the used market is so lucrative.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57405801-17/how-much-do-industry-ceos-hate-used-games-a-whole-whole-lot/?tag=cnetRiver

If you compare the rhetoric from the "sky-is-falling" dev to the actual math from the market analyst, somehow you get two very different readings for what the effect of the used market on games.

How's that a but? That's exactly the problem? :)

It's a "but" because people are "buying" new games with their old games. Wanna lose those new game "sales"? Go for it.

No he means the sale of new games is coming from money from trade-ins - i.e. a customer resales his old game back to Gamestop and gets money to buy a new game - hence trade-in, put something, get a new game out. The games industry still makes money of the sale of the new game. Revenue goes to the game companies.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the more pithy answer from PhoenixWright.

They could just reduce the price of new games, but... you know how that sort of things goes.

I'm sure complete control over the consumer and your product, however legal or illegal, is much more attractive.

At least, until it's super illegal.

The problem is that inbetween that Gamestop took like half that money for pure profit. I've seen some examples of what they buy them at and what they sell them at and it's pretty horrendous overall from what I remember seeing.

And even then it doesn't necessarily go back to A) gaming, or B) the developer who's game was actually bought.

Eliminating the used market as they are supposedly trying to do now, will that curb initial sales? Probably, by some, for those who really calculate their price with resales. But they will still buy from the store, once the price reaches a level they'd be comfortable with, and those sales will increase. Because those people aren't buying used copies anymore but instead by on sales or after price reductions, and even though it takes a bit longer, that money is guaranteed to go to the people who are actually behind making/publishing that game.