[quote]When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience. Many aspects of that interactive experience will be unchanged over the course of years, such as the physics sandbox and the singleplayer modes. Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition. [/quote] 1. You are buying a physical object in a sense, you are spending your hard earned money on compiled code that creates an interactive entertaining experience. 2. Wrong, the quality of a game deteriorates when newer and more fun games are released in the future. By your argument, a reasonably maintained 1982 LaSabre should cost just as much as a brand new Lexus LFA. A LaSabre can be just as fun as driving an LFA, but costs a miniscule amount in comparison. [quote]The cost of bringing a video game experience to Consumer A is identical to the cost of bringing that identical experience to Consumer B. So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A? In what measurable way did Consumer B have a lesser experience playing his game used compared to Consumer A buying it new? What degradation in quality of experience did Consumer B have that would justify a price drop, that would justify denying proper financial restitution to the creators of the experience?[/quote] 1. The issue with that is "new" games sold on the market to console gamers are hilariously over priced to begin with. Steam "sales" for example are not a profit loss for developers in the slightest, as most games cost perhaps 2$ per disc to print, and to ship to the US from China. The disks themselves are worthless. 2. We have no way of knowing where the arbitrary 60$ tag on games came from. I'm sure that the vast majority of it goes to publishers--not developers. 3. The price drop has more to do with the fact that a game ages. Everything decreases in value over time from the second it is released, it is called inflation. [quote]We have to treat the gaming industry differently than other industries because it is inherently different. The top of the industry, the console makers and developers, are realizing this, and shifting their strategies accordingly. And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. People who don’t pay, shouldn’t have access to that experience. [/quote] 1. No, we don't. The gaming industry is part of the entertainment industry, and the entertainment industry like every other market produces a product that people buy. 2. In buying a product--physically giving money to the creator of the product, by rights, the seller has NO SAY in what the user does with it. If a sale, which, last I checked, walking into Gamestop and buying a new game and giving them money for a disc is, is completed, Microsoft shouldn't be able to say anything about what I do with their game. I get that ToS need to be kept, but they go against the very idea of capitalism: "Let the buyer beware" which also goes both ways. Once its out of the sellers hands its not their problem. [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem. If you don't get your games legally, get your priorities straight because you paid a few hundred dollars for a console, and you pay for internet, and you probably pay for a lot of other things, so pony up like the rest of us or you don't get to enjoy, boo freaking hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it. [/quote] 1. Because as an industry we let them go to far with everything. Because games exist somewhere between entertainment and toys, they are never treated as part of either group, and we let them get away with this crap. 2. Imagine a toy dumptruck that would not function unless it was taken to the toy store once a week to be inspected by the company to ensure that the child playing with it was not using an "illegally copied" dump truck. That is the DRM piracy argument thrown out the window. Why does it need to check if a disc is pirated constantly? Why would someone buy a REAL copy and THEN pirate it? 3. Following the dumptruck argument, the kid cannot let other kids play with the dumptruck, because it has a camera on it that scans who plays with it, and if he plays with someone else with it, it gets confiscated. That is exactly what is happening with Xbox One games, except we are paying 60$ for it instead of a 10$ dump truck. 4. Lets compare it to entertainment then as well. It is comparable to going to see a new movie, then not being able to tell my friends about it. Or a better example would be buying a DVD of Macgyver Season 5, and being able to show a single episode to a friend instead of watching the whole season together, because he didn't also purchase his OWN copy of Macgyver Season 5. The rules of console gaming used to be simple: You bought the console, you bought the game, you played the game. Now the rules are: You buy the console, hook up Kinect so they can spy on you, connect to the internet constantly, download your profile, download the game, instal it to your profile, play the game exclusively on your profile. How is this simplifying or bettering the process? Why is it needed? And when will we start treating gaming companies like this like real companies and realize that just because they make INTERACTIVE media, it doesn't give them a free ride to do whatever they want in comparison to entertainment or toy companies?