I read this on another forum and couldn't help but feel the same way. What does everyone else think?

http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905

What do I think? His principal argument is without merit. There is no indication anywhere on the market that hubs for reselling used games are poised to spring up.

He might as well just retitle the article "I'm stupid, but you should read this anyway."

I want my four minutes back >.<

EDIT: almost forgot. Please also note how specious his other arguments are, like "WoW is DRM, so DRM is good because we like WoW" and "OMG discs are hard to figure out". Actually, scratch that. Don't note it. Don't read the article at all.

Nothing interesting about it. He's basically lamenting that he can't share his digitally purchased games and basically blaming everyone else that he can't be one of the 'cool kids'.

This, for the record, is the same idiot that wrote this: http://gizmodo.com/you-don-t-hate-the-xbox-one-you-re-just-jealous-509604549

It's flame-bait, click-bait material, nothing more.

I think the whole "But games would be cheaper" argument has been put forth many many times before, and that's just not how it works. At the beginning of the age of digital distribution, this was one of the main arguments in favor of it. "Since they don't have to produce physical copies, the games will be cheaper". Did it happen? No. In fact, digital copies are often more expensive than physical games, sometimes quite a lot more.

The fact of the matter is that games cost as much as the market can bear, that's the long and short of it. Because when a corporation has an opportunity to cut down on their expenses, they see it as a way of increasing their profits, not a way of lowering their prices. So if publishers were to "get in on the action" of used game sales, the one thing you can be damned sure they wouldn't do is to lower the prices of new games so that they made the same amount of money as before. No, they would want to pocket that extra money, because they're businesses with shareholders who expect the maximum possible return on their investment.

In short, I think the "games would be cheaper" argument is terribly naïve. The only thing that can drive down the price of games is competition. And publishers generally don't compete on pricing, because they all have a vested interest in keeping the prices as high as possible.

Sorry. There are so many statements and assertions here that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. That's not to say that everything that's happened is good, it's just none of his arguments effectively support that view.

Only because they were forced to, though.

Very poorly written arguments based only on assumptions. The author is a moron.

Just another idiot who thinks he has something smart to say/blog. Nothing to see here.

"The DRM Boogey Man Is So Last Decade"

XD

I wonder if he's funded by Micro$oft.

>2013
>People read opinion articles written by nonames

hmm.... I have never bought so many games for so little money as I have done the last few years. Perceptions maybe?

Alright then, I didn't think it necessary to specify the scenario any further, but allow me to do so:

At the beginning of the age of digital distribution, this was one of the main arguments in favor of it. "Since they don't have to produce physical copies, the games will be cheaper". Did it happen? No. In fact, digital copies of AAA games on release day are often more expensive than physical copies of the same games on release day, sometimes quite a lot more.

There, better?

>people buying games on release date

It's their fault.