This is the worst move Nintendo could make. Epic already talked about something like this, but I thought Nintendo was smarter than this. The Wii Speak will either end up being sold less than Wii Music is apparently being sold, or the Wii is going to end up as the #1 pirated console. Gamers are not going to accept not being able to buy games or peripherals used and also sell them used on the open market.

If publishers, developers and console markers insist on this kind of a policy, they're just going to encourage piracy or make people quit gaming altogether.

It seems this week we've had multiple stories of publishers seemingly trying to find new ways to kill gaming. First the Epic stupidity about trying to kill the used game market. Then Nintendo actually announces Wii Speak owners who buy it used won't be able to download the Wii Speak channel, and now this.

If Take Two or ANY publisher does this, I'm done with gaming. I'll find new ways to spend my time and money. Except for DLC, I will not pay a monthly fee to play a game. Period. I already pay my $60 a year to Microsoft to play on Live and I gladly pay for DLC that I want. But other than that, forget it. Once I buy a game I own it and I should have the right to play the game as much as I want for as long as I want.

Of course these publishers with their EULA's don't actually think we own the games either, we just have the license to use the game.

I'll predict right now that in 5-10 years gaming will be a shell of itself and it's because these companies are getting FAR too greedy. I have an idea for Take Two. Instead of trying to find new ways to soak the consumer, how about cutting your budget and getting rid of some of the horrible games???

There are FAR too many games on the market now and many of them are pretty bad. If publishers stopped putting every idea one of their designers ever had into a game and made some better decisions about what NOT to make, then they'd actually be financially just fine.

Since the third party market isn't, in itself, illegal, I'm sure that if a console publisher decided to do something to inhibit the value of a product being sold, that one would go straight to court. I'm unaware if the U.S. Supreme Court has ever weighed in on the issue of EULA's. But if a huge industry like console gaming tried this I wouldn't be surprised if somebody with pockets deep enough took litigation that far.

This is also absolutely a self defeating strategy for the developers. Period. They get tons of bad press, ill will by their consumers and they can't do anything about pirating already or they'd have shut it down by now. This kind of mindset expressed by Epic has gotten the RIAA exactly where the music industry is now, losing billions of dollars to piracy.

I agree with your points about why it's bad in terms of the gaming stores. In fact I'd also add that when people make used purchases in Gamestop other places it gives the store a chance to talk the consumer into a pre-order for a brand new game. IMO that's a far more effective sales tactic than simply stuff on the 'net. Also, gaming stores sometimes give people a chance to play demos and see videos of upcoming games and those gamers without Live may only get that at the game store. My Best Buy and Walmart (for example) only have an opportunity to play already released games, not demos of upcoming ones or see videos. Walking into a game store and seeing a video of an upcoming game you hadn't known about or really considered purchasing might influence a purchase of a brand new game later and make the developers money.

I just think that this strategy is far, far worse in terms of how it would impact the consumer. It's like the gaming industry is taking a blueprint from the RIAA, except they don't understand the RIAA is losing the economic battle. And this is coming from somebody who's never pirated a thing in my life, including music because I want to see the artists get paid. But if the gaming industry makes it a choice between paying an extra fee to play a mediocre game, I'll either quit gaming and they lose a consumer or I become a pirate.

$5 ain't happening either unless Epic and other publishers and developers are too dumb to realize what's happened to the recording industry because of heavy handed industry management. Your article doesn't address how it would massively affect the consumer, and it would.

Why? Because the concept of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP is something most people take very seriously. If I buy a game it is MY choice what to do with it. If I want to trade in a game for store credit or cash, that's my right according to the law because I OWN the game. A policy like this is exactly what the RIAA has done and said "Sorry, you don't own that CD. So you can only do with it what we say you can."

The result? Massive piracy because many people aren't opposed to paying for music but they simply want to choose what they want to do with their music but aren't given that opportunity by the RIAA and music labels.

A policy like this for games would result in massive devaluing of a game for the consumer. Who's going to purchase a used game when the ending costs $5-10 more? Not many people IMO. Far, far more will simply install a mod chip and pirate games rather than pay for an ending that should be on the game in the first place.

This isn't DLC, this is "renting" you the ending to the game you purchased. DLC is extra content that you don't need to buy to finish the main story that the developer intended you to finish when the game was released.

The only way this works is if new game prices are SIGNIFICANTLY cut. I'm not paying new prices when I can't sell that game for very much because the developer has decided to inhibit the ending of the game. It's like Ford telling you that if you sold your car the new owner won't be able to use the air conditioner because they'll turn that feature off.