Hey Squirrely. Nice post. I had a hard time coming up with a few counter reasons to justifying posting. (the sign of a well-thought out OP) My main issue with the new direction of the industry is it's customer destructive. The policies enacted by Publishers/Developers put roadblocks in the experience of legitimate, paying customers while do little to nothing to dissuade their true target: Piracy. I'll hit your arguments point by point. [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.[/quote] I see your point here. You're arguing a used game is unlike a used car. When you buy used, you're still getting the same experience as if you bought it new. (unlike the care which will have degraded somewhat) It's a valid point. However, I disagree. While video games may not suffer from direct physical degradation, (they do to some degree with disk scratches) most video games suffer from consumer degradation. They are like a flash in the night. 60-70% of a games total sales are made in the first 2-4 weeks, with an additional 15-20% made off mark-off sales later in the release year. Thus, from a profit standpoint, Developers and Publishers see little to no damage from gamers reselling their gamers are local retailers. To attack it from another angle, consider console games vs. PC games. PC gaming has gone through a massive revival in recent years due in no small part to the accessibility of Valve's Steam platform. Not only does this service allow a central hub for gaming, the sales Steam pumps out are absolutely ridiculous. I now own more PC games than ever before thanks to such sales. However, on the console spectrum we see no such service. Console games tend to stay at full price longer. (some even until they go out of stock) There's not central service with which to access these games and blowout sales (like Steam's) are very rare indeed. Thus we see the used/traded games system coming into play to fill this cheaper void for accessing titles you may not normally have payed full price for. It's a direct reaction to Publisher's refusing to drop console game costs. Now, there is a possible solution. The next-gen consoles feature downloadable games via individual marketplaces. That sounds somewhat like Steam no? However, these marketplaces are still console-specific AND directly managed by the creators of the consoles themselves. One of the strengths of Valve's platform is that they're 3rd-party compared to any hardware manufacturers or publishers. It gives them unique perspective and market practices that makes everyone love them. I don't trust Sony or M$ to do the same. (M$ even less so) Then there's the issue of the Sync. (XbOne) Another strength of Steam is that you can play any game you download offline via the client. That's convenient. Especially for us rural gamers that frequently see several day blackouts or lack of service. Making a console unable to play ANY of it's titles because the player lacks an internet connection is a deal-breaker in the grandest of senses. There's no reason for such a system to exist. It hurts M$'s legitimate customer base. [quote]But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?[/quote] Not necessarily. Though the answer to the question is more complex than you're making it. As games continue to improve, gamer expectation increases, thereby depreciating the value of previous titles in comparison. It's like playing Halo:Reach vs. Halo 1. I have a really tough time justifying booting up Halo 1 because Halo:Reach has so many little improvements that Halo 1 eventually just ends up feeling incredibly dated. I think your question should more be issued as "Does the passage of time make the POTENTIAL experience of the game less?". In that case, the answer is a resounding no. But there's no reason why a gamer should pay $60 out of pocket for a game released 2+ years ago. The potential experience is still there, but market expectations have increased exponentially, thereby depreciating the game's value. [quote]And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. [/quote] I again feeling you're simplifying. If their experience is persistent or constantly receiving updates, yes. Hence MMO subscriptions. Again, there is a point at which that experience will depreciate in regards to market expectations. And in this situation a developer can either let their title die quietly at $60, drop the price in hopes of pick-up sales, or rely on used game circulation to continue to create exposure for their company. [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM?[/quote] As I've said previously, DRM impedes the legitimate buyer by putting ineffective and unnecessary checks on their freedom to do a variety of things with the product they've purchased. It also little benefits the company instituting the DRM, as it fails to address the issue to which it was created to combat. (piracy) If we're talking directly about Next-gen, DRM (and online checks) will cause greater depreciation over time than used games ever did. I am of course talking about the scary "server shut-off" eventuality. On the far-off day when the XbOne servers are no longer viable to keep running, an entire generation of games will depreciate to zero. No Sync means no play. And no play means zero value games. So honestly, I'd be a bit concerned about 'always online' and 'DRM'. It's checks on your freedoms as a gamer and a paying customer of the industry. Don't go quietly into the dark my friend. Question, don't accept. Not all these policies are customer hostile, but it's our job to continue as informed consumers to let the Industry know what is okay and what isn't.