There's only one type of game I'll buy in the knowledge that I can't resell and that's gooseberry fool £3 games on iPhone.

No, they're not! "Damaging to the economy"...a transaction has occurred between two willing parties, that's economic activity right there. Just that neither willing party happens to be a publisher wanting to double-dip their profits.

When you pirate something, no transaction has occurred, no money has moved around etc. No economic activity has occurred, although the pirate benefits massively of course.

How come this argument isn't applied to movie on Blu Ray/DVD? You can sell those 2nd hand, but no company would dare produce a system with an activation code tying it to the Blu Ray/DVD player.

This, and cheap Steam sale games, or cheap indie PC games,

I like the sound of reactivation charges for each console, but what happens if the online service is shut down?

Well if they're anything like Ubisoft, the response to that question would be "strawberry float it, they can wait.".

See how many people boycott Xbox when they find out their games have no resale value, it'll be a bigger flop than the 3DO.

True, but why would Microsoft or the publishers care?

This is being driven by publishers, now Nintendo/Sony may decide they want nothing to do with it, so what follows then.....

Publishers say to Microsoft thanks for protecting our interests, have exclusivity on our product because we know we are getting paid for every single copy ever sold, suddenly the next GTA or Call Of Duty is only on Nextbox.......that drives sales.

No, but they'll put off a huge proportion of the market in doing so and will effectively kill their business.

$60 games are expensive - and gamers shouldn't be forced to keep them, argues Saber Interactive's Matthew Karch

In January a report claimed Microsoft might move to block used games with its next Xbox, forcing gamers to shell out for new copies rather than picking up a cheap deal from the Gamestation bargain bin.

Some game designers have come out to support the proposed move, but today's soapbox developer believes it would be very unfair to block the public's right to used games.

Saber Interactive CEO, Matthew Karch, who's currently heading up promising shooter Inversion, and whose studio built the Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary campaign, argues that a different approach to the problem is needed.

Writing for CVG, Karch shares his thoughts on Xbox 720's rumoured pre-owned prevention...

Inversion is due to release on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC in early 2012. Read our latest impressions.

"I don't think we should prevent people from playing used games. I understand why they would want to do it, but I think the approach should be different.

"As long as games are distributed on physical medium as physical goods, players should have the right to buy and sell them.

"$60 is a lot to pay for a game and if a player buys a dud and is stuck with it, then that's just not fair to force him to keep it. If people buy Inversion and it's not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?

"Publishers feel that reviewers have too much control now and if games can't be traded then reviews will become gospel. This doesn't serve anyone's interest.

"For me the approach is to bring the cost of games down and to sell them as digital content where they can't be bought and sold. If someone pays $15 for a game, then it's less painful if they need to keep it.

"If people buy Inversion and its not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?""Last time I spoke about this, some people misconstrued my comments to imply that I didn't think that games should be "full-length". This isn't the way I feel about it.
"A $60 game has about $30 of waste in it in getting the game to retail. I really believe that with digital distribution you can get that same full-length experience for $30.

"With Inversion (or games like Battlefield or Gears), for example, you could break that experience into two components - single-player and multiplayer - and sell them for $15 each or sell them combined for $30. If someone spends $15, then the trade-in value would be minimal anyway even if it were permissible.

"I think thats the way to go - lower the costs for the same access by bringing them to market digitally. Then a no-used solution is fair."

They really going to limit those games to one system? This was like when Bobby Kotick was threatening to take their games off the PS3. Even if the PS4 was doing terrible business, you'd still be looking at at least 30 million or so customers, on top of all those on the Wii U.

Games are too expensive, marketing budgets too large & the customer base too big to start doing something like that.