So their primary argument is, if we set up a rule like this, it will make us do our jobs that we're already supposed to be doing to the best of our ability, even better.
"Bach thinks that though customers would lose out on price-point, they would benefit from an industry more capable of taking finacial risks." If they don't take financial risks in this industry it is because they are incompetent and cowardly, they just want the maximum amount of profit for the minimum required investment. These people are not 'video game developers' they are simple businessmen. They have no appreciation for the games they make, nor their own customers who they are supposed to be trying to make more satisfied, rather they stall the decline of their businesses by looking for new ways to rake in money for work they're already doing.

This move isn't really much to do with customer satisfaction, since customers will be incredibly upset at not being able to buy used games (or even more importantly, not being able to sell games that one was dissatisfied with), not to mention killing the entire GameStop/EB Games distribution network which is probably just as bad for games publishers and developers, because they will no longer have a dedicated storefront for their wares.

Although many (at least in the games industry) may question whether GameStop aren't simply greedy middlemen who add no value to the industry, the fact that games publishers continue to utilize them to promote new games, have GameStop-exclusive pre-order bonuses, Midnight Launches, etc. suggest that GameStop/EB Games is an integral part of the distribution of physical games.

Of course, game publishers are increasingly hoping to cut costs and cut down on piracy by having always-on authentication and online passes to ensure that they get more money from people who purchase second-hand games in the first place, and if they were to choose, they'd probably get rid of physical discs completely because those can be cracked and played in single-player mode using offline modded Xboxes and such.

But in doing so, games publishers will no doubt discover that they're losing a tremendous number of sales from people who want to go to a physical store and talk to people knowledgeable about games and gaming, they want to own a physical boxed copy, they enjoy the social aspects of meeting up with like-minded souls at Midnight launches, and they want the freedom of being able to sell a game they didn't like, rather than being stuck with it and not even being able to get back some of the $60 spent purchasing it.

Above all, I think that at least until internet 2.0 comes along and we have broadband fiber networks going straight to the home, the average consumer is not going to have the bandwidth necessary to download next generation games _and_ play online multiplayer at the same time (either the speed of the download will suffer, or your k/d ratio will from lag :P), not to mention with the current overage-charging, capping and throttling of broadband by monopolistic ISPs, game publishers are basically going to be expecting consumers to cover the cost of downloading a game they purchased, which they wouldn't have had to do if they simply ordered the game from Amazon or BestBuy with free shipping (and in many cases would be faster).

No, this move will definitely make sales more sluggish, and incentivize cracking (and you know crackers will find a way, even if it means having to go to elaborate lengths to mod their consoles or block/reroute online authentication on PCs).

While I understand their argument (fewer 'new' purchase sales lost to used game sales theoretically means more money for the publishers which will in turn go back to financing more and better games from devs), but I somehow think it's much more likely it's just going to fatten up profit margins and major games publishing execs' paycheques, benefiting no one except those whose existences are possibly the most extraneous part of the entire games industry.

What I really don't understand is why games publishers don't simply work out a deal with places like GameStop to get them to give up a cut of used games sales, but in return, give GameStop exclusive access to free codes for online multiplayer with every used sale, so that 1) the consumer of the used game isn't left holding the bag in terms of having to pay extra for online multiplayer, 2) incentivize consumers to use the GameStop buy and trade ecosystem through which a certain percentage would go back to game publishers, and 3) effectively turn the GameStop chain into a de facto store front for games publishers.

I mean, most of this GameStop does already anyway, except because games publishers are now inserting online authentication/passes for the multiplayer experience, they're effectively trying to screw GameStop even as GameStop is providing a valuable service in terms of keeping older games alive by having a service where people who haven't had the chance to experience said old game can still buy it used, which is particularly important in terms of keeping the multiplayer player base alive long after the original game purchaser has moved on to other games.

Of course, I'm sure that no games publisher is really interested in keeping the popularity of a game going long past its sell-by date, because there's simply no profit in it: keeping a multiplayer game alive with fans is only as useful as it helps keep people interested in a specific franchise or to drum up hype and interest in a coming sequel. Otherwise it's just server and administration costs for online multiplayer without any benefit to anyone except the actual gamers who enjoy the game.

But I think games publishers are allowing penny-pinching accountants to run their companies, instead of looking at intangible, unquantifiable benefits to popular support amongst gamers, something which cannot be immediately monetized but pays off in terms of customer loyalty, excellent press and public relations, word-of-mouth sales, etc. You can't really put a value on having a great brand name.

Companies like EA, or even Activision Blizzard, Atari, forget that there was, once upon a time, such a thing as brand loyalty for gamers, and it mattered when we saw a new game published by Electronic Arts with their old 'cube, sphere and pyramid' logo, or Activision (who doesn't still associate that name with games like Pitfall?), or indeed, one of the oldest names in the game, Atari.

It saddens me to think that a once indisputable giant in video gaming like Atari has been reduced to bankruptcy, being sold yet again despite an attempted resurrection. It says something when people name bands after your company (eg. Atari Teenage Riot/the Ataris) about how the mass consumer views your brand name, and to have so completely been incapable of monetizing and profiting from that sort of brand name recognition, consumer goodwill and fan enthusiasm, suggests some major problems in how the company was run.

And the fact of the matter is, there are way too many games publishers out to solely screw their own customers, their former fans, out of their hard-earned cash just for some short-term profit, entirely diluting and tarnishing the game publisher's brand name and turning fans into cynics and online detractors. If they want to know how and why gamers turned so quickly against games publishers, they have only to look in the mirror and ask themselves exactly what they did to alienate their own fanbase, a group of rabidly loyal consumers who would have bought just about anything they put out as long as they kept putting out great games like they did in the past, and didn't sacrifice customer satisfaction in the idolatrous pursuit of the almighty dollar.

This move will ultimately not only further alienate gamers, who will increasingly turn to smaller indie publishers who, with the help of things like indiegogo and Kickstarter, are increasingly becoming a more viable source of high-quality independent games that can rival the major publishers, if not in terms of production value, at least in terms of game play, well-written storylines, unique and innovative game types, etc. while still keeping overhead costs low... you know, the way game development and publishing used to be, back in the day.

Game publishers and developers need to get back to their roots, and remind themselves that billion-dollar budgets doth not a good game make, and in many cases, the technological limitations that game developers faced in designing their games, forced them to be brilliant, to do something extraordinary, to appeal to the player's imaginations, rather than needing extensive motion capture and Hollywood actors doing voice work.

I'm not against high production values, but if the costs of making a game can't be recouped by sales, what's the point? Too many developers are disappearing, getting bought up by larger publishers and turned into subsidiary studios, only to have their studios shut down due to lack of sufficient interest on the part of the higher-ups to really put any faith, let alone money, into a developer's vision. I'm also really starting to question whether the big publishers aren't breaking some antitrust laws because they're effectively weeding out any sort of competition whatsoever by buying them up only to shut them down.