Theres also the draw that if you wanna buy used games then you would have to stick with Microsoft which could potentially be a sizeable increase in Microsofts consumers. Theres a small audience that mainly buys used games who would be forced into Microsofts hands.
It wouldn't though, because third-parties are incorporating the same system on XBOX 360. Remember, this initiative only effects Sony published games. If you want to play Sony published games, you need a Sony platform.
I really hate this "double-dipping" that seems to be becoming standard in the industry just now. It's not as if pre-owned games are putting extra strain on servers or such cos if you bought the game used, then someone had to have traded it in first of all right? I don't see how publishers can take the moral high ground here. Just because someone buys a game pre-owned doesn't mean the publisher is losing out on a sale because more often than not, I refuse to pay full price for games so if I can pick up a second hand copy for £15 less then all the better and the publisher has already had the sale from when the game was bought originally. Although if you're only saving say, £2 or so and you still decide to buy pre-owned then you sir, are an idiot!
The argument would be that Publisher X makes a game with online services. User X buys the game new and plays it for a month non-stop. Publisher X receives the entirety of the finances from User X's purchase. Publisher X has to pay server maintenance costs to store User X's data (leaderboards) and also host User X's matches. User X then puts the game on the shelf and ignores it. User X is no longer playing the game, so Publisher X's server maintenance costs drop. User X then decides to sell the game to GameStop for $10. GameStop resells Users X's game to User Y for $25. GameStop makes $15 profit. User Y gets home and hops online to play User X's game. Publisher X's server maintenance costs suddenly surge again, as it pays to store User Y's data and also host User Y's matches. However, Publisher X has received no additional finances from User Y.
That's the argument a publisher would make. It's a weird situation because the publisher is doing cost analysis based on the principle that no one will play a game for ever. I can see the argument both ways.
Thanks for updating the article, Alex. A lot of places are really blowing this news out of proportion.
Just a little bit, huh? People think all their data has been compromised again. I'm not really sure what's more ridiculous: Sony for not catching such a silly exploit; the media for making it sound like "OH GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING AND THE PLAYSTATION NETWORK IS DEAD AGAIN"; or people buying into the FUD.