The problem with Microsoft's approach the way I see it is that they're offering no value-add for the inconvenience. Gamers are used to discs being transferrable but MS is making a bold choice to devalue them and treat them as tokens to be redeemed (despite the fact this already happens with online purchases of 360 games).

Since they're going with the requirement for 24hr checkins it would seem that going digital-only would have been an option. I daresay if they'd have done that there'd be less of a fuss.

w.r.t. the use of transfers to share copies, why is that a problem specifically? The same ``problem'' exists with on-disc media (for the current consoles at least).

Physical media is much higher friction to transfer since you have to shift a physical box around which is slow , expensive and time consuming. I have a ton of original xbox games I could have traded in but never bothered because I was too lazy to put them on ebay or take them into the shop.

There is also the risk that the disk is scratched which puts people off buying used.

OTOH a digital license can be transferred across the globe in a matter of seconds and the product does not degrade with use or get damaged in transit. This means that there is no point buying a new game, just buy the game when you want to play it and sell it when you don't. The total number of new licenses bought only has to support the number of people who want to play it concurrently, not the total number of people who want to play at all.

The only way around this would be to impose artificial restrictions on used game sales. For example, you can only sell to people in your own country, a license can only be transferred a fixed number of times etc.

Isn't the issue of being able to transfer licenses more of a problem with the First Sale Doctrine? To that end, do you think consumers would have the right to transfer books, CDs, DVDs etc. if they were indestructible?

Perhaps we disagree, but I think this should be seen as an encouragement to change approaches rather than an opportunity to change a market because it doesn't suit the producer.

If physical disks/books were as easy to transfer as digital licenses we'd have seen efforts to kill the used market long before now.

I'd be amazed if Microsoft would happily let used sales kill their highly profitable market in such a way.

In the case of Sony they seem to be using the physical disks themselves as the license, actually storing the data on the disk is simply a convenience. In theory the disk could only contain ~1mb of metadata that triggers a digital download.

Will be interesting to see if they keep with that model, I can see having to go out and buy a physical disk or waiting for it to arrive in the mail seeming very antiquated in 5 years.

One of the guy introducing "The Crew" at the E3 told one journalist : "you have an iPad? How does it feel whan you don't have WIFI or 3G for it? It feels empty and dead right? I believe consoles are becoming about online now and in a few years you'll understand what I meant here".

When I still had an iPad, I spent many long flights playing games or watching films with it offline.

But poor comparison in that iPad is a mobile device you're supposed to carry around with you, while the consoles are stationary.

I didn't say it wasn't working when offline. It's like taking your laptop in the airplane/train without WIFI. You just feel like you're very limited.

Well, you're more likely to have a reliable internet connection in your home than you are when you are out and about.

But even without WiFi or 3G I can still play most of my games and watch downloaded movies on my iPad!

Because it was made to be taken anywhere you go. As I see it, Microsoft is marketing their new console for online gaming. It worked for Diablo 3 and Sim City, don't see why they wouldn't try to pull this one.

How about a second hand tax? (Ducks for cover)