Comments on: Point-of-sale video game activations won't work

The video game industry might soon require an activation just to play a game you bought at the store. But in practice, it makes little sense.

[john Reagan]

To roachbrain: the way it works is that the product is activated only once---the first sale.
It can then be freely resold, rented, traded, etc. without any problem.

[roachbrain]

Great another reason for gamestop workers to role there eyes at me.

Can I see if the disc is scratch?....Thanks, can you make sure it's not locked?

Thanks John.

[Reflautas]

This is really disappointing reporting. It builds an entire misleading story on the basis of thin air: ("How will it work? In order for benefit denial to work, the EMA would presumably require the three major consoles to have some sort of activation verification function to ensure that games were legally purchased.") Nonsense. The word "presumably" should instead say "I'm just making this up here based on my worst fears because I'm too lazy to find out the real story." Nothing in the EMA announcement suggests that. Indeed, nothing suggests it has anything whatsoever to do with piracy or with used games. Nada. Nothing suggests your console will have to be rejiggered in any way, or that your copy will be limited in any way.

Benefit denial technology is aimed at shoplifters, not copyright infringers. It's nothing more than a feature, like the big plastic tags on expensive clothing, that has to be removed/disabled at the point of sale. After that, the disc is yours to enjoy just like you would any other, including to lend or re-sell.

For gamers, the greatest advantage is that stores won't have to be locking discs in keepers, behind glass or, worse, behind the counter. You can take the package from the shelf and read all the fine print on it and study the graphics and compatibility, because the store knows that there is no value in stealing it.

Plus, this mean fewer copies will get shoplifted or stolen before they reach the store's shelves, meaning that the price of a new game no longer has to cover for a percentage of copies pilfered along the way, from the warehouse, from the truck, from the back room of the store, or from the shelf.

Bottom line: the idea is to deny the benefit to someone who steals a disc, not someone who buys it, or the people who borrow, buy or receive as a gift from the person who bought it.

[Reflautas]

This is really disappointing reporting. It builds an entire misleading story on the basis of thin air: ("How will it work? In order for benefit denial to work, the EMA would presumably require the three major consoles to have some sort of activation verification function to ensure that games were legally purchased.") Nonsense. The word "presumably" should instead say "I'm just making this up here based on my worst fears because I'm too lazy to find out the real story." Nothing in the EMA announcement suggests that. Indeed, nothing suggests it has anything whatsoever to do with piracy or with used games. Nada. Nothing suggests your console will have to be rejiggered in any way, or that your copy will be limited in any way.

Benefit denial technology is aimed at shoplifters, not copyright infringers. It's nothing more than a feature, like the big plastic tags on expensive clothing, that has to be removed/disabled at the point of sale. After that, the disc is yours to enjoy just like you would any other, including to lend or re-sell.

For gamers, the greatest advantage is that stores won't have to be locking discs in keepers, behind glass or, worse, behind the counter. You can take the package from the shelf and read all the fine print on it and study the graphics and compatibility, because the store knows that there is no value in stealing it.

Plus, this mean fewer copies will get shoplifted or stolen before they reach the store's shelves, meaning that the price of a new game no longer has to cover for a percentage of copies pilfered along the way, from the warehouse, from the truck, from the back room of the store, or from the shelf.

Bottom line: the idea is to deny the benefit to someone who steals a disc, not someone who buys it, or the people who borrow, buy or receive as a gift from the person who bought it.

[cyclonica1980]

This would be the end of Game Stops trade in system..