I actually see benefits for Sony, Microsoft, AMD and some PC owners if this is true. For Sony and MS it offers them a chance to cut cost on production and keep the consoles at a competitive price. For AMD it offers them a surge in business as well as gives it something else to entice more PC customers with. The reason I say this is that for AMD theoretically this means better software optimization for its chip architecture where in the past most of that optimization has mainly gone to Intel and Nvidia. The main thing I worry about is what this will mean for the life span of a next gen consoles as PC architectures is always changinng and console architecture doesn't as much. What will there be for developers to really discover in these consoles that will keep their attention going as the 360 and PS3 did?

@CaptainHerlock "The long held belief that once games go digital, the savings will be passed on to consumers. In reality, there's no evidence to suggest that, and the contrary seems to be true."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know, I use to think that but after having a tablet powerful enough that I can connect to my 1080p HDTv and play a couple of quality games with PC/360/PS3 quality graphics and game play through Bluetooth with a controller for $16 dollars or less I don't think that anymore. The mobile tech is growing, all it needs is the software and business smarts. I do agree about many having an issue stepping away but sooner or later consumers get tired of situations. Look at the expensive PS Vita portable and accessories. It's not hard to say enough is enough and developers go where they can make money even if they complain about change.

I think that if either Sony or Microsoft actually start to use such tactics to stop used game sells, the next gen of consoles may just be the last gen of consoles to come out as we know them. The fact is that there is other tech out there that can do what consoles do right now and more. I'm sure that we will see more of such tech after or before the next gen of consoles hit this year. Developers can make more off of digital distribution and cut costs. If the next gen of consoles fail, you can bet they are ready to move on to more tech like the pc or portable/smaller more affordable tech that can connect to your tv--- with just the right amount of processing power for gaming. I love consoles but the fact is that technology is moving so fast that the next gen of consoles may be obsolete before they hit and so might Sony and Microsoft in the console business as well if the right tech/competition comes along.

The truth is that with this generation of consoles, programing tools, and processing power, some programmers/developers and publishers have become spoiled, whinning, whimps who are hidding behind graphics and quick repetitive sequals. I use to be amazed at watching developers squeeze every ounce of horsepower out of consoles as they were reaching the end of their life span. It's not the consoles that gamers are becoming bored with but the lack of innovation and creativity that most games are showing. It's easy for gamers to confuse the two. New hardware won't fix that. My main thought is "show me a game that can only be done with next gen hardware and I don't mean pretty graphics, lighting effects and particle effects." Then I'll be eager to move to the next gen.

Being a huge DOA fan I have a bad feeling about DOA 5. From what I can see it looks like too much clutter on screen to hide watering down of gameplay or a lack of substance. I hope that I'm wrong. As with Ninja Gaiden 3, I think I'll wait before buying this game on day one. Love VF and DOA but I'm just not sure this time.

Brendan, I agree completely with your article. Regrettably I have to admit that I haven't bought much DLC when it comes to game add-ons. The only add-ons I've bought have been music for a few music games as I understand royalties cost. I feel that in some ways the consumer is being exploited, but that's just my feeling. If the DLC's not essential to playing the game I don't buy the DLC and if it's necessary for online play I don't play it online or decide if I really want to buy the game at all. My choosing not to buy a game or not to play online if the DLC is too much really doesn't matter to publishers but to me it feels good to know that I control how I spend my money and to know that I can always spend it on one of the many other games that don't send me down the road that that publisher decided to travel. I've been a gamer for over 36yrs and to be honest some of today's practices are really disheartening. But hey, I'm only one out of millions.

All I can say is that this articles worries me and not because I agree or disagree with it completely but because it has such a defeatist tone. I hope every gamer out there doesn't feel like he or she has no say so or the gaming industry will become an even bigger clump of crap that can run over them and they have no say so.

I'd have to agree with this artical completely. I use to think that some of this was ok but it's gotten out of hand with this generation of consoles. It may hurt things in the future. I've been playing/collecting games for more than 30 years, I don't feel the need as much anymore to buy most of the top games day one anymore. Some publishers --- namely EA --- I have banned from my collection and will continue to do so even into the next console generation. I understand that this is a business but at some point these guys have forgotten who made them important and paid for their advancement in the industry. I'll never give up on gaming but I have become a great deal more selective with my games.

Nintendo has a great deal to sort out with developers when it comes to the new controller but my question is what happens when you end up with a ton of broken screens on those tablets because parents are buying the Wii-U for kids more so than themselves. The Wii sold so well because of price, not games and it wasn't harder or very expensive to replace a Wii controller. There will be more issues with the Wii-U's controllers than game development issues. Hopefully it has thought about all the worse case possibilities. I knew my Nintendo Wii was in trouble with me when I never bought a second controller for it and I've had the console since day one of release here in the states. There really weren't enough games out that made me want to play two player wise. Developers other than Nintendo really didn't use the controller enough. The controller is what Nintendo is pushing as a buying point when it should be the strengths of the console hardware. The question is what makes the console so different from the PS3 and 360 other than a little extra horsepower and gimmicky controller?

Kabaro, the truth is that the writer is stating how most of us gamers feel when we look at being forced into a decision of paying $60.00 for a new game instead of having the choice to buy it used. The truth is when I'm told what to do with my money I'd prefer to spend it elsewhere since I work for it. I understand the publisher aspect of things but I also understand that it's not something I have to have. It's a luxury not a have to have. I've noticed that during this generation of consoles and probably the future generations, collecting games doesn't really mean as much as it use to, not even with DLC. People trade in games like they drink water. Why waste that type of money just for a few hours or days of play when it comes to most of the games out there? I love gaming but it's starting to lose some of its appeal, and I've been doing it since pong. lol