On, the contrary, I think YOU need to look up First Sale Doctrine. Pretty much all video game EULA (which you agree to when you purchase the game) states that the game you just purchased wasn't bought at all, but rather licensed. You don't own it. Never have, never will. Since FSD requires lawful ownership, video games do not apply to the concept.
Also, like I mentioned in my first post, developers offer services far beyond the disc. Someone who didn't pay them any money for the game should not get to take advantage of those services.
They had previously announced that it wouldn't happen on new games, but they JUST announced that they were getting rid of it on existing games. I assure you, they didn't just do this to make themselves look good. Looking good is a byproduct. And yes, there literally are savings to be had. Both to people buying their existing games and new games, who no longer have to buy season/multiplayer passes.
First of all, the idea of licensing is a relatively new concept in console gaming. If you wish me to photocopy every scrap of information packaged in with games from the 2600 through the 360, just to show that the idea of an EULA didn't surface till the current gen, I will. Otherwise it's just "Cus I say so!" as an argument that it has always existed. While it has been the case for computer software since day one, it hasn't been that way for console games since they are limited use products. Also, the terminology of how we obtain these games should change. We shouldn't be told to go to a "retailer" to "buy" games. We shouldn't read advertisements explicitly state "get YOUR copy now!'. Everything about retail outlets, from GameStop to Best Buy, imply ownership of products after the sale. If this is NOT the case, shouldn't they be subject to legal action for not clarifying what exactly we are purchasing? False advertising and all that.
On to your other point. Let's say, in an extreme case, you as a publisher/developer sell 1million copies of AAA game X. Your servers show that every game sold is playing simultaneously. Now, say those numbers never drop over the next year. How are you, as a publisher/developer losing money? Logically, you aren't. There aren't more players playing than units sold. Now if you look at all the users online playing your game, how do you know that every one of them is an initial customer? You have no clue if they are or not, all you see is that all your games sold are accounted for. That means you received %100 return on all those units. You aren't losing money. On paper, every person who bought your game new is still playing it. Publishers and developers can ONLY lose profits from piracy.
On a side note, there seems to be a glaring misconception that studios get shut down only because they are losing revenue from used sales. Yet we can actually see major companies such as EA (yeah, them again) shutter a studio within a few months, or even weeks after acquisition. Yet the focus get shifted away from them towards second hand and rentals as a way to spurn support to have those avenues (and the jobs they support) wiped from the Earth. They will divert the blame for a title's mediocre or failed success towards second hand sales, rather than admitting the game was garbage. Used games is an easy scapegoat for them, and an extremely flawed one.
