As you said right below this, they're just playing around with semantics. The core thing of there being a "used fee" is not in dispute, it's just the silly technicalities of it and largely how it effects Gamestop that they're toying around with clarifying.
Wait, I want to make sure I'm understanding this right.
I think the point is that someone sitting next to you can pull things up as you play/watch something.
Sure it will - the EULA will say you're buying a license to use the game rather than the game itself i.e. MS retains ownership. And if they own it, they can charge a fee for a second (third, fourth, etc) licence.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), however, ruled in July that the trading of "used" software licenses is legal and that the author of such software cannot oppose any resale. While the CJEU's case is not exactly the same as the current litigation against Valve, the VZVB reckons that the ruling gives sufficient basis for a new lawsuit, Elbrecht said. She expected the litigation to go on for years, and it will probably end up at the federal court again, she said.
This is ultimately the problem. If you look at game budgets and inflation, a new game should cost about 120 bucks right now. No one is willing to pay that, thus the entire industry model is broken. The race for bigger better faster broke the system.
I look forward to the shit ea produces.
