I was thinking that the 'newer' method of using one-time-use codes for certain access rights (mainly online portions of a game) was a fairly good method of keeping up "original" game sales. You would see a lot of people simply not playing a lot of games that are put out if the majority do not believe that a particular title is worth a $60 price tag. There are numerous games that I've played and quite enjoyed but would probably still balk at paying sixty bucks for it when it was first released. And when I purchase a used game then I can determine if the added functionality that came with a new purchase is worth paying for a one-time-use code to gain said functionality.

Simply put...there are games that I have enjoyed but probably would never have given myself the chance to find out that I would enjoy them because I wasn't impressed enough to shell out the full price of a new copy.

I can see how companies may worry about drops in new sales (when they make most, if not all of their money on the title) because the title is readily available used....but I don't think the method stated in this article would change that. Not only that but would probably at least make me hold off on purchasing that next-gen console. I'd simply keep waiting until long enough after a game's release that the price point dropped on 'new' copies.

I'll tend to agree with that....admittedly I've shelled out the money for years. With the current generation I switched from Sony to Microsoft (Xbox360)..although I do have a fairly new Vita... Now I can't speak of PSN because I've never been on it. Wait..that's a lie. I just joined when I bought my Vita but still haven't done anything. So I can't speak of it in context with console gaming. I can understand paying for a service but to go from a free network service to paying a monthly fee I really want to be WOWED. Again, I can't compare the services of PSN and Live/Gold but I can only imagine a few things that are being thrown in with Xbox Live that aren't a part of PSN. And I can already use those services (my netflix account, etc...) on my PC which is hooked up to the same HDTV as my Xbox360. I do plan to get a PS3 before the next generation comes out (looking at the next 2-3 months) and I will enjoy logging into PSN for free. And I hope that Microsoft will take note from Sony and not the other way around. I just personally do not see enough "benefits" for paying for Xbox Live Gold rather than PSN except for the fact that I have a 360 and no PS3.

Even when I get a PS3 I will still use my Xbox mostly as my girlfriend will use the PS3 more and I intend to use the PS3 only to play console specific games that cannot be played on Xbox. But depending on what these companies do with the next-gen it may very well decide which console I end up getting when the new wave rolls out.

I'll tend to agree with that....admittedly I've shelled out the money for years. With the current generation I switched from Sony to Microsoft (Xbox360)..although I do have a fairly new Vita... Now I can't speak of PSN because I've never been on it. Wait..that's a lie. I just joined when I bought my Vita but still haven't done anything. So I can't speak of it in context with console gaming. I can understand paying for a service but to go from a free network service to paying a monthly fee I really want to be WOWED. Again, I can't compare the services of PSN and Live/Gold but I can only imagine a few things that are being thrown in with Xbox Live that aren't a part of PSN. And I can already use those services (my netflix account, etc...) on my PC which is hooked up to the same HDTV as my Xbox360. I do plan to get a PS3 before the next generation comes out (looking at the next 2-3 months) and I will enjoy logging into PSN for free. And I hope that Microsoft will take note from Sony and not the other way around. I just personally do not see enough "benefits" for paying for Xbox Live Gold rather than PSN except for the fact that I have a 360 and no PS3.

Even when I get a PS3 I will still use my Xbox mostly as my girlfriend will use the PS3 more and I intend to use the PS3 only to play console specific games that cannot be played on Xbox. But depending on what these companies do with the next-gen it may very well decide which console I end up getting when the new wave rolls out.

@willzihang The original point of the amendment is based upon the fact that before a "Continental Army" was formed (and afterwards) groups of civilians who wanted to be free of British rule had taken up arms and banded together (The Minutemen) to take on British forces.

But a lot of people take the amendment to mean that at any/all times they should own 20 guns with many of them being fully automatic and high-powered.

The Constitution even states that as a citizen of the United States that it is your duty to take up arms against even its own government should it become 'evil' or 'unconstitutional'. That it is the duty of each of us to ensure that the country/government be run as the constitution dictates. This is an attempt to keep tyrants/dictators from taking power and trying to bend the country and its laws to further their power.

You know what else leads to school shootings. Having schools. And I wouldn't recommend ridding the USA of schools either. All comes down to psychology. If guns aren't available to someone who wants to commit such atrocities I wouldn't doubt that they'll go in with whatever else is available. Baseball bats. Chainsaws. Wait...sounds like a zombie apocalypse game. Damn. Considering how many millions of people worldwide play video games it's certainly no surprise that someone who is capable of such acts ALSO played video games. However, I am not now...nor have I ever been...a homicidal maniac.