I'm actually not opposed to video game console manufacturers requiring that you buy a license for whatever game you want to play. For example, you buy Assassin's Creed XIV, which comes with one free license, which you then register on your machine... and then you can play it. If someone else gets your game disc, they'd then have to buy a license to play the game on their machine. Yeah, it kind of sucks, and it is definitely more restrictive... totally makes swapping games between friends and family members infeasible, unless you bring your entire console along with you... but it's the company's right to do that, and I don't see anything seriously wrong with that.
However, I think it's bad to require consoles to be connected to the Internet at all times in order to be playable. Aside from the obvious implications of privacy, what about people who may be forced to turn off their Internet connections for awhile?
If you buy a gaming console, the only other thing you should need to play is a TV... period.
Sure it is the company's right but that doesn't make it right. I can lend out my current games, DVDs, blu-rays, lawnmower, vacuum, car if needed, my book bag, textbooks, fiction books, etc. Should it be reasonable for all of these manufacturers, if possible, to allow only me to use them , say through thumbprint I'd? What makes software so special and unique in this regard?
An interesting question I've been pondering is this: If see do move towards single license purchasing where the game can not be duplicated or borrowed, will software once again enter the age of returnable items? If I buy a game and it flat out sucks, and I am unable to sell it, then shouldn't I be able to return it?