"Yeah, I heard about that. I think that can be a win and a loss," he told CVG at a recent EA event. "I think it's a loss if it only means that you will be able to get fewer games for the same money. But in theory you could see it the other way, because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales."
While passionate gamers could end up spending more money on games than they currently do, Bach went on to say that killing off the second-hand market would lead to the availability of a more diverse range of titles.
"So if you think that there are too few new IPs on the market, no one can take that risk if their game is at risk of being resold too many times. Therefore you see a lot of online games being the most popular. You mentioned that you feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realise.
"So on the positive side you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have for instance multiplayer. There could be awesome single player-only games, which you can't really do these days because people just pirate them, which is sad.
"From a gamer perspective, if you want to buy as many games as possible then this could be a problem, but if you want more diverse games then it's a more positive thing than negative. The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."
Crytek's director of creative development recently told us that, from a business perspective, the introduction of an anti-used game measures for next-gen consoles would be "absolutely awesome". Shortly after, Crytek provided us with a fresh statement claiming that the original comment "was not intended to be taken seriously".