Why do people argue against the used market?

I'd buy my games directly from the publishers.

@Illmatic said:

I buy mostly used games. I usually wait a few months to a year after a game has been released and then purchase the game used if I still feel a desire to play the game. Just recently, I purchased Bayonetta and Darksiders used. Both were games I had an interest in, but not enough to pay anywhere near $60 dollars I didn't have for. It's natural to look for the best deal in anything, not just games. To criticize someone for spending their money in a way that benefit them is just as selfish as what we are doing. Of course we'd like a developer to continue producing quality products, and if I could I'd keep them afloat by buying new from them as long as the game was good. But that's only if I had the cash to do so. I'm a college student who plays games to relieve the stress of school work. I'm on a college student's budget. You can balk at the $20 I saved and call it not much of a difference, but that savings just paid for my meals for the week. The only alternative is to not buy games at all. With the former, I at least gain a liking for certain developers and when an unusual influx of income comes in, I spend that money on a new game to support the developer whenever I can. This isn't a hypothetical, this is how I buy my games. Used is what I can afford, new is a luxury I rarely get to exercise.

Bayonetta and Darksiders are both 20 bucks new.

Cause gamestop sucks AND POOR PEOPLE SHOULDNT HAVE THE SAME THINGS I PAY 60$ FOR!

First, comparing video games to cars and houses is not even a viable comparison. The monetary value is so different it does not come into play here. A 40k new car vs a 4k used car is a lot different that a $60 game vs a $20 game. If I could afford to buy a new Lexus every year you can bet your ass I would, but I can not so all I can do is hope they are still around in the next 4 years when I will be able to purchase another new car. And you can bet if there was a way for the auto industry to stop used sales I can guarantee they would, but all they can do is combat the used market by offering piece of mind with warranty on new cars. Also the auto industry has a much larger market to sell too, just about everyone needs a car, not everyone buys video games.

That leads me into my next point, seeing is how the video game market is still considered a niche thing not all company are multi-billion doller companies. And believe it or not they need new game sales to keep them afloat. And I'm not just talking about the publishers alot of the developers jobs are dependent on their games selling good.

Now having said all that I don't think there is anything wrong with buying used games just don't expect the same quality as buying new, just like a used car u dont get all the perks of buying a new car. Used video games don't expect online play such as the ea pass. Just like with my new Lexus i get perks such as discounts off hotels, free loaner cars and pick up if i break down. I don't get that with used cars.

Ideally, used retailers would just keep an invoice of games sold and send an agreed upon amount of money for every sale to the publishers (where applicable). Used retailers gets their money, publisers and developers get their money, and those who play games get a better deal.   But that will never happen because neither party will be content with just some of the money. They must have all of it. And that's the problem with an economic system predicated upon perpetual growth; there's no such thing as "enough." 

to the point of the used car market and why manufactures don't care, is because whether they sell it new or used they will still make some money, reason: there is a infrastructure to the automotive business, dealers that sell and service and supply parts for their cars, i know not everyone that buys a used car will use its manufacture for service parts but some even a lot will. there are so many revenue streams that make their way back to the manufacture that allow them to earn money off a used car sale. and lets say you buy a used car and you really like it, so when you decide to buy a new car you go with that manufacture and once again they make money from a that used car sale. none of these things happen with a used game sale, sure you might like the game a decided to buy that publishers next game but once someone trades in a new game to a retailer the publishers hope of revenue off that game or essentially gone and i believe retailers should have to split used game sales with the publishers of the game since there is potential for a retailer to sell a game multiple times and earn money each time, retailers had nothing to do with making that game or funding that game so they shouldn't be allowed to continuously profit from it with out some of the profits going to the game dev/pub.

I like people that buy used games but call pirates nasty names. It's so funny. 
 
You're both refusing the publisher/developer money. Admittedly you may be giving a small amount back by purchasing DLC, though.

@i77ogical

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game. 

Why should the dev have any claim on a copy of a game after they have sold it? If you bought a house from somebody, the original builder wouldn't see any of that money, even though you are enjoying the result of their work. I bet you'd be pretty pissed if the builder came around and took all the tiles off your roof though, and said you had to pay him to put them back.

I like people that buy used games but call pirates nasty names. It's so funny.   You're both refusing the publisher/developer money. Admittedly you may be giving a small amount back by purchasing DLC, though.

My annoyance is generally people who get on a soap box to QQ about piracy but yet go out and buy all their games used.  Both have the same results = zero money to the right people.

My annoyance is generally people who get on a soap box to QQ about piracy but yet go out and buy all their games used.  Both have the same results = zero money to the right people.

@sins_of_mosin said:

My annoyance is generally people who get on a soap box to QQ about piracy but yet go out and buy all their games used.  Both have the same results = zero money to the right people.

The right people, huh? Maybe we should burn down all the Gamestops and throw their employees on the street with the rest of the filth. Like the Nazis, they don't deserve the dev gold.

The issue is that the gaming industry doesn't seem to abide by the principle of a product only being as valuable as how much the purchaser will pay for it. The point that 'gamestop is a shitty store' is perfectly relevant, the retail gaming industry is almost entirely shitty. It has poor service, no innovation,  in some cases an aggressively anti-consumer mentality and in many cases vastly overprices their games. So naturally people are turning away from it to piracy or second hand games (which I agree are worse than piracy), and the industry's response is not "Ok, we'll work on our problems so less people turn to piracy", it's "well FUCK THEM!"

I don't understand, if the game is used, that means someone paid the developer. Now they want to sell this product because it useless to them and the make some of their money back, the developer still has his $60. Now if I go out and sell this game to someone for $20, i got back $20 back from the $60 i have the developer. Now the person I sold it too bought the game for $20. Why does he have to pay the developer? I already did. So the developer should get paid twice for the same product?

I just want the guys who made the game to get my money so they make more games.

Selling and buying games in the used market tells publishers that you think their pricing for a videogame is too high thus buying the cheaper "pre owned" copy. I'm not saying it will influence retailers to lower prices but buying pre owned games has been going on for years, I don't see why it is such a huge issue nowadays when more and more games are being bought online as a digital format, saving publishers money in the long run anyway. By buying pre owned games you are not comitting "piracy" but exercising your rights as a consumer.

I have no real problem with the used games market but it does annoy the everloving crap out of me! The game stores in the UK only really stock games that are in the top 20 or so sellers and the rest of the store is used games which I have frequently found to NOT WORK! I remember once I took a new case to the desk and got given a used copy - it took an actual full on argument with the clerk to get a new copy even though it cost me more.

The sad reality is this so many places undercut the RRP of a game that they end up making a loss on it. The RRPs are high (about £50 or $80) but they need to be to offset the cost of making a game nowadays (I am certain some of them must have budgets that make Movies blush.) Game stores will not sell enough copies of a £50 game so they undercut to about £35-£40 though some of the real AAA titles sell at £50 (but I am talking the BIGGEST franchises, GoW, CoD, Halo, AC, Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda etc and possibly the Batman and Uncharted games) so they end up making a loss. Without second hand games the stores would simply go out of business but the second hand market actively damages the developers and publishers of a game - It honestly doesn't matter if, say, Bulletstorm, does a roaring trade in the used market the developers and publishers see no money from it at all and that has lead to the lack of risk-taking in modern game development. The last REAL risk was Mirror's Edge which though far from being a 5* game was decent and a clever enough idea to warrant a sequel, most of the people I know bought it used and in fact it was in the Pre-Owned CHART (yes there is such a thing in some UK retailers) for over a year after release! How much have you heard about Mirror's Edge 2? because I have heard bugger all since a non-commital "we will make it (eventually)" which makes it vaporware at best.

Used games do hurt the industry, it is stagnating right now and it needs to be taking more risks to grow into a "serious" popular medium. This far into the lifespan of movies they were making cultural milestones, the games industry is producing CoD 8, GoW 3, AC 4, Uncharted 3, Batman 2, Deus Ex 3. Am i part of the problem? hell yes I will be purchasing all of those games this year but it shouldn't be like this. Saw reached a record with seven films in seven years, I would not be at all suprised if Call of Duty made it to ten in a row. In fact by now most of the EA sports games have destroyed that record!

TLDR; Used games hurt the industry indirectly

I just refuse to accept why games should be treated differently than other goods that are bought used. If a consumer buys used and saves a few bucks, good for them. It's the incentives that publishers and developers are pushing on consumers now to get them to buy new and the more power to them. (Incentives can be seen as good or bad i.e., Online Passes and that sort).

Because people are picky. I personally like buying new, but I have no problem with people buying used. It's probably more a case of people not liking Gamestop than not liking used sales.

i always thought all the Project $10 thingy was to fight against corporations, not consumers.

@Jimbo said:

@i77ogical

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game. 

Why should the dev have any claim on a copy of a game after they have sold it? If you bought a house from somebody, the original builder wouldn't see any of that money, even though you are enjoying the result of their work. I bet you'd be pretty pissed if the builder came around and took all the tiles off your roof though, and said you had to pay him to put them back.

A video game is an experience. If you leave an amusement park, or a Hollywood movie, you don't get to sell your ticket to a guy outside, so he can go in and get entertained on your purchase.  
 
I understand all the various arguments that used game buyers use. And it's legal to buy used games. It's also legal to cheat on your spouse. And I see buying used games as cheating on devs. As a content creator in my line of work, I think anyone could understand why I feel that way. As I originally said, I don't argue against the used market (as the OP suggested). But as devs begin to restrict what used game buyers can enjoy, I think used game buyers can't complain. They know they're getting the product for less, and going around the company that made it to get entertained.

I'm really shocked to see so many people trying to say that used sales hurt the industry.  Secondary markets are wonderful tools for everyone in an industry.  Used games mean that, if I want, I can more freely buy new games because I know I can sell it later on.  Cars are a very powerful example of that feature of the secondary market: when buying a new car, trading in your old car helps immensely.  If you bought a new car knowing that once you drove it off the lot it was 100% valueless and destined for the junk yard, buying a new car would be a much larger investment than it is.  That means I can take more risks and buy games I wouldn't even consider if I can't sell them used.  I can also buy more games simply because I have more money.   Used sales also put games in the hands of people that can't afford new prices, potentially giving them incentive to save and buy a new copy of the next game in the series or just the next game by the publisher. It also allows games to be useful far after any developer would even consider supporting the software.  For example:  I went and bought two used copies of mario kart double dash to have an old school 8 person game with 2 Tv's.  This would have been impossible without a successful used market.
 
Even more than that a robust secondary market can only ever exist if the product is valuable.  Gamestop or whoever can sell used copies of games because there are people out there buying them new.  The fact that there are some people out there that would buy new if there was no used market doesn't outweigh the benefits to the industry as a whole.  The  idea that a used game is a 1:1 replacement good for a new product is fantasy except for a small portion of the market, simply because the size of the used market is determined by the size of the new.  Developers need to stop being so short sighted and start trying to offer more value instead of attacking legitimate consumers.

1) "I'll just wait for a used copy so I can save $10-$15 on the purchase" = "bloo bloo bloo online-pass ripping me off"

2) "A used game is worse than a pirated game" - Countless developers and publishers, and the sad truth

If it's not on the store shelves, virtual or physical, go for it. If you're a cheap scumbag belonging to group#1 then you're part of the problem and the creation of online passes.

@Ygg said:

I like people that buy used games but call pirates nasty names. It's so funny.   You're both refusing the publisher/developer money. Admittedly you may be giving a small amount back by purchasing DLC, though.

Buying used games gives game stores money which gives a lot of people jobs. There's a huge difference between pirating and buying used!

What a useless thread. It's so simple, really and it was said on page two or three.

Q: Are you entitled to sell your games used if you want to?

A: Yes

Q: Is it morally wrong to do so?

A: No

Q: Does the used games market hurt developers financially?

A: Yes.

Given this, it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether to shell out the extra $10 for a new copy to support the developers or save some cash and buy a used copy which only gives money to the retailer.

As for the piracy angle: Both buying used and downloading illegally gives the developer the same amount of money: $0. However, one is illegal, the other is not.

@i77ogical

@Jimbo said:

@i77ogical

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game. 

Why should the dev have any claim on a copy of a game after they have sold it? If you bought a house from somebody, the original builder wouldn't see any of that money, even though you are enjoying the result of their work. I bet you'd be pretty pissed if the builder came around and took all the tiles off your roof though, and said you had to pay him to put them back.

A video game is an experience. If you leave an amusement park, or a Hollywood movie, you don't get to sell your ticket to a guy outside, so he can go in and get entertained on your purchase.  
 
I understand all the various arguments that used game buyers use. And it's legal to buy used games. It's also legal to cheat on your spouse. And I see buying used games as cheating on devs. As a content creator in my line of work, I think anyone could understand why I feel that way. As I originally said, I don't argue against the used market (as the OP suggested). But as devs begin to restrict what used game buyers can enjoy, I think used game buyers can't complain. They know they're getting the product for less, and going around the company that made it to get entertained.

That's because amusement park access and cinema access are sold as a one-off service, not a product like games are (at the moment). When they put a Hollywood movie in a box and sell it on a store shelf, it becomes a product, and you can sell it on again if you wish, like any other product. If you are a content creator in the game industry (or whatever line of work you're in) then you should know the difference between selling a service and selling a product. You also understand the rules of the market place every single time you release and sell a game as a product. Instead of releasing products and then complaining about how products can be re-sold by the purchaser, the industry either needs to switch to a service model (transparently) or suck it up. It's not cheating on anybody, because the rules of the market are well established and the industry understands and accepts them every time they decide to develop a game and sell it as a product. Unlike a personal relationship, the consumer hasn't entered into or agreed to any kind of commitment to the content creator at all, and nor do they need to, because that's not how the marketplace works. They aren't 'going around' anybody to get entertained - the company that made it gave up any claim they had on the entertainment delivered by that copy of the game when it was sold as a product the first time. The purchaser is buying an already-sold copy and doesn't owe the creator shit, because that copy no longer belongs to them. If you don't accept the rules of the market, then stop developing games for that market. Don't continue to sell to it and then complain about how unfair it is afterwards.

@i77ogical: Cool, I think they're within their rights to sell their product however they want as long as they are totally transparent on the packaging about what is and isn't considered a part of the product. If multiplayer access isn't transferable for example, then it isn't an inherent part of the product; it's an additonal non-transferable service which just happens to come free with the product at first sale. I'm ok with that as long as it's made clear on the box. I don't currently buy used games, but given this move will drive down the price of (now multiplayerless) used copies, and given I typically don't care about multiplayer at all, I may well start.

I think the value people place on that content will nosedive once it switches from being a re-sellable product to a non-transferable experience, but that's the industry's prerogative. If they want to start a race to the bottom like PC game pricing, ebooks, digital music etc., so be it.

I'd rather support a game developer by paying them money for something instead of paying a second party that money. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Everyone has to do their part.

Jumping in quite late to the party and also not entirely sure of my position, but I'd like to bring a few things up.  Firstly, there have been a lot of comparisons made which aren't entirely fair.
 
The fundamental issue is that games have a very different production model than traditional products, and do not easily fit into the legal framework that was set up in a world without products like these. The vast majority of products have low fixed costs and high variable costs, and as such will effectively 'pay for themselves' on first sale. A carpenter makes a chair, and will charge the cost of the wood, a premium for his time, and probably also a small premium for the cost of his personal experience, which will increase over time as he makes better producst and can command a higher price. A lot of the examples given have been trying to compare games to traditional products such as these, which is wrong. 
 
Games have a very high fixed cost and almost no marginal costs (printing out an extra DVD costs pennies, packaging and distribution is a low percentage of the costs). This means that they need to sell a certain amount at a certain premium to cover all these costs - but then, if they sell many more, they make a large profit. This (imo) invalidates the claim that 'a used game has already been paid for once, so they got their money already!' - the business model used is not based on being paid once per unit produced, it's based on producing as many units as can be sold so they can cover the monumental fixed cost. 
 
There are other industries that work on this basis - such as pharmaceuticals; huge R&D costs, low cost of production, for drugs. They too have a pretty high price per unit, and there are complaints about that, but that's because *so much* money goes into the early stages (only 30% of drugs that have gone through all necessary trials will be found fit for sale, so not only do pharmaceuticals need to cover their own R&D costs, they need to cover 2 other drugs' R&D costs as well!). The reason this specific problem is less apparent with drugs is that they are much harder to replicate or pass on to others (because they are prescribed and consumed - these problems still exist, but are less apparent).
 
I am rambling on here, so just one more point I feel should be noted - one of the reasons that used games are seen as such a problem is the lack of depreciation of the product. Though it is possible to wear out a cart/disc, it takes a *lot* of playing, usually. This means that one sale can be sold used a dozen times or more. If that were the case (I am not saying that it *is* the case that the average used game is resold 12 times!) then it's not just $60 that the devs aren't seeing, it's hundreds and hundreds of dollars. So bear that in mind when discussing 'money not going to the devs' - it could be more than just the value of one more sale. 
 
These are just the issues that got to me from the pro-used side. There are many issues on the other side (such as the fact that the money gained from reselling can be spent on new games, reducing the magnitude of the problem, or that getting rid of the used market entirely gives the makers of top titles pretty much a monopoly position on their games, which they can use to extract much more money than they currently do). However, this post is already far too long, so I won't get into them. Yet.

I tip my hat to @Jimbo. You've gained another follower, sir.

As for the topic, I won't argue anymore myself. Like @hckling said, buying used games is neither illegal nor inherently immoral, so I will not allow other people to force me into believing it is or it should be both of them. If you buy your games new, good for you. If you buy your games used, good for you. It is impossible to reach a consensus that benefits both parties, so I will start looking just for myself, just like "the industry" looks for itself.

You could argue against used games from the developers or the publishers side of things certainly. To them it is seen as something like piracy but I think likening used games buyers to pirates is unhelpful and crass. I take issue with the consumer being the one who almost always gets the blame, because its blaming the consumer for being smart and saving money. You can educate the consumer and make them understand the implications of buying used might have on there favorite game series but the comments and attitudes taken by the GB or PA guys are flat out insulting. To me the used game issue is something to be worked out by places like Gamestop and the developer/publishers. They seem to have a close relationship but basically one were the publishers/developers resents how much money Gamestop makes on used games. Steps like online passes are a good way of preventing used games sales and getting money off used games sales and I have no issue with them for now. Online modes for instance have used buyers as technical free loaders taking server resources with out paying anything.  
  
Basically I think accusing the customer of doing anything wrong is absurd and I wouldn't chastise someone for trying to save money. Publishers and developers should however find acceptable ways to combat used sales.

@i77ogical said:

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game.

Let's say I get a used game for €10. Then, if I'm interested in the multiplayer aspect of the game, I'll have to pay another €10, give or take, to access the "online pass" or however they want to call it. If those €20 I've just spent on that game are less than the price of getting it new, I don't see the problem. I understand maintaining servers and stuff can be expensive, so if that "online pass" somehow pays for those costs, I won't be complaining.

On the other hand, locking out single player content like Bethesda plans to do with Rage is a completely dick move. The dev has already made its money out of the original purchase and the single player needs no maintenance like multiplayer servers. This specific variant of the "€10 bucks more if you brought it used" is especially greedy on the part of the developer and hurtful towards the consumer.

Game developers do absolutely everything in their power to nickel and dime gamers. They try to squeeze every last dollar out of us. Fair enough. 
 
On the other hand I, as a consumer, am only interested in looking out for my financial well being. I will always look for a cheaper deal, whether that is used or discounted. 
 
Usually both parties meet in the middle and achieve a sort of compromise where both of us can feel satisfied in what we bought/sold. Developers constantly playing the pity card and bitching about how they are entitled to having a profitable outcome with every game they put out is ridiculous. Earn it developers. You aren't a charity, no matter how many clueless gamers treat you as such.

@Klei said:

Why is it a dick move? If you want to play the game as intended, buy it. It's their right to lock out content and I support it. If you don't want to pay id and Bethesda for their game, it's entirely fair that you miss out on content.

You know what? You're totally right!

It's the corporations man. Bringing us down.

I only buy used, but never at Gamestop.

The entire used market hurts developers argument assumes that a sub-par game would otherwise get bought at full price if not for the evil Gamestop. I reiterate, games of known quality get bought new regardless. The fact is only titles that shouldn't have been priced at $60 to begin with need to fear the used market at launch. As for the bigger picture, it's absurd for video game creators to expect to be able to "double dip" when a used game is sold. No other type of consumer product has the luxury of getting a piece of the action when their product is resold so why should Activision, EA, etc. be any different?

@i77ogical said:

@Jimbo: Now, in my mind, I don't buy a game but a software license sold directly and only to me. That means no reselling it.

That's fine if that's how the market works 'in your mind' (and in theory that is how the PC market operates, because the consumer is forced to actively agree to the terms of a EULA). In reality it doesn't work like that of course. The original purchaser has paid for both the copy of the game and the right to sell it on again (and the right of everybody that purchases it used to sell it on again, ad infinitum). That right doesn't come free - it accounts for part of the initial sale price, and the publisher (via retail) has happily taken that money. Now, if you want to forego that right, which you have paid for, then that's fine and very charitable of you (and I do commend you for wishing to support the industry as much as you can), but there's no reason anybody else should feel bad about exercising a right which is not only legal, but which the publisher has already taken money for.

Would the market support a $60 price point if consumers knew games had zero resale value? I doubt it. Will the industry make up the difference by selling more new copies at a lower price? That remains to be seen. Gamestop et al would also presumably need to start taking a bigger cut of new game sales, to make up for earnings lost from used sales.

----

The comparisons some are making (not necessarily i77ogical's, I don't recall) between used game sales and piracy are plainly ridiculous, for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread. At least there is always one original sale per used copy in existence, which isn't the case with piracy. By buying a used copy, you may not be funding the industry directly, but the person who bought it originally has already paid something, both for their right to sell it and your right to buy it. With piracy the industry doesn't get anything from anybody, which is why it's so much more damaging than a used market is. The used market is capped at however many copies sold in the first place, whereas piracy has no cap at all.

@i77ogical said:

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game.

Even if you buy it new you still dont get 100% of the game due to pre-order bonus's, day 1 dlc & witheld content that's already on the disc, that they charge you for later down the line. I understand that's more the publisher milking you dry but you cant support a developer without supporting the publisher.

As far as used games go it's up to you whether you want to support the developer and personally I like having the choice. If I know a games gonna be awesome and respect the devs i'll buy it, if i'm not so sure i'll rent it and maby buy it when it's cheaper to buy new. The only time I ever buy something used is when it's either no longer available new or ridiculously overpriced given that it's a 5+ year old game. (since that's generally when they run out of new copies.) Anyway people like choice, which is why the used market still exsists and I wouldnt have it any other way.

@Three0neFive said:

The same arggument can be made in favor of piracy. I'm not against either, but people who claim to be against piracy and then proceed to go and buy all their games used are hypocrites. Bottom line is, while neither hurt the developer, neither support them either.

@MattyFTM said:

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used. Which is correct.

You guys act as if we owe game developers something. I don't owe any game developer or corporation shit. This fucked up industry has programmed us into feeling like these corporations are victimized by those who buy used. If a game isn't good/interesting enough for me to buy within the first two weeks, make a better fucking game or make one better than the competition. Customers of game sales in general are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

@LeetBalla said:

@Three0neFive said:

The same arggument can be made in favor of piracy. I'm not against either, but people who claim to be against piracy and then proceed to go and buy all their games used are hypocrites. Bottom line is, while neither hurt the developer, neither support them either.

@MattyFTM said:

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used. Which is correct.

You guys act as if we owe game developers something. I don't owe any game developer or corporation shit. This fucked up industry has programmed us into feeling like these corporations are victimized by those who buy used. If a game isn't good/interesting enough for me to buy within the first two weeks, make a better fucking game or make one better than the competition. Customer of game sales in general are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

Nope, we don't owe them anything. Let's turn this argument around, they don't owe us anything either. This is business not charity. If they feel they need to create a system where they get money for a used game then they can do that. You are free to complain about it and not buy the game or even boycott the developer/publisher if you want to. However, there is no need to call consumers stupid that feel it's fair that they want a slice of the used game sales, it's not as clearcut as you might think it is.

Personally, the idea that a game has to be good enough to buy it in the first two or three weeks is exactly what is wrong with this industry. I don't know of any other industry where the products succes hangs on only 2 or 3 weeks, after which there is a slew of slightly cheaper used copies available at all the major retailers who actively try to sell the used copy instead of the new one. I am not sure what the best solution would be for this problem, because you are right that this is one fucked up industry where developers, publishers and retailers all have trouble making money while actively trying to screw eachother over.

I am especially worried about the coming months that seem extremely oversaturated with high quality games. In the current economic climate I only see a couple of games achieving succes, a couple of games doing well enough to break even and the rest will flop terribly. I bet we'll see a lot more lay-offs and studio closures after the dust is settled and the holiday season is over.

This thread is too long and something similar to this may have already been said. If so, please ignore my thoughts.

I fully believe that it is the consumers right to sell their property and to buy the property of another consumer. In this way, I have nothing against the used market.

My only real problem with the used market comes from the fact that when you spend $50 at Gamestop, via Craigslist, or wherever on a game that is a month old, the developer and publisher don't see any of it at all. In that way, it does not support the industry. I always buy new except for aging games that I cannot buy new and can typically only be found at used game stores or through other gamers.

Honestly though, I do not really care how you choose to spend your money. That's your right and your decision.