Used Games are simply another form of Piracy (THQ joins EA to stop the used games market)

[MiserableOldGit]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

No it can't. A single legit copy can spawn innumarable pirate duplicates-the original itself can only be in one pair of hands at a time. Also, the sale of the game is often what allows the original owner to afford another new title. Gaming companies need to get their heads around the fact that when you sell someone a game, it belongs to them, and unless they're doing something out and out wrong like mass distributing copies by uploading it to a file sharing site, its up to them what they do with it. If a car company started moaning about second-hand sales theyd be told to bugger off-same goes for games.

4 posts above yours I've gone into considerably more detail. Read it, if you feel like arguing afterward by all means do so, but I'm not wrong....and you are.

"I'm not wrong, and you are" How could I possibly respond to such a reasoned and well thought out response-you are clearly right, as I'm sure everyone reading this will agree...

 

[foodmaniac]

There is nothing wrong with buying used games, and it is NOT piracy. Essentially, when you buy a game, you are buying it from the developers, using a store as your medium. It therefore belongs to you, and not them, and they are not losing money because you have already bought it from them and are free to do what you want with them.

Think about a library. The library buys books from the publishing companies, and distributes the books that are THEIRS, and the publishing companies aren't making anymore money from it. And before you say that it's not a similar comparison, it is. Heck, if you think that selling used games is piracy, then libraries are even worse offenders because you're only paying about $5 for an unlimited supply of books compared to $30 for one used game.

 

[Richard Eis]

If i have bought a game, then i have bought it. Not rented it. Calling it "buying" when I haven't really is lying. Also pray tell mighty EA, what am i supposed to do with the game once i've played it and no longer want it? Add it to the landfill? How very responsible of you.

I can't give it to charity either. It's useless to everyone once i've used it.

Also, what does it really say about a company when it assumes all their customers are thieves.

 

[LitleWaffle]

I'll say what I said to the other one

So now that used game selling is bad, people will just go to piracy.

Thank you "logical" viewpoint!

Now amazon.com is as much a threat as Piratebay.com?

What has the world come to.

Oh goodies, now I have the name of the piracy site, this is a dream come true! =P

 

[Dys]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

No it can't. A single legit copy can spawn innumarable pirate duplicates-the original itself can only be in one pair of hands at a time. Also, the sale of the game is often what allows the original owner to afford another new title. Gaming companies need to get their heads around the fact that when you sell someone a game, it belongs to them, and unless they're doing something out and out wrong like mass distributing copies by uploading it to a file sharing site, its up to them what they do with it. If a car company started moaning about second-hand sales theyd be told to bugger off-same goes for games.

4 posts above yours I've gone into considerably more detail. Read it, if you feel like arguing afterward by all means do so, but I'm not wrong....and you are.

"I'm not wrong, and you are" How could I possibly respond to such a reasoned and well thought out response-you are clearly right, as I'm sure everyone reading this will agree...

I suppose I figured I'd act with all the thoughtlessness you did, by not bothering on reading the post slightly above yours elaborating on why it isn't different.

I suppose the stupid, irrelevant comparison to the automotive industry, born only of ignorance, lead me to a somewhat arrogant dismissal of your point of view. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to compare a relevant industry, or failing that at the very least one that doesn't openly rely on their product being sold second hand, that I'd have considered a more open response. However, you did not.

Perhaps also, the conceited train of thought that lead you to believe that only you, the end user, are capable of doing wrong by artists annoyed me. Back in the real world, buying stolen goods is frowned upon, it doesn't matter that you paid for them, it is still wrong.

The hypocrisy of crying no, without properly considering my initial point, lead me to respond in kind. You're whole train of thought screams naive and I can't help but shoot it down. If you bothered to read my second post, you will have insight as to why you're wrong, however I doubt very much that you'll respond to common sense. What's more likely, is you'll dismiss me as somebody selfishly defending piracy to somehow easy my own conscience(despite that in no way, shape or form resemble what I'm saying), and go on ignorantly believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling the intellectual property of someone else without their permission and without offering them any profit.

I say again, it makes no difference whether a store is distributing it for solid cash (excluding the developers entirely) or a cracker hosts it online, raising revenue through advertisements (and again offering no revenue to the copyright holders). This stupid comparison between piracy and physical theft is straight up wrong, a video game isn't a television set or an old pair of jeans. If you were to disassemble the television set and then offer to sell the knowledge how to construct it (ie sell the intellectual property of the party that developed it, which is still different to the videogame situation but getting closer) you'd be hit in the face pretty damn hard with a patent suite. Let me say it again, since repetition is fun, intellectual property and physical, real world property are not the same thing.

If you want to buy second hand games that's fine, I don't care. If you want to pirate games, again, that's your business and I don't care. What does annoy me, however, is when somebody utilising some impressive doublethink, tries to take the moral highground while completely ignoring the real situation.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

No it can't. A single legit copy can spawn innumarable pirate duplicates-the original itself can only be in one pair of hands at a time. Also, the sale of the game is often what allows the original owner to afford another new title. Gaming companies need to get their heads around the fact that when you sell someone a game, it belongs to them, and unless they're doing something out and out wrong like mass distributing copies by uploading it to a file sharing site, its up to them what they do with it. If a car company started moaning about second-hand sales theyd be told to bugger off-same goes for games.

4 posts above yours I've gone into considerably more detail. Read it, if you feel like arguing afterward by all means do so, but I'm not wrong....and you are.

"I'm not wrong, and you are" How could I possibly respond to such a reasoned and well thought out response-you are clearly right, as I'm sure everyone reading this will agree...

I suppose I figured I'd act with all the thoughtlessness you did, by not bothering on reading the post slightly above yours elaborating on why it isn't different.

I suppose the stupid, irrelevant comparison to the automotive industry, born only of ignorance, lead me to a somewhat arrogant dismissal of your point of view. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to compare a relevant industry, or failing that at the very least one that doesn't openly rely on their product being sold second hand, that I'd have considered a more open response. However, you did not.

Perhaps also, the conceited train of thought that lead you to believe that only you, the end user, are capable of doing wrong by artists annoyed me. Back in the real world, buying stolen goods is frowned upon, it doesn't matter that you paid for them, it is still wrong.

The hypocrisy of crying no, without properly considering my initial point, lead me to respond in kind. You're whole train of thought screams naive and I can't help but shoot it down. If you bothered to read my second post, you will have insight as to why you're wrong, however I doubt very much that you'll respond to common sense. What's more likely, is you'll dismiss me as somebody selfishly defending piracy to somehow easy my own conscience(despite that in no way, shape or form resemble what I'm saying), and go on ignorantly believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling the intellectual property of someone else without their permission and without offering them any profit.

I say again, it makes no difference whether a store is distributing it for solid cash (excluding the developers entirely) or a cracker hosts it online, raising revenue through advertisements (and again offering no revenue to the copyright holders). This stupid comparison between piracy and physical theft is straight up wrong, a video game isn't a television set or an old pair of jeans. If you were to disassemble the television set and then offer to sell the knowledge how to construct it (ie sell the intellectual property of the party that developed it, which is still different to the videogame situation but getting closer) you'd be hit in the face pretty damn hard with a patent suite. Let me say it again, since repetition is fun, intellectual property and physical, real world property are not the same thing.

If you want to buy second hand games that's fine, I don't care. If you want to pirate games, again, that's your business and I don't care. What does annoy me, however, is when somebody utilising some impressive doublethink, tries to take the moral highground while completely ignoring the real situation.

Quite the tirade for someone who doesnt care...
At what point did I advocate piracy? I was talking about selling a hard copy you already bought-If you can't see the difference between the two there really is no way to break it down to you (I'm just glad your not a lawmaker)-that bit about reverse engineering a telly has FUCK ALL to do with second hand sales-please don't put words into my mouth by infering I advocated piracy-I did not. You are one of the single most arrogant, curmudgeonly, ill-informed, and self-contradictory muppets I've had the displeasure of encountering on these forums. I'd point out the inconsistents in your (not so) little tirade, but you might actualy take a critical look, and that would rob the rest of us of the pleasure of reading your comically self assured tripe-please do respond...

 

[holographicman]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

No it can't. A single legit copy can spawn innumarable pirate duplicates-the original itself can only be in one pair of hands at a time. Also, the sale of the game is often what allows the original owner to afford another new title. Gaming companies need to get their heads around the fact that when you sell someone a game, it belongs to them, and unless they're doing something out and out wrong like mass distributing copies by uploading it to a file sharing site, its up to them what they do with it. If a car company started moaning about second-hand sales theyd be told to bugger off-same goes for games.

4 posts above yours I've gone into considerably more detail. Read it, if you feel like arguing afterward by all means do so, but I'm not wrong....and you are.

"I'm not wrong, and you are" How could I possibly respond to such a reasoned and well thought out response-you are clearly right, as I'm sure everyone reading this will agree...

I suppose I figured I'd act with all the thoughtlessness you did, by not bothering on reading the post slightly above yours elaborating on why it isn't different.

I suppose the stupid, irrelevant comparison to the automotive industry, born only of ignorance, lead me to a somewhat arrogant dismissal of your point of view. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to compare a relevant industry, or failing that at the very least one that doesn't openly rely on their product being sold second hand, that I'd have considered a more open response. However, you did not.

Perhaps also, the conceited train of thought that lead you to believe that only you, the end user, are capable of doing wrong by artists annoyed me. Back in the real world, buying stolen goods is frowned upon, it doesn't matter that you paid for them, it is still wrong.

The hypocrisy of crying no, without properly considering my initial point, lead me to respond in kind. You're whole train of thought screams naive and I can't help but shoot it down. If you bothered to read my second post, you will have insight as to why you're wrong, however I doubt very much that you'll respond to common sense. What's more likely, is you'll dismiss me as somebody selfishly defending piracy to somehow easy my own conscience(despite that in no way, shape or form resemble what I'm saying), and go on ignorantly believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling the intellectual property of someone else without their permission and without offering them any profit.

I say again, it makes no difference whether a store is distributing it for solid cash (excluding the developers entirely) or a cracker hosts it online, raising revenue through advertisements (and again offering no revenue to the copyright holders). This stupid comparison between piracy and physical theft is straight up wrong, a video game isn't a television set or an old pair of jeans. If you were to disassemble the television set and then offer to sell the knowledge how to construct it (ie sell the intellectual property of the party that developed it, which is still different to the videogame situation but getting closer) you'd be hit in the face pretty damn hard with a patent suite. Let me say it again, since repetition is fun, intellectual property and physical, real world property are not the same thing.

If you want to buy second hand games that's fine, I don't care. If you want to pirate games, again, that's your business and I don't care. What does annoy me, however, is when somebody utilising some impressive doublethink, tries to take the moral highground while completely ignoring the real situation.

At what point did I advocate piracy? I was talking about selling a hard copy you already bought-If you can't see the difference between the two there really is no way to break it down to you (I'm just glad your not a lawmaker)-that bit about reverse engineering a telly has FUCK ALL to do with second hand sales-please don't put words into my mouth by infering I advocated piracy-I did not. You are one of the single most arrogant, curmudgeonly, ill-informed, and self-contradictory muppets I've had the displeasure of encountering on these forums. I'd point out the inconsistents in your (not so) little tirade, but you might actualy take a critical look, and that would rob the rest of us of the pleasure of reading your comically self assured tripe-please do respond...

TROLL FIGHT!

 

[DTWolfwood]

Piracy is none profit to the pirate in 99% of the time. where as used game sellers make a 100% profit off a product they didnt make or publish. hmm...

there needs to be a law that requires some royalties to be paid for selling intellectual property of some1 else. doesn't have to be a huge percentage but it makes sense no?

 

[Dys]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

No it can't. A single legit copy can spawn innumarable pirate duplicates-the original itself can only be in one pair of hands at a time. Also, the sale of the game is often what allows the original owner to afford another new title. Gaming companies need to get their heads around the fact that when you sell someone a game, it belongs to them, and unless they're doing something out and out wrong like mass distributing copies by uploading it to a file sharing site, its up to them what they do with it. If a car company started moaning about second-hand sales theyd be told to bugger off-same goes for games.

4 posts above yours I've gone into considerably more detail. Read it, if you feel like arguing afterward by all means do so, but I'm not wrong....and you are.

"I'm not wrong, and you are" How could I possibly respond to such a reasoned and well thought out response-you are clearly right, as I'm sure everyone reading this will agree...

I suppose I figured I'd act with all the thoughtlessness you did, by not bothering on reading the post slightly above yours elaborating on why it isn't different.

I suppose the stupid, irrelevant comparison to the automotive industry, born only of ignorance, lead me to a somewhat arrogant dismissal of your point of view. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to compare a relevant industry, or failing that at the very least one that doesn't openly rely on their product being sold second hand, that I'd have considered a more open response. However, you did not.

Perhaps also, the conceited train of thought that lead you to believe that only you, the end user, are capable of doing wrong by artists annoyed me. Back in the real world, buying stolen goods is frowned upon, it doesn't matter that you paid for them, it is still wrong.

The hypocrisy of crying no, without properly considering my initial point, lead me to respond in kind. You're whole train of thought screams naive and I can't help but shoot it down. If you bothered to read my second post, you will have insight as to why you're wrong, however I doubt very much that you'll respond to common sense. What's more likely, is you'll dismiss me as somebody selfishly defending piracy to somehow easy my own conscience(despite that in no way, shape or form resemble what I'm saying), and go on ignorantly believing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling the intellectual property of someone else without their permission and without offering them any profit.

I say again, it makes no difference whether a store is distributing it for solid cash (excluding the developers entirely) or a cracker hosts it online, raising revenue through advertisements (and again offering no revenue to the copyright holders). This stupid comparison between piracy and physical theft is straight up wrong, a video game isn't a television set or an old pair of jeans. If you were to disassemble the television set and then offer to sell the knowledge how to construct it (ie sell the intellectual property of the party that developed it, which is still different to the videogame situation but getting closer) you'd be hit in the face pretty damn hard with a patent suite. Let me say it again, since repetition is fun, intellectual property and physical, real world property are not the same thing.

If you want to buy second hand games that's fine, I don't care. If you want to pirate games, again, that's your business and I don't care. What does annoy me, however, is when somebody utilising some impressive doublethink, tries to take the moral highground while completely ignoring the real situation.

Quite the tirade for someone who doesnt care...
At what point did I advocate piracy? I was talking about selling a hard copy you already bought-If you can't see the difference between the two there really is no way to break it down to you (I'm just glad your not a lawmaker)-that bit about reverse engineering a telly has FUCK ALL to do with second hand sales-please don't put words into my mouth by infering I advocated piracy-I did not. You are one of the single most arrogant, curmudgeonly, ill-informed, and self-contradictory muppets I've had the displeasure of encountering on these forums. I'd point out the inconsistents in your (not so) little tirade, but you might actualy take a critical look, and that would rob the rest of us of the pleasure of reading your comically self assured tripe-please do respond...

It is quite the tirade for someone who doesn't care, I suppose I'll direct you back to that last paragraph of my last post, the one indicating I don't really care whether you're for or against piracy, but I do get irritated with people taking the moral highground when ignoring the real world situation. (I sincerely hope that wasn't one of the 'contradictions' I've made in my rant)

I don't recall accusing you of advocating piracy, if you must emulate my smug tone, at least do so effectively. What I did say that you were to naive to see that piracy is no more damaging than second hand sales, and that the companies that profit from it are no different from the crackers (who's profits are comparatively negligible). Clearly, you've still not bothered reading my previous posts, you've completely ignored my point distinguishing piracy from theft. You've not responded to my calling you out on the automotive example. You have, however, succeeded in trolling a response out of me, so kudos on that.

I'm rather confused as to what I'm supposed to "comically respond" to? Should you bother reading my posts, and retaliating to my points (and, by all means demean them in any fashion you see fit, if there's a fallacy in my logic I welcome to you highlight it) rather than simply name calling and falling back to the time old counter of "well I'm right because you're a stupid head" I'd willingly do so...by refusing to counter my arguments and simultaneously asking I respond you contradict yourself nicely (though the aforementioned example of 'doublethink' would leave that to be expected). Show me where I contradict myself... I assure you my opinion makes perfect sense, and if I've expressed it wrongly I can certainly rectify it. If you'd rather ignore my and live in your fantasy world where good intentions rule what is right and just, fine go by a Prius [footnote]see, relevant automotive comparisons can be drawn, if you pick the right context....though I suspect this one is wasted on the overwhelming majority of people likely to bother skimming over this. I'd take the time to patronise you but I somehow doubt you'd bother reading it. If it is of any interest bring it up and I can explain it, if not...meh[/footnote], buy second hand games and pretend that there's no life cycle to products outside of when they are in your possession. Just don't tell me about it.

 

[A Free Man]

Haha I can't believe this is even a topic, I didn't read the whole 10 pages cause I am quite sure I'll be reading the same posts over and over and even though this has probably been said before I will say it from me. The two are very very different in my opinion. Firstly if I buy a game, it is now mine. I own it as I have bought the rights to use it. If I decide then to sell the property which is mine to someone else, it is totally in my rights to do so. Otherwise what do you suggest? Should ebay and the trading post be illegal? Should used cars be thrown into tips instead of recycled?

Also the biggest difference and the key issue I think is that one torrent uploaded by one person can lead to thousands of people who do not purchase said game, however a single copy of that game that is sold as pre-owned can only be sold a limted number of times before it will inevitebly be discarded, stop working or become out of date. So despite whatever people say I find it very hard to believe that both copies of the game can cause the same amount of damage. There is also the fact that (without the illegal use of a crack), once the disc has left the current owner that owner can no longer play the game legally. So really at any one point in time only one person can use the game. It is kind of like getting a group of friends to put in money to buy a game and then sharing it between you.

Game developers trying to put any spin on this is a sad attempt of a revenue grab and nothing more. I can't say I'd blame them everyone would like to earn a few more $$$ no matter were they work but they're not going to take it out of my pocket : P

 

[kiwisushi]

If they really do go down that way, there will be a lot of people walking away from the industry. I for one can't afford new games, so pretty much have no choice but play used or not at all.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

It's not another form of Piracy.

Second hand marketing has been around for ages, and nobody has complained about them before. We have all been OK with second hand stores for clothing, buying used Television sets, flea markets, the works. But now, because video game publishers say it's hurting the industry, it's suddenly wrong?

Fuck no, it's not wrong.

If I'm tired of something I own, something I either can't get enjoyment out of, or something if it's something I want to replace with something better, should I simply have to throw that thing away? Why can't I make a profit and sell it to someone else who needs it? Am I a bad person for helping someone acquire something they want for an even cheaper price than at the store? No, I'm not. I'm a good person for giving someone that opportunity.

THIS! Precisely everything stated here, I was just going to say.

Why are corporations so insistent in depriving us of our consumer rights?

 

[Gindil]

It's not another form of Piracy.

Second hand marketing has been around for ages, and nobody has complained about them before. We have all been OK with second hand stores for clothing, buying used Television sets, flea markets, the works. But now, because video game publishers say it's hurting the industry, it's suddenly wrong?

Fuck no, it's not wrong.

If I'm tired of something I own, something I either can't get enjoyment out of, or something if it's something I want to replace with something better, should I simply have to throw that thing away? Why can't I make a profit and sell it to someone else who needs it? Am I a bad person for helping someone acquire something they want for an even cheaper price than at the store? No, I'm not. I'm a good person for giving someone that opportunity.

THIS! Precisely everything stated here, I was just going to say.

Why are corporations so insistent in depriving us of our consumer rights?

We have rights? No, obviously it's our fault for not buying their crap.
Just one small thing folks, people have complained about the second market for centuries. The only thing that has changed is the actors on the stage. It went from publishers of books to publishers of games.

So in the end, the same result comes out. Life goes on, the same as always.

 

[The Stonker]

Hmm... So they want the game to be payd twice? How stupid are they.
Techniclly you've already bought the game and reselling it for a lower amount of money so how does that decrease their profit?
Plus EA on my opinion make the worst games.Yes I am a RTS and RPG fan.

 

[Dys]

Snippedy-doo-da

I assume, going from the way that you're banging on about intellectual propertly and the way that you decry used game sales, that you're also against the second hand selling of books, CDs, DVDs, Videos, Cassettes, Paintings, Photos... hell, any kind of artistic medium. Because at the end of the day, it's all the same thing. If I buy a CD from some nice guy at the local market, the artists who recorded that CD recieve no royalties from me whatsoever. If I buy a bunch of cheap books at the local second-hand book shop, none of the authors will see a penny from the money I spent. If I buy a nice watercolour landscape from a friend who has too many paintings clogging up his house, the painter will get zip, nada and jack-squit from the money I handed over to my friend. Is that fair? Doesn't the painter deserve to be paid for his artwork just as much as the publishers deserve to be paid for their game? If so, then that means that the entire art market is going to be going through a ma-hoosive shake up in the next couple of years. After all, with all these products I mentioned, it's not the actual physical material I've paid for, but the intellectual property contained within. Same laws apply. I can't sit down and copy Life Of Pi word for word and make my own copies, and I can't copy Call Of Duty and post it on the internet.

TLDR: If you're calling foul on the games second-hand market, then you need to cry foul on the entire second-hand market for all artistic products. If you do, that simply makes you a fool. If you don't, that makes you a hypocrit and a fool.

Fantastic, you've expressed an opinion. As I'm sure you can imagine, that makes it rather a lot easier to argue.

So, the secondhand sale of artistic mediums compared to that of videogames. A far, far better comparison than that of automobiles.

I'll start with paintings, because that is the easiest and most obvious medium to refute. When you buy a painting, you own it. You physically own the piece of art, and the original will always be worth more than any reproduction. Many people buy such pieces as investments, the artists sells it knowing full well they are selling that piece forever, and that they will never have further profits from it. It does, however, benefit the artist in that as they make a name for themselves, the profit of subsequent papers increases, many artists will hold onto some of their pieces knowing that if other pieces they have sold go up in value, the entire value of their collection increases. Hopefully you can see my point, at least within this medium, and if you're in any way reasonable, you'll likely agree that it is, in no way a comparable medium to video games.

CDs are less easy to refute. Though, in fairness, I've never been witness to the selling of second-hand music CDs anywhere outside of garage sales. This also applies to movie DVDs and VHS cassettes, and in my mind it could be a similar issue to that of second hand videogames, provided there were stores trading exclusively. At his point, I'll point out that while it doesn't give the developer/publisher any money profit from a garage sale, it is far less immoral than a company deliberately and regularly profiting from them. As a general rule though, I don't consider it any better than music/movie piracy, but I also don't see it as a problem for the industry.

Books are an interesting one, especially as many of the people who buy (expensive) books are students, and are therefore poor by nature. Bearing this in mind, and acknowledging the necessity of a student to own expense textbooks that are only useful for a single semester, one would probably call foul of students being banned from buying second hand books. I wouldn't think to do such a thing, I would, however, point out, that a student who buys second hand books as no moral high ground over a student who downloads the .pdf. I'm of the opinion that organisations trading in the purchase and sale of second hand books (and that are profiting from it), are doing so immorally and are every bit as detestable as the organisations doing so with video games. I don't actually know how widespread such practices are, I do know that many universities offer second hand books for sale, however I'm unsure if they are profiting from doing so. To be perfectly clear, it is still immoral to buy and sell second hand books like this, however it doesn't really harm the industry, I don't really consider it any better than downloading .pdfs. My attitude similar to my attitude towards video game piracy/sales, I don't really care so long as nobody tries to claim they are morally superior.

Then, there are also all of the old and rare books, that are no longer printed. Now, I imagine this differs from country to country, but there is a copyright law somewhere (this also applies to music, games, film etc) wherein the material is said to have entered into the public domain under certain conditions and copyright no longer applies. In these instances, the buying of second hand, rare or no longer printed books is hardly immoral (as usually the rightful own has passed away). This obviously becomes complicated and is littered with grey areas, but given my understanding of the current laws on public domain and copyrights, I tend to think the current system is fair enough.

Just in case you haven't noticed, I don't really care about the companies, my opinion is based on the realities of the situations, not the intentions of the end consumer. So, in essence, I'm not really calling foul on the second hand sales market, or the pirates. I'm saying that neither is directly better or worse for the companies. Buying second hand games does not help the developers, it has even been contended that it's more damaging than piracy. There are definite advantages to people buying games second hand (for example down the track their experiences may encourage them to buy new games from the same developers), but then again, isn't it true that pirates may also be encouraged to purchase a game[footnote]Yes, I know most pirates are dicks....but the shear number of them dictates that a significant number of them must not be[/footnote] or sequel to a game they've played illegally (for multi player, online features or simply because they can't wait for a sequel to have its drm craced)? My point is that it's not a black and white case of "buying is good, copying is bad", there are grey areas....

 

[Sakuji]

This line of thought is prompted by EAs decision to add serial keys to their sports games to stop the reselling of games.

So it does beg the question about used games.

They cut out the developers and ultimately hurt the studios. The only benefit is increased exposure of their games.

-Sound like anything else?

EDIT: alot of people are mentioning that when you buy a copy of a game - its all yours, but think about PC games. You buy a PC game and it's not really yours. Try to resell a copy of your PC game, and see what you get called.

edit edit: I only just noticed this story... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100606-Used-Game-Sales-are-a-Bigger-Problem-Than-Piracy

Not gonna read 1000 posts, but will toss in my .02c just for fun. We live in a society based on rights and ownership here in the US. When you purchase something, it belongs to you, and you may do with it as you will. You can resell your house, your car, your watch, and your phone. You can resell dvd movies and music cd's. You can also resale games. These rights have been upheld by the US supreme courts. You can also loan all of these items to your friends. You may NOT make a copy of them and SELL them to others while retaining the originals, that is copyright infringement. You may also not keep a copy and sell the original legally. If you sell a dvd or cd, or game, you are legally obligated to remove any "backup" copies you may have.
This is why internet "piracy" is in many battles. If I loan you a dvd, you may, of course, watch it. If I copy it onto a memory stick as a backup, and I go to your house, we can still legally watch it. Given that all data is now digital, can I loan you my dvd in a data only format? In other words, you "download" it Can the US federal government tell me how many friends I can have? I am retaining my original copy of my dvd, and I am "loaning" it to "friends" via pirate bay.
I used to play an Atari 2600 with cartridge games (think giant memory stick for you young people). It was normal for us to buy, trade, sell, and loan these games to each other, and it certainly did not hurt Atari, or any other gaming corporation. There used to be a game rental store near my house where you would rent games on 5.25 floppies and install them on your pc, and then return them. Gaming only grew and grew because of these practices, until it is now a multibillion dollar industry. Blizzard's yearly profits exceed that of many countries around the globe.
For the industry now to try to claim they are "failing" because of piracy and used game markets is not only completely ludicrous, but flat out insulting and a lie. These types of scare tactics have not worked against any generation in history, and the video game industry will continue to grow and produce.
Musicians should perform, actors should act, and game makers should make games. What we do with the finished product is our choice, and right, as citizens of a free country.

 

[bluepilot]

Games only ever have a limited time of being sold at the top price.

When a game first comes out, it costs maybe 40 pounds, 6 months later, maybe about half of the price, one year later, in the BOGOF bin.

The gaming industry is so fastly paced and innovative that the `value` of a game steadily decreases in a short space of time.

If people are happy enough to wait a few months to buy the game second hand, chances are that they will be happy enough to wait for the game to cost much less than the release price.

For this reason I do not think that closing down the second hand market will make much difference.

It will probably make things worse since the backlash might turn us to ping pong or some other hobbie.

Since people who play second hand games also need to buy hardware I think that the second hand game sales can actually help these game companies. Well, only nintendo counts I suppose...