Used Games v. Piracy

[DoubleTime]

First let me say if a business isn't turning a profit, it closes. Running businesses is difficult and costly and breaking even isn't enough for it to be worth continuing. That extra profit is what keeps game and film makers going and allows them to keep turning out great games and improving on their successes.

[/soapbox]

Second, I think a lot of the issue lies in the fact that the game companies are going after the consumers rather than the companies that are reselling their product and keeping all the profit *cough*Gamestop*cough*. If the companies like Gamestop were forced to give a portion of their proceeds off of used games it wouldn't gouge the game makers.

Alternatively game makers should really realize that people ARE going to wait for the lower priced used games because some people just can't afford it. A price drop on their part with some kind of cut-down trial might be the best option. Consumers who don't want to pay full can "pay as you go" for unlocking portions of a game. Initial sale is, say, $10, for a sparse trial that doesn't necessarily finish. Various extras, like side missions, certain weapons, or other unlockables would cost proportionally towards a full copy of the game letting the consumer pick and choose and slowly pay the company for the game rather than dropping a lot of money at once.

Potentially a system like that could bring in more customers since people would be more willing to try something for less and then if they like it they are more willing to buy the rest of the game (similar to the free-to-play models). It could also get rid of the used games market because there would be little value to be gained from something you buy for cheap and build up.

This is just an idea, and there's probably a lot of bugs, but I thought it might be worth saying.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

His point was that the equivalent loss of value for games would be things like a scuffed up case, a scratched up disc, or a missing manual. What game companies are doing is more like the used book store pulling out 50 pages or so, and then charging you to put them back in instead of taking back a defective product -- or a car dealership yanking out the air conditioner, and expecting them to pay you to put in a new one. It's just not kosher.

that would be relative if the taken portion was something of actual worth.
in this case its a sewer level that contains at best 30min of gameplay, that would be less AC and more diddly bob at the end of the antenna.
even shale(the best example and best day one DLC to date) was at best an added 2 hrs.

30 minutes to two hours is significant, though. It would be like a season boxed set of a TV series missing anywhere from one to four episodes, depending on how long the episodes are and how long the cut portion is. And this isn't like buying a set on E-bay and finding out one of the discs is missing -- it's getting all of the discs but having one that won't play unless you pay a fee above and beyond what you've already paid.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers?

Because from the game company's point of view, used games are WORSE than piracy.

A pirate at least has extra cash to buy something else. And a lot of pirates are "preview pirates" - they try a game, and if they like it, they buy it. In either of those cases, the publisher might see some money at some point.

Used games - never. That's why publishers hate used games so much - for the game company, they're worse than pirates. A lot worse.

Does that make their response right? No. Extra Credits had some really good ideas about ways that game companies could screw over used game retailers without hurting customers - they had a whole episode about it. However, so far, no game company has tried it like that. But, even though I dislike what the game companies are doing about it, I can understand why they find it necessary. I just wish they'd listen to EC and try some of their methods to hurt used game retailers while rewarding players.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Then make a better game for cheaper to entice people to hang onto their games rather than trade them in. Make it seem like less of a loss to buy it in the first place. Is it any less legal to not be able to return a game if it is too bug free to play? Or simply a terrible game? Since when are game developers not able to be held accountable for their shoddy work?

That would be a straw man. That point has nothing to do with the core fact that a used video game sale and a pirated copy of the game have the same end impact on a developer. Please, attack the point directly instead of using a straw man if you wish to debate.

Alright, here's a better argument for that: if the end result for the developer is the same whether someone pirates a game or buys it used, how is piracy all that bad? No industry in the history of the world has been outcompeted by its own used market, so if piracy is really only as bad as that, it should be a non-issue, right?

Or alternatively, piracy is worse because, you know, pirates introduce new copies of the game into the marketplace and drive the value down, while used markets require each copy to be sold new at some point, and helps it to sustain a higher initial value, because people are able to recoup some of their initial investment by reselling. One of the two.

 

[Tibike77]

I know the used car analogy is used all the time, but it still stands.

No, it doesn't.
Cars are mostly physical goods (with some IP stuff too).
Games are mostly IP goods (with some physical stuff thrown in).

If you steal a car, nobody gives a damn about the IP part, and the damage is done by the absence of the physical form from the previous owner.
"Stealing" the IP part of a car (or any other mostly-physical-good) is called counterfeiting, and there ARE laws against that too.
If you pirate some software, nobody cares one bit about the physical support it's on (because it doesn't even change hands), with the only noteworthy point being the copyright infringement // "IP theft", and the "lost sales" figure (which is not equal to the unit price times pirated copies, but that's a different story).

Companies should reward players for buying new, not punish them for buying used.

What's the difference ? I'll tell you what : the terminology you use when looking from a different vantage point and nothing else.
Rewarding person A for event X which is mutually exclusive with event Y means you ARE punishing person B for doing Y.
In this case, X is "buy new" and Y is "buy used".

How exactly do you propose game makers should reward those that "buy new" in a way that NOBODY would feel it "punishes used game buyers" ?
I'm really curious what you could possibly come up with.

 

[Epona]

Simple solution is simple. Used games give a cut back to the publisher up to say, one year after the original release date.

Not too tough to figure out is it?

That would set a horrible precedent. Next used car you buy may be 10% more because they have to give money to GM. You know that cost will be passed on to the consumer, Gamestop/car dealerships/pawn shops/etc won't eat the cost.

 

[Son of a Mitch]

Personally, I think that the used games are helping out the game industry more than it gets credit for. There are a lot of people out there (myself and friends included) that don't get much money to spend on games each year, so the odds of us buying a new $60 game is low. However, we might be more inclined to buy the game used when the price goes down after a few months/years. If the game is good, then we might consider buying some DLC or be more inclined to buy games from the same publisher later on.

Without the used game sales for people like me, the publishers wouldn't get ANYTHING from us, because we wouldn't be able to buy it in the first place. But as it is, there is the possibility of earning a bit from DLC and future sales.

 

[oplinger]

Read my post above; the individual consoles, as well as the difference between digital distribution and hard copies, each make up a different revenue stream. Also, CDs are not just making up the difference. CDs are where the real money is made, at least for the labels; the individual artists may make most of their money on tours, but it's because the labels don't see much of the tour money.

Edit: Also, I don't care what the hardships on their end. From a consumer's stand point, the product they are selling is materially similar to a CD or a DVD. So similar, in fact, that they have no reason to cry if people start buying movies instead of videogames. Again, economics 101: alternative products.

CDs aren't where the real money is made. The label sees money depending on the contract. The label however will always see the most profits. Most touring money goes back to the label to cover the costs of actually going on tour. The CDs costs go into making the CDs, paying off workers, funding the next tour, very little goes to the artists. The label makes a killing on both.

It's materially similar? Plastic with some foil on it? ..Well sure if you want to put it that way, you're right. However since they only make money on their little plastic discs, and pour the same amount of man hours into it, if not more. Why does it have to cost the same? Or less?

 

[hermes]

Secondly, Gamestop bought over a billion dollars worth of used games last year. $750 Million of that by consumers went towards purchasing new games. That's right. So that money went towards publishers pockets directly.

No... $750 million went into buying other USED games from GAMESTOP. There are serious differences between buying a used game or a new game.

You complain a lot about greedy companies trying to get all your money, so instead of giving 60 dollars to the company (a percentage of which goes to the developers of the game), you chose to give 55 dollars to gamestop (which takes the entirety of your money to its vault). Then you complain when publishers use DRM, DLC or an online pass, or when studios are closed because their work undersold. But everything is fine: you get to save enough to buy a Big Mac, and its likely those poor managers on gamestop deserved your money more than Pandemic, Midway, THQ, LucasArts, Ensemble, Eidos, Junction Point or Harmonix (those bastards).

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Then make a better game for cheaper to entice people to hang onto their games rather than trade them in. Make it seem like less of a loss to buy it in the first place. Is it any less legal to not be able to return a game if it is too bug free to play? Or simply a terrible game? Since when are game developers not able to be held accountable for their shoddy work?

That would be a straw man. That point has nothing to do with the core fact that a used video game sale and a pirated copy of the game have the same end impact on a developer. Please, attack the point directly instead of using a straw man if you wish to debate.

Nope. The developer has been paid for his work regardless of how well the game sells. It's the publisher that is looking to get some money. It may impact "future" games from that developer, but that depends more on the quality of the title itself (determining how many people will buy it).

Used games help indirectly as it still keeps money within the industry, enabling the retailer to purchase more new games from the developers to sell on release day. A used game buyer may well not have put money into this pool if the game had been more expensive (ie. new). Thus they were enticed by lower prices.

Myself, I believe making a quality product, and supporting it, will go much further to keeping those used games off Gamestop's shelves as people will be less inclined to trade it in, thus helping fix the problem as well.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Read my post above; the individual consoles, as well as the difference between digital distribution and hard copies, each make up a different revenue stream. Also, CDs are not just making up the difference. CDs are where the real money is made, at least for the labels; the individual artists may make most of their money on tours, but it's because the labels don't see much of the tour money.

Edit: Also, I don't care what the hardships on their end. From a consumer's stand point, the product they are selling is materially similar to a CD or a DVD. So similar, in fact, that they have no reason to cry if people start buying movies instead of videogames. Again, economics 101: alternative products.

CDs aren't where the real money is made. The label sees money depending on the contract. The label however will always see the most profits. Most touring money goes back to the label to cover the costs of actually going on tour. The CDs costs go into making the CDs, paying off workers, funding the next tour, very little goes to the artists. The label makes a killing on both.

It's materially similar? Plastic with some foil on it? ..Well sure if you want to put it that way, you're right. However since they only make money on their little plastic discs, and pour the same amount of man hours into it, if not more. Why does it have to cost the same? Or less?

This is turning into a NO U argument, but it's very rare for a label to get a significant cut of ticket proceeds. Ticket sales are where the artist makes their money, as they actually see a very small percentage of record sales -- and that's because the record sales go almost exclusively to the label. [edit]You know, just like videogames? The industry is based on a work for hire model, and the budget that everyone hears about mostly goes to paying the developers. They pretty much never get royalties from sales, and only rarely get a bonus for something that sells exceptionally well.[/edit]

As for how it's materially similar, well, it's plastic with some foil on it that contains an entertainment product. Regardless of how it's packaged, videogames are in competition with movies, books, and CDs for people's money, yet they insist on pricing themselves as if they were a day at Six Flags. Books can sell for less than the rest because they cost so little to produce, but as I pointed out earlier, films cost quite a bit more than games to make. A mid-range blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make. A flippin' huge AAA game costs $50 million to make, with only one game even hitting $100 million to date. And as I've pointed out twice now, videogames have as many or more revenue streams than any of their competitors, so "games don't have live performances" isn't really a valid argument.

 

[Stall]

Alright, here's a better argument for that: if the end result for the developer is the same whether someone pirates a game or buys it used, how is piracy all that bad? No industry in the history of the world has been outcompeted by its own used market, so if piracy is really only as bad as that, it should be a non-issue, right?

Or alternatively, piracy is worse because, you know, pirates introduce new copies of the game into the marketplace and drive the value down, while used markets require each copy to be sold new at some point, and helps it to sustain a higher initial value, because people are able to recoup some of their initial investment by reselling. One of the two.

Better. The unfortunate reality of used games is that it cuts a developer out of a sale. That's the ultimate point I am trying to make. It's harmful to the industry, just like piracy is harmful. If games aren't profitable, then people will stop making them. It's the simple as that really.

The thing about used games that your argument fails to capture is that a used game can be re-sold and re-bought multiple times. There's nothing stopping someone from selling a used game back, so it can in turn have the same impact as piracy, i.e. multiple people playing the game even though the developer only received profits from one unit.

I'm not really trying to say used games are BAD, but it's difficult to deny that the industry itself is damaging to the people making and distributing the games. Hence is why you are seeing more and more publishers and developers fighting used games as well as piracy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Alright, here's a better argument for that: if the end result for the developer is the same whether someone pirates a game or buys it used, how is piracy all that bad? No industry in the history of the world has been outcompeted by its own used market, so if piracy is really only as bad as that, it should be a non-issue, right?

Or alternatively, piracy is worse because, you know, pirates introduce new copies of the game into the marketplace and drive the value down, while used markets require each copy to be sold new at some point, and helps it to sustain a higher initial value, because people are able to recoup some of their initial investment by reselling. One of the two.

Better. The unfortunate reality of used games is that it cuts a developer out of a sale. That's the ultimate point I am trying to make. It's harmful to the industry, just like piracy is harmful. If games aren't profitable, then people will stop making them. It's the simple as that really.

The thing about used games that your argument fails to capture is that a used game can be re-sold and re-bought multiple times. There's nothing stopping someone from selling a used game back, so it can in turn have the same impact as piracy, i.e. multiple people playing the game even though the developer only received profits from one unit.

Actually, my argument does capture it when it points out that every industry in the history of the world has had to deal with it. If you're being out-competed by your own used market, you need to lower prices, or shut up and go out of business -- because if you're not willing to lower your prices to compete, you deserve to go out of business, and if you're not able, then your business model is deeply flawed, and you still deserve to go out of business. Capitalism works both ways -- it can screw consumers out of their money, but it can also screw businesses out of a profit. It's just one of the risks you take by starting a business.

 

[oplinger]

Read my post above; the individual consoles, as well as the difference between digital distribution and hard copies, each make up a different revenue stream. Also, CDs are not just making up the difference. CDs are where the real money is made, at least for the labels; the individual artists may make most of their money on tours, but it's because the labels don't see much of the tour money.

Edit: Also, I don't care what the hardships on their end. From a consumer's stand point, the product they are selling is materially similar to a CD or a DVD. So similar, in fact, that they have no reason to cry if people start buying movies instead of videogames. Again, economics 101: alternative products.

CDs aren't where the real money is made. The label sees money depending on the contract. The label however will always see the most profits. Most touring money goes back to the label to cover the costs of actually going on tour. The CDs costs go into making the CDs, paying off workers, funding the next tour, very little goes to the artists. The label makes a killing on both.

It's materially similar? Plastic with some foil on it? ..Well sure if you want to put it that way, you're right. However since they only make money on their little plastic discs, and pour the same amount of man hours into it, if not more. Why does it have to cost the same? Or less?

This is turning into a NO U argument, but it's very rare for a label to get a significant cut of ticket proceeds. Ticket sales are where the artist makes their money, as they actually see a very small percentage of record sales -- and that's because the record sales go almost exclusively to the label.

As for how it's materially similar, well, it's plastic with some foil on it that contains an entertainment product. Regardless of how it's packaged, videogames are in competition with movies, books, and CDs for people's money, yet they insist on pricing themselves as if they were a day at Six Flags. Books can sell for less than the rest because they cost so little to produce, but as I pointed out earlier, films cost quite a bit more than games to make. A mid-range blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make. A flippin' huge AAA game costs $50 million to make, with only one game even hitting $100 million to date. And as I've pointed out twice now, videogames have as many or more revenue streams than any of their competitors, so "games don't have live performances" isn't really a valid argument.

So basically you're a self-entitled consumer who wants the best quality product for little to no cost to you? That's an astonishing revelation.

You just want all your luxuries without shelling out the cost needed to create them. You also don't seem to understand what a revenue stream entails, you're also confusing "revenue stream" with "steady influx of profits that has a set value"

Not to mention that 1 million units for a game is a massive success, DVD sales can hit over 5 million. easy.

You're either really bad at thinking, or really bad with logic. Either way, you're skewing the information to tailor to a flawed argument. It's coming apart at the seams.

 

[Busdriver580]

The argument that used game trades help more money go to new sales is true, but not really convincing. A pirated copy leaves that gamer with more money than a used trade, which could potentially but not necessarily be spent on a new game. Therefore Used game sales are equal to or worse than piracy.
I realize that the above statement is very much an "Honor System" sort of thing, but then so is the assumption that a trade in goes towards new games.

I'm not condoning piracy, i'm condemning used game sales.

And stop bringing up books and music, they cost much less to produce and can survive on fewer sales.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Read my post above; the individual consoles, as well as the difference between digital distribution and hard copies, each make up a different revenue stream. Also, CDs are not just making up the difference. CDs are where the real money is made, at least for the labels; the individual artists may make most of their money on tours, but it's because the labels don't see much of the tour money.

Edit: Also, I don't care what the hardships on their end. From a consumer's stand point, the product they are selling is materially similar to a CD or a DVD. So similar, in fact, that they have no reason to cry if people start buying movies instead of videogames. Again, economics 101: alternative products.

CDs aren't where the real money is made. The label sees money depending on the contract. The label however will always see the most profits. Most touring money goes back to the label to cover the costs of actually going on tour. The CDs costs go into making the CDs, paying off workers, funding the next tour, very little goes to the artists. The label makes a killing on both.

It's materially similar? Plastic with some foil on it? ..Well sure if you want to put it that way, you're right. However since they only make money on their little plastic discs, and pour the same amount of man hours into it, if not more. Why does it have to cost the same? Or less?

This is turning into a NO U argument, but it's very rare for a label to get a significant cut of ticket proceeds. Ticket sales are where the artist makes their money, as they actually see a very small percentage of record sales -- and that's because the record sales go almost exclusively to the label.

As for how it's materially similar, well, it's plastic with some foil on it that contains an entertainment product. Regardless of how it's packaged, videogames are in competition with movies, books, and CDs for people's money, yet they insist on pricing themselves as if they were a day at Six Flags. Books can sell for less than the rest because they cost so little to produce, but as I pointed out earlier, films cost quite a bit more than games to make. A mid-range blockbuster movie costs $100 million to make. A flippin' huge AAA game costs $50 million to make, with only one game even hitting $100 million to date. And as I've pointed out twice now, videogames have as many or more revenue streams than any of their competitors, so "games don't have live performances" isn't really a valid argument.

So basically you're a self-entitled consumer who wants the best quality product for little to no cost to you? That's an astonishing revelation.

You just want all your luxuries without shelling out the cost needed to create them. You also don't seem to understand what a revenue stream entails, you're also confusing "revenue stream" with "steady influx of profits that has a set value"

Not to mention that 1 million units for a game is a massive success, DVD sales can hit over 5 million. easy.

You're either really bad at thinking, or really bad with logic. Either way, you're skewing the information to tailor to a flawed argument. It's coming apart at the seams.

No, you're really bad at capitalism. Value is what the market will bear. If costs are so high that the market won't buy what you need to charge to stay in business, you will go out of business. That's just the way things work.

Oh, by the way, nice ad hominem there. I'm not self entitled; if anyone is, it's the people who don't know enough about the value of a dollar to understand just how much $60 is, because they've clearly never been anything but rich.

 

[Voltano]

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

From my perspective, used games have the end result of a pirated game, no money given to the developer/publisher. One is legal in North America, whereas another is questionable in the legality/ethical view. However, at the end of the day one person is playing a game that has had several hours into the making, and the developer/publisher is not earning a penny for the work they done. The equivalent would be a group of players constantly nagging at their Dungeon-Master friend in "Dungeons & Dragons" to write out a great adventure on paper so they could play it with other players, but not pay their friend for the time and effort he put into writing up that adventure.

I'm an amateur game designer and programmer, currently working as a freelance programmer, and I could sympathize with these publishers/developers as I know there is a lot of work that goes into making these games. I had several clients that didn't pay me for what they hired me for, so I can understand the view that the customer could be an enemy. However, changing some business tactics could enhance the product and earn more profit, without discriminating against any client.

Team Meat [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111771-Team-Meat-Doesnt-F-cking-Care-About-Pirates] has the best view on pirates, in my opinion. They seem to see it as a way of attracting more players to their game, which could lead to more sales. Considering the difficulty that goes into "Super Meat Boy", this is a smart move to me as it lets people try the game out and see if it is worth purchasing. The developer doesn't have to release a demo (unless there is a demo for "Super Meat Boy" that I'm not aware of), yet they still have the opportunity to earn some money.

So long as these developers/publishers are not getting paid, they will find ways to 'scavenge' more money from their consumers--hence the use of "online pass" or DLC. But, anyone that has any experience in project management or business would consider changing a few variables so they could remain profitable without discriminating their customers--which is where I think companies like EA, Ubisoft, and apparently Id software seems to be ignorant on.

 

[[BDS]Omega]

If companies aren't willing to support a single copy of a game for as long as the servers are up, then they shouldn't have an online option at all or they should charge extra for the online to all players. Maybe they could sell a new game for $60 with 1 year free online multiplayer and $10 a year after that while charging $10 to go online when you buy used. It's stupid to separate single player from multiplayer but that's the only way it makes sense to charge multiple times for a single copy.

Think of it like this:

Game sells new for $60. Publishers, Retailers and Distributors take a cut of that money. The Development team then has to pay the people who made the game (or repay investors who provided the upfront capital to pay the employees in the first place). Whatever is left over is what the company can use to not only maintain their own workplace equipment they use to make the game but also to support the recently released product (which means you pay the employees again).

With a used game the Publisher and Developer get no money to pay employees, support the game, etc. In this case the retailer keeps all the money from the used sale. Online multiplayer is expensive to maintain, even for a game that has dedicated multiplayer servers, it gets exponentially more expensive for the company to host the servers themselves. Servers are generally reliable but like everything that is used consistently, it eventually breaks and needs to be repaired or replaced. Also you must factor the bandwidth costs, not only at release but over the life of the game. Additionally you have to keep large data storage centers with redundancy if you have completely online content to ensure that someone who stops playing the game a month after release can pick it up 2-3 years later and continue progress where it was left off.

I will concede the point that one does have to look at single player games differently than multiplayer games. An exclusive single player game like Fallout 3/NV would require significantly fewer resources from the developer than WoW. A subscription based model would work for an online game but outside of WoW and CoD: Elite (I am sure there are other examples of this) the developer is still not receiving money for the online play. On the PC and PS3 there is no user fee for online gaming (aside from your own internet connection you pay for) and X360 to my knowledge you pay Microsoft more than you do the developer.

In short there really is no perfect solution to the "problem" of used games and nearly everyone is at fault. The developers and publishers need to provide incentives for purchasing new products (free day 1 DLC, some sort of collectible, etc), the used retailer should be liable for providing a portion of the proceeds of a used sale to the people who made it (similar to the French system for art (Droit de suite). The artist (or their descendants) would receive a percentage of the sale price in recognition of the effort exerted to create it. Consumers are not really at fault for purchasing a game used as when money is as tight as it is, people can hardly be put at fault for seeking out the best deal in a capitalist free market.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

so instead of giving 60 dollars to the company ... you chose to give 55 dollars to gamestop

People actually do that? Seriously?!

When I think of used games, I think of buying a whole bunch of games from a few years ago for the price of a single new release, not an almost-new title for almost-new price.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Alright, here's a better argument for that: if the end result for the developer is the same whether someone pirates a game or buys it used, how is piracy all that bad? No industry in the history of the world has been outcompeted by its own used market, so if piracy is really only as bad as that, it should be a non-issue, right?

Or alternatively, piracy is worse because, you know, pirates introduce new copies of the game into the marketplace and drive the value down, while used markets require each copy to be sold new at some point, and helps it to sustain a higher initial value, because people are able to recoup some of their initial investment by reselling. One of the two.

Better. The unfortunate reality of used games is that it cuts a developer out of a sale. That's the ultimate point I am trying to make. It's harmful to the industry, just like piracy is harmful. If games aren't profitable, then people will stop making them. It's the simple as that really.

The thing about used games that your argument fails to capture is that a used game can be re-sold and re-bought multiple times. There's nothing stopping someone from selling a used game back, so it can in turn have the same impact as piracy, i.e. multiple people playing the game even though the developer only received profits from one unit.

I'm not really trying to say used games are BAD, but it's difficult to deny that the industry itself is damaging to the people making and distributing the games. Hence is why you are seeing more and more publishers and developers fighting used games as well as piracy.

Is this why people have stopped painting pictures because of photography? Or people have stopped writing books because of the copy machine? People have stopped making music because of the record button?

People will always be creative. And if their outlet is games, that is what they will make. It is simply the "big business" version that will fail. The publishers and the marketers will fall, because those people are just riding the backs of others to make money. They are the ones that need to change their game, or society will change it for them. There will always be money to make. How it is made is what matters, and hurting the consumer to make it will only drive the consumer towards those that don't.