Why used games are nowhere near piracy....

When you bought the game, you DON'T OWN the game. What you bought is a LICENSE to PLAY it. Hence, why you are not allowed to modify or change the game and have no right to sell the game to another person. This is what you don't get. A video game isn't a physical thing, it's an intangible thing. Anyone who brings up the car or any physical thing analogy is being illogical.lordlors

The idea that its a license and you can't sell it is wrong. You can sell it, that's why gamestop exists, that's why ebay exists, that's why all these stores that carry games now have trade ins. You CAN sell it and its not a license solely for you, that's just not logically true.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="lordlors"]When you bought the game, you DON'T OWN the game. What you bought is a LICENSE to PLAY it. Hence, why you are not allowed to modify or change the game and have no right to sell the game to another person. This is what you don't get. A video game isn't a physical thing, it's an intangible thing. Anyone who brings up the car or any physical thing analogy is being illogical.lordlors

Do you have any precedents of that? Because the only one I am aware of is a court case being Autodesk and an Ebay seller. One court said it's okay to resell software, and another said it wasn't. It's pretty much a legal grayzone at this point.

I'm more inclined the believe that as a consumer, I can resell anything that I bought. I paid money for it - its mine. The right of first-sale is not a new idea, the games industry just likes to pretend it is.

I don't sign a legal contract when I buy a game. The purchase is not the same as some sort of binding signiture. This is also not accurate.

It is one thing to sell a used game to a neighbor or friend or a stranger coming to your yard sale buying the game for $5-$10 and that is where the first sale doctrine comes in, but when you sell your game to a retailer for that $5 (if you are lucky you get a bit more) who turns around and sells it for $50 more, he is raking in large profits on that game compared to that new game that is selling for $60 that the company paid maybe $40 or so for it from the publisher (I would go for more) and only gets a few dollars profit per game.

That is the gripe of publishers and developers (I linked to an article earlier showing said profits vs. sales earlier, but facts have a way of getting overlooked around here). The huge profits that are being made by GameStop is ridiculous and maybe they should be charged that extra fee, but if you want to buy a used game from them instead of a new for just a few bills more, than you are as big a part of the problem as the store is. I can see it if you want to buy a game for $15 compared to $60 and that is no problem, but if you are gonna buy a game that is $55, why not just shell out the other $5 for a new game instead so the publishers and developers get the money instead?

Everyone wants to point fingers at publishers and developers and while I agree that they should do a better job of releasing a finished product, it all boils down to gamers who are really at fault for it all.

WhiteKnight77

Because the whole point of buying used is to get the game cheaper then the original price. It doesn't really matter whether its 5 bucks or 50, the majority of people who buy games don't do it to support anything other then their own fun and frankly, the publishers bottom line isn't our problem. I also simply have a problem with blaming gamestop. The publishers kiss gamestops ass, put up or shut up, that simple.

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

nosmokingbandit

That book was paid for, by the library system.

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

WhiteKnight77

That book was paid for, by the library system.

as is the used game...

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

WhiteKnight77

That book was paid for, by the library system.

The game was paid for, by the original buyer.

Because the whole point of buying used is to get the game cheaper then the original price. It doesn't really matter whether its 5 bucks or 50, the majority of people who buy games don't do it to support anything other then their own fun and frankly, the publishers bottom line isn't our problem. I also simply have a problem with blaming gamestop. The publishers kiss gamestops ass, put up or shut up, that simple.

ActicEdge

If you are not willing to pay for a game, then you have no right to complain about a game not being finished, buggy or the fact that they are wanting to sell you DLC. Don't want to pay for the Online Pass that publishers are now charging? Buy the game new. If you buy a used game for $50-$55, and then pay the $10 that they are wanting for the privilege playing the game online, then you are already not saving any money or actually, paying more for it.

As I said before, it is gamer's own fault for the predicament placed in front of them with "expensive" games, buggy games, unfinished games etc.

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

WhiteKnight77

That book was paid for, by the library system.

Often not, actually. I volunteered at a library for a few years and a large amount of the books were donated. I donated quite a few books myself to clean out the bookshelf.

Even so, if the library bought one copy of Ender's Game (a personal favorite of mine), they are letting hundreds of people "steal" the experience of this book from Orson Scott Card (the author) according to some of the facetious arguments earlier in the thread. The outcome is the same for both the author and the game dev in this case: they each get paid once and the product is enjoyed several times by many different people.

So again I ask, do the opposers of used game sales protest libraries and their flagrant theft from authors?

Lately gamers have been up in arms about games being considered art (which I agree with, they should), but certain pitfalls accompany games being considered art. They must be subject to the same market paradigm as any other art form. Games can't expect to be equal with other forms of art yet retain some kind of special set of rules.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

lazerface216

nah it's mine, and i have a right to trade that game online for another game of my choice. lol are my dvds and blurays not mine either?

[QUOTE="lazerface216"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] they arent actually yours, you just gain the right to use it, but the game always belong to the company. and they make money when they sell a copy, if a person who has never played buys a copy from you, they are not making any money and now 2 people will have played the game, not just 1lightleggy

nah it's mine, and i have a right to trade that game online for another game of my choice. lol are my dvds and blurays not mine either?

Its not illegal to sell them, regardless of the label put on them (at least in the US, i dont know where you live). Its just a scare tactic from developers/publishers, the First Sale Doctrine clearly states this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

yep only hermits say that

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="lazerface216"]

nah it's mine, and i have a right to trade that game online for another game of my choice. lol are my dvds and blurays not mine either?

nosmokingbandit

Its not illegal to sell them, regardless of the label put on them (at least in the US, i dont know where you live). Its just a scare tactic from developers/publishers, the First Sale Doctrine clearly states this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] no, they arent yours, no matter how bad you wish it, and yeah your dvds and blu rays arent yours either. and have you seen those games with a "NOT FOR RESALE" label on top of them? thats because its actually illegal to trade them/sell them used lightleggy

Its not illegal to sell them, regardless of the label put on them (at least in the US, i dont know where you live). Its just a scare tactic from developers/publishers, the First Sale Doctrine clearly states this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Supposed to be != Is. Publishers dont get to make laws.

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

navyguy21

They got their money when someone paid for the game in the first place. After that, they don't get any say in the matter.

yep only hermits say that

dontshackzmii

I justify used gaming by saying that, if the game is good enough, it would have held my interest long enough so I wouldn't sell it before the end of the first month. Recently, I've sold Enslaved, Vanquish, and Black Ops all within a month of owning and deciding that they didn't have the content to justify keeping them. Since I sold Vanquish for about $40, I think I'll support the devs and buy it again at some point, I feel bad about selling such a spectacular, yet short, experience.

Seriously, people don't sell games like Uncharted 2 or Halo. You know why? Because they are great games. When Bungie or Naughty Dog start complaining about how used games are preventing their potentially AAAA games from selling as much, I'll listen, but its just publishers whining about how their yearly titles that metacritic under 80 take a hit because people would rather wait and buy their piece of crap for $40 used than $60 new.

Without the used game market, I feel like prices would stay too high for too long. I'd say, if devs were smart, they'd embrace used sales and make some quality DLC. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood had a smartly priced SP expansion that was very much worth the price. You can't buy used DLC. Make the game worth playing, otherwise I have no sympathy of people selling it.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

Vari3ty

They got their money when someone paid for the game in the first place. After that, they don't get any say in the matter.

I just posted my copy of COD blackops on a torrentsite, they got their money when I paid the game anyway and after that they don't have a say in the matter.

Just to be clear, I was not serious about posting blackops on a torrentsite. ;)

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Because the whole point of buying used is to get the game cheaper then the original price. It doesn't really matter whether its 5 bucks or 50, the majority of people who buy games don't do it to support anything other then their own fun and frankly, the publishers bottom line isn't our problem. I also simply have a problem with blaming gamestop. The publishers kiss gamestops ass, put up or shut up, that simple.

WhiteKnight77

If you are not willing to pay for a game, then you have no right to complain about a game not being finished, buggy or the fact that they are wanting to sell you DLC. Don't want to pay for the Online Pass that publishers are now charging? Buy the game new. If you buy a used game for $50-$55, and then pay the $10 that they are wanting for the privilege playing the game online, then you are already not saving any money or actually, paying more for it.

As I said before, it is gamer's own fault for the predicament placed in front of them with "expensive" games, buggy games, unfinished games etc.

The game was paid for, I didn't know that "used" money was a different currency then "new" money. Its not my problem that the current structure of games is broken. I had been advocating alternative methods for the last like 3 years, what else do you want? For me to support the structure that I am opposed to and still be against it? Naw. I'm not paying $60 for a game, its not my fault as a consumer that I don't see value in $60 games. Its the publishers fault for not making it so and I really doubt if used game sales disappeared game prices would drop.

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] no, they arent yours, no matter how bad you wish it, and yeah your dvds and blu rays arent yours either. and have you seen those games with a "NOT FOR RESALE" label on top of them? thats because its actually illegal to trade them/sell them used lightleggy

Its not illegal to sell them, regardless of the label put on them (at least in the US, i dont know where you live). Its just a scare tactic from developers/publishers, the First Sale Doctrine clearly states this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

If it was illegal we wouldn;t have places like gamestop existing so openly. ITS NOT ILLEGAL.

What difference does it make if it's yours or not? Nobody cares what you do with your copy. I see adds in the local paper every week with people selling games and system and guess what, no police go and arrest them. People sell games at yard sales all the time, give and trade copies et cetera. People do what they want with their games every day. Even if it is technically illegal to pass them along, stupid laws are made to be broken.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

yep only hermits say that

Arach666

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

rastotm

They got their money when someone paid for the game in the first place. After that, they don't get any say in the matter.

I just posted my copy of COD blackops on a torrentsite, they got their money when I paid the game anyway and after that they don't have a say in the matter.

Just to be clear, I was not serious about posting blackops on a torrentsite. ;)

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

yep only hermits say that

SilverChimera

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

yep only hermits say that

SilverChimera

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"][QUOTE="Arach666"] And now apparently some devs as well.MFDOOM1983

1. You can't say that as a fact. Who is to say that the person buying the used game would definitely have purchased the game regardless of price. Most people buy a used game over new mainly due to price differences. If a game that retails at $40 new can be bought for $20-25 used, doesn't seem like a bad idea. Again, we can't say for sure whether the person buying the game used was definitely going to buy it in the first place.
2. The used game is one copy. Pirated games can be anywhere from 1 copy to millions, all illegally reproduced off of 1 file.
3. Even then, the end result is their ****ing problem. The used game is obtained legally while the pirated game was not.

I wouldn't say its as bad as piracy but used games aren't perishable items or or replenishable,

basically the owner sells/gives his dr.peper to a friend, he drinks it, that delicious softdrink now needs to be replenished. Or an xbox owner sells his xbox to a friend and the xbox dies 3 months in due to wear and tear, regardless of whether or not the friend gets his money back, that xbox now needs to be replaced with a new one.

Now take a look at software, is there wear and tear on software? does it dissapear after use? Nope, unless you scratch the disc, the information doesn't ever wear out, so new copies don't really need to be replenished in a used market. New sales in software will generally be slower over time compared to other types of items.

I think games are some of the most costly software where the dev's can't just keep pumping out new versions with new features, and their target market are entitled spoiled brats that expect no incentives to buy new so they can buy used for $5 cheaper and return it in less then a week, or want an 80 hour epic saga when 90% of the people that will play 15 hours in, or free content after, and $20 content packs that add substancial content that would almost warrant a sequel.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"][QUOTE="Arach666"] And now apparently some devs as well.Arach666

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

These are people who went into a store with the intention to buy. Most likely theyd buy it new for a few bucks more if there wasnt a used version.

Its a fact that someone who buys a used game feels its worth money to buy the game, you cant prove the same for a pirate.

Kickinurass

Can you prove that the person who bought used would have ever bought the game at full price?

And where is everyone getting the idea that people buy games that are only marked down $5. Most people I know that buy used games won't consider it unless we're talking about savings of $20 or more.

The pirate may not have any money or not be willing to buy the game if it wasnt available for free.

You cant argue that a used game sale is much more likely a lost profit for the dev than a pirated game.

Gamestop has been selling used games with small savings for years. Obviously many people buy them.

I don't know it seems like installing new pc games seem to get annoying. What ever happened to not having an online connection and just installing a game then playing it? This is why pc gaming is dying out because the hoops we jump through just to play a new game is outrageous.

They're pissed because its a legal way for other people to make money off of their product. Theoretically, gamestop could make $100 off one copy of a game.

Identical to selling pirated copies. But thats Illegal :P

Honestly when you buy new that doesn't necessarily mean the developers are going to get a part of the money.

I mean yeah it's new but why do you think it goes down on the price?

Used game sales and piracy have the exact same effect on the publisher/developer.Remmib

Then we shall SHUN ALL USED GAME BUYERS!!! OH WAIT just about everyone does it.

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

navyguy21

Of course books/movies/albums can be resold for a steady stream of income from the same product. You've never heard of used book/movie/record stores? How are those any different than what GameStop does?

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

navyguy21

Not sure how you came about that analogy, as buying and selling used games (something that can be used indefinitely) is obviously different than buying and selling one time use tickets to Disney World. What you say would make sense in terms of copyright infringement, but reselling used games isn't copyright infringement as per the first sale doctrine.

If developers/publishers are concerned about used sales perhaps they should make more games that people want to keep, rather than something that loses its worth so quickly thousands of people are willing to trade it in at GameStop for about the cost of a Big Mac?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

PBSnipes

Of course books/movies/albums can be resold for a steady stream of income from the same product. You've never heard of used book/movie/record stores? How are those any different than what GameStop does?

There isn't any difference, unless you count the fact that some consumers are actually buying the cries from the industry this time instead of turning a deaf ear to corporate whining, and seem open to freely curtailing their own rights over their own property. The video game industry is bringing in more money than ever before, but aren't investing it as wisely. We end up wiith fewer quality releases, less content per game, and ridiculously high budgets. The problem with the gaming industry isn't a lack of income, it's a lack of fiscal restraint. Getting games released on time, on budget, and in a playable state would do a helluva lot more for these multi-billion dollar corporations' bottom line than this sorry attempt to restrict property rights. The Television, Film, Book and Music industries face much more immediate threats to the growth of their (outmoded) business models, and even they haven't stooped so low as to try to elimate the used markets for their content (well, recently, anyhow). This "argument" plays a lot better to teenagers and on internet forums than it's ever gonna do on main street...

at least that's what I keep hoping... :?

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

Plagueless

Piarcy: No money goes to the Developers

Used game sales: No money goes to the developers

Yup there nowhere near Priacy.

Piarcy: No money goes to the Developers

Used game sales: No money goes to the developers

Yup there nowhere near Priacy.

Ikuto_Tsukiyomi

Piracy: No Money goes out to the market at all.

Used Game Sales: Money is being given to the Workers at the Used Game Store.

Yup they're no where near Piracy.

[QUOTE="Ikuto_Tsukiyomi"]

Piarcy: No money goes to the Developers

Used game sales: No money goes to the developers

Yup there nowhere near Priacy.

LegatoSkyheart

Piracy: No Money goes out to the market at all.

Used Game Sales: Money is being given to the Workers at the Used Game Store.

Yup they're no where near Piracy.

Only pirates who try justify their pirating will say they are the same or similar. On used games devs already made their money. How about making the game better so people won't sell them on craigslist or get ripped off at Gamestop.

Ill put it into a simpler and much easier to understand scenario because your analogy absolutely fails. Imagine you are a songwriter and you have just finished your CD. You spent time and money making it. You make 1000 copies to sell at your school. Everybody at your school is a cheap bastard. 1 person buys one copy from you brand new, listens to it and sells it to the next person. That person listens to it and sells it to the next person. The cycle repeats until everyone who would have bought the CD from you, has already listened to it. You sold only 1 CD. This analogy is not to reflect what really happens in the used games industry. Its to reflect the effect it has on the developers and publishers. They get nothing from used games sales. They also get nothing when someone pirates their games online. See why people compare it to piracy? Now with that said, Im still torn on this issue because Ive always been used to borrowing and lending out my games without having the experience compromised.USBxDVD

[QUOTE="USBxDVD"]Ill put it into a simpler and much easier to understand scenario because your analogy absolutely fails. Imagine you are a songwriter and you have just finished your CD. You spent time and money making it. You make 1000 copies to sell at your school. Everybody at your school is a cheap bastard. 1 person buys one copy from you brand new, listens to it and sells it to the next person. That person listens to it and sells it to the next person. The cycle repeats until everyone who would have bought the CD from you, has already listened to it. You sold only 1 CD. This analogy is not to reflect what really happens in the used games industry. Its to reflect the effect it has on the developers and publishers. They get nothing from used games sales. They also get nothing when someone pirates their games online. See why people compare it to piracy? Now with that said, Im still torn on this issue because Ive always been used to borrowing and lending out my games without having the experience compromised.KungfuKitten

The consumers are also part of this fight. Its basically the publishers vs Game Stop and the consumers. The publishers are doing this prevent the consumers from buying used and being able to sell used (if nobody buys used, GS wont buy from you). I think its absolutely essential that a gamer can lend out games and borrow games from friends or even share with family members without losing the full experience. Now we have to deal with one time only online passes thats destorying a tradition weve all been used to.

I never considered rental stores to be part of this because I was always under the impression that the publisher gets a cut from every rental though I never really looked into it.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="USBxDVD"]Ill put it into a simpler and much easier to understand scenario because your analogy absolutely fails. Imagine you are a songwriter and you have just finished your CD. You spent time and money making it. You make 1000 copies to sell at your school. Everybody at your school is a cheap bastard. 1 person buys one copy from you brand new, listens to it and sells it to the next person. That person listens to it and sells it to the next person. The cycle repeats until everyone who would have bought the CD from you, has already listened to it. You sold only 1 CD. This analogy is not to reflect what really happens in the used games industry. Its to reflect the effect it has on the developers and publishers. They get nothing from used games sales. They also get nothing when someone pirates their games online. See why people compare it to piracy? Now with that said, Im still torn on this issue because Ive always been used to borrowing and lending out my games without having the experience compromised.USBxDVD

The consumers are also part of this fight. Its basically the publishers vs Game Stop and the consumers. The publishers are doing this prevent the consumers from buying used and being able to sell used (if nobody buys used, GS wont buy from you). I think its absolutely essential that a gamer can lend out games and borrow games from friends or even share with family members without losing the full experience. Now we have to deal with one time only online passes thats destorying a tradition weve all been used to.

How come I never hear used-game-condemning posters talk about the value of new games? Do they just automatically trust the devs and publishers and believe that every game released is absolutely worth the price they're asking? If consumers thought that was the case there wouldn't be such a large market for these used games. Do they think gamers should blindly run out and buy every game that comes out at $60 a pop, including all the massive amounts of crap that comes out? Reward lazy developers? Yeah right...

Also this idea that all used games are only $5 cheaper than new games is absurd. I buy my fair share of new games when I think it is warranted, so I think I have every right to buy a few at a discount.