Ohh even better lets ban all thrift stores and salvation army stores. To hell with the poor we all must by new! Old is illegal! Yea! out of control capitalism.

as for multiplayer, again this is factored in and companies can and do pull the plug on their customers without a thought for their rights if their game is not a success number wise.

anyway dlc and in game purchases is where publishers can make money.

lastly you are wrong to say no other business has to support their products. ever heard of warranty? something many games publishers don’t know the meaaning of.

ridiculous argument.

If you ever attempt to stop me from purchasing a “used” game or console, I will abide. I vow that I will NEVER PURCHASE ANOTHER PRODUCT FROM YOU FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. This includes any Microsoft product and any Sony product.

Be forewarned that you will collapse from your own stupidity.

Can you imagine if Ford or Toyota said you could not purchase one of their vehicles used, you had to purchase new ones only? How would that work out for them?

I don’t want always-on DRM as the new Xbox is rumored to have. This means that when the system is eventually no longer supported by Microsoft (just as the original Xbox no longer is, and the 360 won’t be sometime in the next couple/few years), you instantly lose access to ALL of the games that you paid for on the system. And there’s a good chance that the servers for some individual games could get shut down sooner if it’s not profitable enough.

The idea of banning used games, while the lesser evil if they can at least be played offline, is still pretty bad as well to me for the same concern… long term access. Let’s say that they require an activation code to be entered while connected to the network to activate the game on the console, but after that it can be used offline indefinitely. Okay, that’s not so bad… as long as the system DOESN’T break, stop working, have the hard drive crash, etc. What happens when/if that occurs after the console is no longer supported?

I’m already paranoid about the DLC from the current crop of consoles. RIght now if a 360 or PS3 “dies”, you can get the licenses transferred to a new/replacement console. I try to avoid DLC where possible, but sometimes is hard to pass up. I still try to do what I can to preserve it. I’ve actually bought the re-releases of games with the DLC on the disc in some cases after having already bought the original disc and the DLC. I actually have two PS3s in part because I wanted an extra Blu-Ray player, but also in part because Sony lets you download the items to 2 consoles and use them offline. None the less, I’m still concerned about what happens when these systems are no longer supported, and what will happen with the upcoming systems.

I have many game systems (over 15 of them) going all of the way back to the Atari 2600. The vast majority of my games were purchased new. I have bought a few used games over the course of time, but most were bought new. I’ve only ever traded something in once or twice in my life, and one case I actually regret….. I hang onto my games long term. Most of the time if I buy a used game, it’s one that I missed out on previously that is no longer being made.. often for an older, retired system. I also have some games that I’ve own for years that I still haven’t finished with the intent of going back at some point and doing so. For most of these systems, if the unit dies, I can track down a replacement on ebay or wherever and still play all of my game cartridges/discs with no problem. I actually had to get a replacement SNES about 8 or 9 years ago. If a single game gets damaged in some way to the point of no longer working, I just need to track down a replacement of that one game. And one game getting damaged doesn’t result in a loss of my whole collection.

My point here is that I spend A LOT on gaming. Just for the 360/PS3/Wii generation (I have all 3 systems), I have well over 100 games between all 3 systems…. 99% of which were purchased new (maybe not all at full, initial release price, but they were still new copies at the time of purchase). I am not the kind of customer that the people who make these games want to lose. But for me, long term access it a MAJOR selling point, including my ability to maintain access beyond the system’s “retirement” from production and first-hand sales. And by blocking the used games market, putting always-on DRM, etc, on these games, they are making that difficult if not impossible. In their efforts to stop pirating and used games sales, they will push away someone like me who mostly buys new.

I’d rather have the FULL game (including all “DLC”) on a disc for a somewhat higher, but reasonable, price that I can use in any system then have them charge me less and implement these practices.

With all due respect, I really don’t understand people who get upset over these things but say it’s okay if the price comes down. It’s like saying, “Well it’s okay for you to start bending me over and violating the hell out of me, as long as you do it for half the price of what you’ve been charging me up until this point!” I really don’t understand the thought process that goes with that.

Loser.

This all becomes irrelevant when they stop making physical copies of the games and go online distribution only, since we already accept that we can’t resell games bought in the in-console stores.

I’ve heard it argued that tangible goods like cars wear down and lose value, so the used market isn’t as much of a problem. But in reality, video games lose value *more* rapidly as new technology is developed and new consoles are released, rendering the old games obsolete. Certainly, a few classics retain their value over time, but the same is true with classic cars.

The unfortunate reality is that as the video game market has expanded, the business model has changed. Once, developers–who were game creators at heart, not businessmen–tried to consistently make good games in exchange for reliable returns and a mild profit. Now, business-types with no personal investment in game quality struggle to maximize shareholder returns over the short-term, just long enough to propel their own careers forward, with little regard for the quality of what they are releasing.

When profits inevitably fall, these business-types can’t very well respond by making better games; they don’t know how, and have no interest in that sort of slow, long-term solution. Instead, they devise aggressive means of extracting more money from their remaining consumers, aimed at inflating stock prices for a few quarters.

Prohibiting used game sales is one of those short-term solutions devised by business-types. Never mind that used game sales ultimately expand the market for video games, by making it easier for young, low-income people to play games and develop a long-term interest. Never mind that the used game market ultimately helps consumers buy *new* games, when they trade in old titles on which developers have already profited.

In the short-term, shutting down the used game market would probably be quite profitable, since it would immediately force existent consumers to buy games at full price. And unfortunately, short-term gains are all that these business-types care about.

In a free market, consumers have a right to sale what they’ve purchased. Game developers shouldn’t get more money for the resale of a game. Did the money for the original purchase somehow get lowered because the game was bought by a store such as GameStop?

I hate hearing arguments such as the writer’s in this article. It makes no sense. Just apply this way of thinking to cars, computers, furniture, appliances, etc…Now manufacturers are to get a residual on the sale of these used items? This doesn’t hurt Game developers. That was a greedy argument at its conception. Nothing else operates with this idea that you can collect residual off of resale. Movie studios and record labels would love for this ridiculous concept to happen.