Buying used is legal and moral because the publisher already got their cut from that used copy of the game. They got their cut when that copy was originally new and sold to the first buyer in stores. First-sale doctrine makes it legal to resell what you buy. It is a fundamental consumer right. You are allowed to sell not only your house, your car, you computer, etc. but also your music CDs and movie DVDs. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sell your videogames too. You can't use the "games are durable because optical discs and cartridges are pretty durable" here because Music CDs and Movie DVDs are also on optical disc.

Seeing as how gamers are legally allowed to resell their games, Sony, EA and THQ have now decided to resort to a loophole: Making the online component DLC (which will be bundled free for those who buy new but those without the bundled code have to pay $10. $5 in case of THQ).

Do I think these companies have a right to do this? Yeah sure do. Just as much as they have the right to jack up the price of games to $100 if they really wanted to.

But do I think this is a positive thing for consumers? Absolutely not. And consumers have every right to give EA, THQ and Sony negative feedback for implementing these policies. For gamers who like to buy used games, this is effectively a price hike for them. They won't be able to buy as much with their gaming budget and as a result, they will have less games to play.

And for gamers who like to buy new but sell/trade-in their games afterwards? They will be getting LESS money from selling their games. And you know what that means? Less money to buy new games! And so they too will have less games to play. And so you, the gamer who buys games new, loses out too (unless you never resell your games).

And as for rental subscribers, they get fucked over even moreso because all of a sudden, renting games is no longer a $25 or whatever/month expense but a $25/month + $10 for every rental we wanna play online expense.

Now tell me why as consumers, we should be happy about getting less bang for our buck? If there was a shortage of videogames out there, then yeah, I'd be more concerned about the health of the industry. But in case you haven't noticed, there are a shitload of quality games out there and if anything there is over-saturation, no where near a shortage. Ultimately it is in the consumers interests to want to get a good deal, especially in this economy, provided they do so through legal means.

Personally I'm gonna say no to these online fees. I'm not much of an online multiplayer player anyway. And with the EA Sports games I'm interested in playing (EA Sports MMA, Fight Night Round 5, FIFA 11 and *possibly* NHL 11), I could just use the 7 free online days and that's more than enough for a rental (at least for me). Not gonna bother with UFC's online. And even if I had a PSP, I would skip over Modnation Racers and rent a RPG instead rather than give Sony $10. Zero interest in Socom on my end.

At the end of the day, gaming is a non-essential entertainment hobby. Gamers, unless they are foolish, are not gonna spend beyond their means. So this is why the online pass method will fail. Gamers aren't going to spend anymore on gaming than they already are. They're mostly just gonna end up buying less games overall to make up for the increased costs of gaming. And the game industry won't get any more revenue than they did before. No one will win. I spent $700+ on gaming this year thus far (a good chunk of that is from hardware and accessories though). If I had bought every game I rented thus far this year brand new and kept them(after all selling games makes the evil used game market exist in the first place right?), I cringe at the thought of how much I would be wasting on videogames.

People also underestimate the positives of the used market to game developers.  If books are any indication the used INCREASES brand new sales.

I mean... think about it.  A couple days after release gamestop is selling used games for $55.

Well, where did Gamestop get those used games?

From New buyers of course... who sold back their game after a week... for presumibly 1 of 2 reasons.

1) They beat the game.

2) They didn't like the game.

Say you get rid of the used market.... or hamper if greatly anyway

1) Are they going to spend $60 for a new game that they only get less then 1 week of enjoyment out of... knowing they can only get back like 15-20 bucks?  Or are they going to wait until they can get the game for half price or cheaper?

2) Are you going to take a risk with that risk being, you lose more then half of what you paid for if the game sucks?  May as well wait for it used or wait for it to go down in price to half price or lower.

this is no good. Give customers a product that is worth the price you buy it for and it won't end up on used shelves. Figure it out developers, you have games like Mario Galaxy that are still selling for over $40 that came out in 2007, and it has no multiplayer (basically). When games aren't worth the full price that is when the used copies start coming in at a lower price. It reflects the customers view of the value of the game. You make a game worth buying at that price and people will buy it, period. You sell shovelware at $60 and wonder why you are getting swarmed by used game sales, or you release a sequel the next year and wonder why your game is worth nothing anymore?? It's all a reflection of the consumers value of your game.

Are you forgetting that only one person can have the same bought copy of a game at any given time? I wonder if you're factoring this into your "big picture." It doesn't matter how I obtain the game if I end up keeping it.

Take Halo 3, for example. This is a game I cannot sell off (at least until Reach), because there's no telling when my friends may be over and want a round of 4-player action. Does it really matter if I bought this game used for $20 last year? What if there were millions of people with my mentality?

I'll tell you - most of those people would still be forced to buy the games new, because the demand will drive it to a point where the used price is barely cheaper than new. After all, the number of used copies available is limited to the number of buyers that got rid of their copies.

Also, why do people put all the blame only on those who buy used games? The real "problem" (from a perspective of one who is against it) is the fact that people are able to sell the games, or more accurately, give their copy to others. If I buy a game and keep it, no matter how I obtained it (new or used), it prevents any further people from using my copy. As soon as I sell a game, though, the copy is put back into circulation.

I'd like to ask something to the people who are in favor of "buy new only, down with used" - do you never lend / give away games to your friends? How about movies, books, or music CD's (back in the day)? I'm curious if these beliefs are universally followed through, or if it's just gaming that's getting special attention.

Anyway, just keep in mind that videogame sales do not reflect the number of people that enjoyed the game, or the number of people that have played the game. It reflects how many people found the game to be worth keeping, so developers should be working on raising this, not just the former two. I could be wrong, but the way people here seem to be missing how a single bought copy can only be held by one person at any given time, makes me think they themselves don't even find their games worth keeping (to play, anyway). Nobody with replayable games would forget the fact that selling their game means they cannot play it anymore.

Sorry, but not everyone can afford, nor has a desire for an expensive trophy collection. When games lose their worth as games, they will find their way to other people who may have more use for it.

This is great. More rubber fist for psp users.

Here's an idea. Why don't the game publishers get into the used game business themselves? If you want a piece of GameStop's pie, then compete with them. Don't punish the gamer. If EA were to give gamers say $25 in trade in value (or however much GameStop pays) and then turn around and sell that used game for $55, that's like $30 profit! Much better for them and the gamer than this online pass shit.

What about cars? I doubt Ford is a big fan of the used car market, do you think they should be able to use tactics like this? What about used bookstores? DVD rentals, hell what about houses? I'm sure the builders would prefer if you just build a new one everytime you moved. Arguing against the basic rights of first sale doctrine and the concept of ownership is silly and shameful. I worry that the younger generations have been raised in such a corporate environment, that it hardly surprises me to see them defending big brother against their very own interests.

The used market is one of the main components capitalism without it gaming would be in an even worse place than it is right now. Some of us won't risk dropping $60 on a 6 hour cookie cutter FPS. While killing Gamestop sounds good-they do suck, this is a step in the wrong direction.

If you really feel sorry for the devs drop them a letter with a check, don't make us all get ripped off over your bizarre counterintuitive corpro-lovefest.

I think its a great idea

Quote for the fucking truth!

Dont stop the used game market, embrace it!

I don't mind them cracking down on used games, there's obviously a reason they're doing so.