This is no different from the used/lent situation with books, CDs, whatever. The only difference I see is that in this case, which I admit might be a bit annoying, the developer can see the extent of second hand sales or lent games.

Really this is no different than me buying a book, reading it in a day and then selling it on or loaning it to someone.

I can understand the issue with piracy in the same manner as the issue with books being reprinted illegally for sale, but not second hand sales: they are a staple of everything owned in our society and I see no reason games should be exempt.

One thing to remember though, if everything does go digital lending and second hand might vanish as they require a physical object, so be careful what you wish for (although personally, if it was me I would allow lending of digital stuff from a goodwill perspective).

EDIT: the other thing I meant to mention is that with second hand sales you at least make the initial sale. Basically they made 2 million sales and 1 million people at least wanted to buy second hand or borrow who might buy first hand next time.  That's pretty good IMHO for the QD brand.

I actually had a really nice talk between me and Final Fan in some PC thread, I'll post it if I can find it. It dealt with the actual morality behind it, not so much the economics, and we agreed to disagree, but we understood each other perfectly well, I put the used market just slightly under piracy as far as morality goes.

However as to what you talked about, just because something is well established (physical medium being traded) doesn't mean it's ok, nor does something new mean it's not ok just because it's new and some people can't adapt to it (piracy ).

If you don't, you should, wearing some poor dead mans clothes

the 1 million missing games are not even the whole second-hand games. What about the people who bought it second-hand and not syncing their trophies?

Well it goes to the heart of the ownership basis for goods.  Take something like say a clock.  Let's say I buy a really nice hand made clock and pay the guy who makes it (who's a lovely, really sweet craftsman) directly.

Now, a bit later I decide to change my house and decide to sell or pass on the clock.  Effectively I'm potentially cutting off a sale for the guy by putting my clock back into the pool of available options - someone might decide to buy my (cheaper) clock second hand rather than buy one directly from him.

Is this wrong moraly I guess is the question (in addition to the economic situation).

Traditionally, I'd argue that in our soceity it was neither seen as wrong nor a problem economically as it's a more casual, general sale.

Now, of course where money could be made people would put themselves deliberately into the market distributing second hand goods for their own profit - for example the second hand car and book market, or second hand CDs, etc.

Again, I feel that for the most part this is considered acceptable in our society as, for the most part, such systems have existed next to new sales and often the company involved can chose to also enter that market - for example I can buy a new car from Ford or I can buy a used car directly from Ford and Ford still get the money.  In this case Ford effectively have two businesses - one competing for new car sales and one competing for second hand car sales.

The issue with games (which I feel in principle shouldn't be different) is the speed/volume and apparent challenge for the originating supplier to take part.  I do feel that as the model is no different from other accepted models, the games industry is either going to have to deal with it or change to move outside it.

Clearly the idea of digitial only sales appeals as this removes the whole concept of a "used" game and if properly deployed would totally eliminate the used game market.

Part of the challenge (or confusion) with games is the fact a used game is essentially identical to a new game.  Only the physical storage medium is used.  A second hand car is truly second hand.  In my clock example the clock I sell on might be in tip top condition but it has been used.

With a game, the speed is so fast a game could be sold new Friday and being sold used Saturday.  I do appreciate that is annoying for developers, and I do understand their view that a used game doesn't contain any degredation such as a used car (i.e. you're getting as good as new for used).

But there seems no way to make games a special case.  If I buy a game it is my right to sell on the physical copy.  It is the right of any business to set itself up to buy it from me (and in theory Activision could offer to buy it from me and sell on used a'la the Ford example) but of course as the game itself is digital there is no difference to buying new.

It's a toughie - but whining never works.  The industry either has to figure out a model to get around the digital aspect - which is what online passes are all about really - by making a new game somehow more value than used (for example a one time check on install could unlock special features which won't unlock used) or perhaps the industry will go digitial removing the physical medium from which the confusion springs.  That way a game would never essentially be "used" and would retain whatever value the company believes it should charge.

Right now though I do believe QD should look to the 2 million sales and ask how to get some of the 1 million interested consumers to buy next time, rather than complaining about an established system that covers all owned goods which isn't likley to change just for games anytime soon.

Morally it is an interesting argument I agree and I'd note that in our soceity second hand salesmen are not the most respected folks around in general so I do note that point!

But like I say my view is work to change the model and figure it out - such as car dealers themselves offering used cars and seeing a nice slice of the action from that market - but don't ever whine about people buying second hand as it will get you zero positve results.

EDIT: I meant to also repeat that it is important to remember something has to sell first hand before it can then be sold second hand - i.e. we can't all simply wait for second hand copies to appear, there has to be first hand purchasing first.  As with here it is important to note that whatever the second hand sales are they are simply a sub-set of the original 2 million.  This is important to note and is often overlooked.  As with my clock every second hand sales involves someone who bought new and is now passing on, allowing others who either financially or from lack of interest wouldn't buy new to still try the game.  It is therefore likely the number of potential sales potentially affected is actually low.

Hey I played the game twice, should I have bought a second copy to do so? so much lost revenue

...Or 1 million people played HR who otherwise would not have, and their next "interactive movie" game has a potential 3 million player buying audience.

When AAA games (I'm talking quality not production budget) stop making profits for publishers and developers then I'll start paying attention to their complaints. At that point I'll tell them they are using an obsolete business model for entertainment products and they should be moving towards selling games for next to nothing and getting people into micro-transactions. It's wanting to sell games for $60 AND stiffing people for micro-transactions which people aren't going to accept. One or the other guys. And I tell you now, microtransactions are the way to secure your future.

They also think gamers are a bottomless pit of money, when a huge precentage of gamers are kids and teenagers who have no (or almost no) personal income.

Yes. You're no better than the horrible pirates who didn't pay for their first play.

Living people donate clothes, too! I think.

Software comapnies (not just game developers) will say the industry is set up differently. To them, you buy a license to use the game and at the moment I believe they are in the transistion of moving towards single use licenses. You can see this in other areas of software, such as Microsoft Office which comes with a code you have to put in. 

This is why I feel the pass system is a good idea. I know some people complain developers are cutting content that should be in the game, but what is in the game is not up to the consumer, its up to the developer. Its more like buy-one-get-one-free deals at supermarkets, they're saying buy it first hand and you get this extra bonus content.