Microsoft Office

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.

Well since I wrote a lot about this before, let me jsut say that you can't compare a clock or other physical goods to games, books, etc. The value of physical goods, like cars and stuff, is what they do for you, meanwhile the value of entertainment is the idea. When you sell a car or a clock, you no longer get its value. If you have seen a movie or played a game, you have already used the value that the original creator made, and you can't really transfer that such that you no longer benefit from it. If you pirate it or buy/sell it used the original creator doesn't see the money for the vlue he created for you, the utility it provided, if you will. It's just that with the used market someone gets paid INSTEAD of the original creator, meanwhile with piracy no one gets money off of the original creator's back. Which is why I argued that used markets are a bit under pirates morally.

Economically it's slightly more complex, yes, but morally that's what it comes down to, I feel like.

Not sure what you mean here, good sir.  You seem to be saying that you have still gotten the benefit of the game if you sell it and then use it.  However, if I buy Smash Bros Brawl, playit for a year, then sell it, I am no longer able to benefit from the idea of the game.  I was able to benefit from it for the year that I had it, but then how is that different from owning a car for a year and then selling it?

However the entertainment, or experience, you had for that 1 year is not magically transfered and you have it with you. You have been entertained with the developer's idea. Meanwhile a car's value is to get you places, when you sell it you can no longer go places, its value is automatically gone.

Never in my life I have heard such a far-fetched idea. When you sell your car the time you enjoyed your car also didn't "magically transfer" with you. You have still enjoyed the use for your car. When you sell your game, you can no longer play it, its value is thus ultimately gone.

The time you enjoyed due to your car is hardly the product of whoever made the car. When you give up the car the value of getting from point A to point B, which is the POINT of a car, is over. When you sell your game, which has the sole value of entertaining you, you being entertained isn't magically forgotten.

The time you enjoyed due to your car is hardly the product of whoever made the car. When you give up the car the value of getting from point A to point B, which is the POINT of a car, is over. When you sell your game, which has the sole value of entertaining you, you being entertained isn't magically forgotten.

You're not drawing proper parallels here, I think. You're comparing the present value of the car to the past and over-all value of a gaming product. Cars honestly do have just as much value to them as games do.

If the only point of a car is to get from point A to point B, why do people pay excess amounts for fancy cars with awesome stereo systems and kickass engines? I guarantee you it's for entertainment and enhanced enjoyment while driving. And that enjoyment can no longer be obtained when you sell the car, just like you can no longer play your game and be entertained by it when you sell it. However, the past experiences for both stay.

By your logic, you're acting as if games can't continue to entertain you throughout the years and only give a short spurt of entertainment before their entertainment value is magically consumed and disappeared. If I sell Star Fox 64, I can no longer enjoy the game and play it. But that game still had a lot of entertainment left for me had I kept it!

Ah why am I even bothering..

Did you watch the Ferrari Enzo review on Top Gear? Do you remember what the owner left in after the review was done? Point is that for the general population the car is used to get to work. Otherwise automatic transmission wouldn't be so damn prevalent in the US. Not to mention a car is such a hilariously cherry-picked object. Want to look at furniture? Other objects such as clocks? What about silverware? You said it best, why do you even bother with such a poor argument?

When you have beaten Star Fox, you have used up a huge chunk of its value. There is a significant difference between "This is the first time I played this" against "this is my 20th time through it." Not to mention the fact that the next person who has the "First playthrough" experience after you sell the game gets a sginificant value for which the creator sees nothing.