First, the case is made against piracy.  Developers don't get a cent, nor do publishers.  People get a game for scott-free and don't pay for it.  Games prolifierate all over the place and no one gets paid.

Then there is the case against used game sales.  Developers don't get a cent out of these sales.  Doesn't matter if money is used to buy new games, the fact is that developers don't get a cent from every single transaction of change in ownership.  

Then there is the case against Gamefly who buys games.  Developers don't get a cent out of these game rentals at all.  Doesn't matter if Gamefly bought them, it is on par with what you see with rentals, in that change in ownership of a title doesn't compensate the developer.   Developers and publishers don't get compensated, so they don't maximize profits.

Now, let's go one step further.  Why should anyone bother owning any games at all?  I mean owning a license for indefinite use.  You actually don't own a game now, you own a license that enables indefinite use.  You don't pay for each time to play.  This is unfair to developers.  Why shouldn't people keep paying to use the same game over and over?  If you use it a little, then you pay a little.  If you use it a lot, then why not pay a lot?  Do people think bug fixes, adding features, and support is free?  This ongoing support ends up costing developers and publishers money.  Why should you as a gamer get a free ride on support that is added on after purchase?  Do you think those support lines and email are free?   In short, because you pay once, you are actually robbing companies of maximum profits, because of the added cost they have to pay to keep a title going.  And you complain also about the DLC?  Well, why do you think there is DLC spawning they don't package with the game to begin with?  It is because they want to pay for support.  By making players pay for usage, and not one time, companies could be more profitable.

So, there you go.  Let's just go to the next step after we get rid of videogame rentals and used game sales.  Piracy went away, so after dealing with rentals where someone else buys and rents out, the next step is to have publishers not sell games, but rent them out, and get all the money from it (with cut of console makers).  You know it is coming.  Why not deal with it now?

Is this tongue in cheek?

If you are serious then I am of course against anything like it... I like to own the things I buy.

Sarcasm. I just figure I would draw the line the way the industry is, and see the case people would make against people buying a game once and being able to use it forever beyond that point.  The industry is going to want to keep extracting money from players on a regular basis, so after they deal with piracy (pretty much done on consoles) they are targeting used game sales.  After that will be the targeting of companies like Gamefly.  Then, they are going to want people to follow the Playstation Plus model, and have people pay a monthy subscription.  The will also get people to do the way Activision is with Call of Duty, and sign of for a season pass.  It slowly then slips into seasons passes being the ONLY way you can play a game, once it gets popular enough.  And, in this, you will then see people on forums like this defending this shift.  It is coming, so I figured I would post the case now.

I in no way, said I approve of this case, just this is the case that will be presented.  Yes, people now selling a game they no longer have an interest in, with piracy.

All I can do in these discussions is to ask. What separates games from comic books, music CD's, books, and so on. Why should games be any different?

It all depends on the lobby involved and what laws they pass.  Libraries aren't allow to lend out computer software, but the can do video games.  If you look at it now, there is active supporters, on here, who actively agree with ending used game sales.  Any industry will push and push and push to get what it wants.  The would actively rather do away completely with even ownership, if they could and switch to a subscription model.  Look at what Sony pushes, with Playstation Plus.  There is a strong push also for MMOs, because that means a steady stream of income to for those making software.

BS. I borrowed PC software from libraries in the past. Only one MMO has survived for years. WOW. MMO's end up going F2P. Why? People don't like paying to play online. XBOX offers more than just paying for online. A MMO is locked to that MMO. And when said MMO dies. You just wasted thousands of dollars that you can't even use once it's gone. MMO's are not a forever supply of money. Even WOW. It's games crack. But it will eventually lose enough people, and die. You honestly belive charging people even MORE times will stop piracy, and help out the companies. You're joking.

I don't get the motive of this thread. Are you addressing people that think not fully owning games is okay?

So I am assuming you are using dial-up internet with pay per use and not unlimited broadband?

Just to adress your bold. There is no "strong push" for a subscription fee in MMOs. In fact, it's the very opposite. Many MMOs are switching to (and even launching with) a F2P model. Many players chose to spend a lot of cash for the ingame cashop (vanity items, consumables ect).  Mmos like DCUO and LOTRO have gained a HUGE number of players and have wildly increased profit gained since becoming F2P. One of the most anticipated AAA mmos on the verge of releasing is Guild Wars 2, which will be F2P.

There will be people who will go and argue that not owning games is the right way to go in the future.  The argument will be spun that having a license for permanent use of a game is the only way to fairly compensate developers of games.   The concept of having a permanent license for use, where you can transfer it for a fee to someone else is now opposed to also, so the erosion is beginning.  The industry is going to work real hard to make people get into a subscription model where they keep laying, and frame non-ownership as free.  You see this now with people arguing with Playstation Plus that they get all these FREE games.  And you see an annual subscription model with Call of Duty also, that EA also has come up with, with Playstation Plus.  Throw in also the pass system they are implementing and the pieces are coming into place  

What I lay out here is the upcoming push the videogame industry is going to spin on people, and get people to buy into.  Slowly, bit by bit, this will happen.  And yes, people will feel not having a lifetime license to a game, that you can transfer, is a good thing also, and also will say you need to keep paying to access it.

Also, it is important to note no one actually owns any software.  What they own is a license for use.  Companies can change that this license for use is limited, and require renewal after a period of time.  The entire thing with jailbreaking the PS3 was connected to the concept of ownership.  If you owned the system, and not licensed it, you could jailbreak it.  Sony argued the license route with it, and your ability to do what you wanted with the system was limited.