Which is moraly (not legaly) worse? Secondhand _ Pirating _ Renting_Lending

[S.T.A.G.E.]

ironman said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:
In order from the greatest offense to the least:

Pirating (devs get nothing..... period)
Renting (devs get no royalties) but often times when a person rents a game, they choose to purchase a copy.
Second Hand Shops (Devs and publishers only see a fraction of the stores true sales) For that game, it would be less without the used market.
Lending (It is your copy and you can do what you want with it as long as you do not makes copies of it)

 

Response:

Renting- It matters not. Obscuring things to fit your subjective reality doesn't actually change the reality for the creators and publishing houses. If you purchase something its relevance exists in a totally different realm.

Second hand- What?....No. If the used market didn't exist, games wouldn't have set prices not based on the popularity and sales of a title, but by the passing years and a publishers view on when a games price should drop. Take Xbox Live for instance, the digitally distributed titles have the same price for an extremely long time without interruption because the owners of the premium service call the shots. Look at how long it takes titles to drop price to 'Greatest Hits' and 'Platinum Hits' and try to pick up the same game three to five months after launch (used) and see whos price would be less without the used market. With the used market the companies that sell the used games and the gamers win. Companies only see fractions of the true cost.