Jereel Hunter said:
This isn't a fair comparison, as physical products are very different. If you have a couch, or a toy, it's worn and used when you sell it. You are buying what's left in it's usefulness and lifespan. When I give my old couch to someone who just moves out, they are getting an old couch to use for a year or two until they can afford to buy one. Sell a used game, and person #2 can get the full value from it. $60 game, still a $60, for less than $60. So can person 3, 4, and 5 if the game is traded in and resold later on. Also, I can get a really nice couch from a quality store for $2000 and it'll still look great after 5 years, or I can get a cheap $300 couch from a discount furniture store. The $2000 couch store got paid for their quality product. If one o fthese games had a $10 Million budget, or a $50 Million budget, they have to sell it for the same $60. So the fact that it will continue to sell and resell in the used games market, with almost no advantage of buying a new copy (vs a VERY clear and huge advantage of buying a new couch) gives them valid reason to be unhappy. |
Not true--a used video game has just as much potential to be damaged or otherwise not in perfect condition as ay other item. What if the disc is scratched? What if the logo is completely faded? Or in this day and age, what if the DRM that allows it to be installed on five computers only has one of those left? There are plenty of ways in which a used video game can be worth less than its new counterpart.
By the way, I never saw the games industry complain about used sales until this generation, when they gained the ability to watch and scrutinize us, Big Brother-style. Just sayin'...