Well, often people spend money they got from selling games into games again. I think if they were punished for selling them, they would not buy (as many) games anymore, which would be more harm to the industry.

Thats a tuff question...theres many a valid point folks could make.

$60 does seem pricy...more so if someone buys a game and it fails expections. Then again Games cost money to make and more times than nuaght...the price tag is justified.

Folks going out to buy new released games used just becuase they are 5$ cheaper are just fail...and alot do it.

Alot of the pre-order stuff is kinda for impulse buyers and fans of x game....and hell I bet its aimed a bit to curb piracy.

And pff on the ''punish x company'' comment.

I have to say no, but that's because titles don't stay in print forever. I'm still buying used PS2 games from Gameslop, but that's also because the manufacturer isn't making them anymore! If I knew I could just pop in at Amazon and get it new, I'd do that instead. But if I find out that you're punishing me for buying a game in the only legit way at that point, I'd probably decide to not buy your games at all then, new or used.

How about this: For the first six months to a year, only new titles are playable online. After that, lift the restriction. New games sell while they're new. When the title is older, collectors and such can buy the game without penalty. Awesome idea?

I think this presents an interesting ethical lapse.

Really if you look at the sale of pre-owned games does help game companies.

For example, I bought my copy of Beyond Good and Evil used for my GameCube. As a result of enjoying that game so much, when the second one does come it is a day one purchase for me. I'm sure there are a great deal of people like me that might have missed out on a franchise due to financial restrictions or maybe even because they did not think that the title would suit their interests. In a way pre-owned is an indirect marketing tool due to its lower price point.

The used game market might be helpful to generating interest in franchises rather than hurtful. Does any company have solid statistics that game trading or buying pre-owned actual hurts?

Add this to your responses: Think of at least one title that you've bought pre-owned that made you a fan of a series. Did that experience prompt you to buy future games in that series new as sequels were released?

I like the feeling of getting punished, so yeah!
HRHR..

Should buyers of pre-owned cars be punished? Pre-owned houses?

i think first hand shoppers could be treated better with some extra level or in-game extra that is delivered by on-line service. second hand shoppers would be buying cheaper but wouldn't have the same experience and extra a first hand buyer have. the pre-order bonus should be used to fight the second hand market instead of pre-orders, also instead of special editions focus on getting the first hand buyers happy!

You make a good point. I don't really see any problem with it.

I maintain that there is no sane argument which can justify punishing those who buy used games. The used game has already generated a sale for the company to begin with, and the maximum number of hands a used game can pass through are heavily limited. Attempts to reduce the value of a used game where no good technical reason exists is arguably a violation of the spirit of the first-sale doctrine, and should be treated as an affront to the paying customer's right to do whatever the hell he or she pleases with the game after the first sale.

I've read time and again, that such moves are about control - content creators increasingly wish to use technical means to restrict where, when and how their works can be used by the consumer. See Assassin's Creed 2 and Rise of Flight, for example, where a constant internet connection is required to play the game, even though there is no technical justification to do so. Expanding on what mike_intellivision has pointed out, the entertainment industry at large (the video game, movie, and music industries alike) see themselves as selling to us not their works, but a non-transferable license to use their works. A license subject to their terms of control, which can be revoked as they please. Why should we, the legitimate customers, allow the industries to treat us with such contempt on the pretext of reining in the bogeyman of the software pirate?