:)  We shall see.  I am hitting the sack.  Good discussion.

It only makes sense afterall.  You don't feel screwed if you don't yet know you are being screwed.

When you devalue used copies you devalue used sales.

You said it yourself, but never bothered to apply the inverse.

The more used copies on the market... the less resale value.

In turn... the less people who want to buy used... (or buy the game at all)... the less resale value.

The less resale value, the less people who buy the game who plan to trade it in when they're bored with it since less people are going to want it used.

It's why the trade in for bad games is so low in the first place.

Reminds me of today actually, i was in gamestop and they had like 15 copies of that used UFC game just sitting there for 35 bucks.  Why would you just have them all out there?   Who wants to buy a game 15 people seemed to have sold back.

Maybe a UFC fight is about to happen or something?

The ironic part is I'm arguing purely from the economical models standpoint that any economist would tell you about video games because I personally don't care about resale value... and protecting users rights... even when the rights are ones I'm pretty much never going to be effected by.

I never actually resell games.

Nor do i particularly buy games used that i have a great interest in. The games I'm interested in I buy new. I reserve used games for the "token" games that update niches i feel i need. Like college basketball games that I can get for like 5 dollars... because I don't care about the characters whose real names can't even be used.

Unlike most people in this thread i'm not trying to defend a favored developer or hate on a hated publisher.

considering the fact that video game players are generally not one and done, I thnik it is safe to say you are the one being intellectually dishonest by bringing up irrelevant points.

except these new policies don't prevent consumers from selling the games, so that's irrelevant point number 2. 

Except you no.... the people who TRADE GAMES IN.

How do you think those used 55 dollar games get their the same week the game releases.

A) Someone beats the game and trades it in.

B) Somebody buys the game, thinks it's shit... and trades it in.

In both cases... the fact that they could sell the game back and recoup a decent amount of their money most certainty factored in on their original purchase.

You think the guy who buys a game first week, beats it and trades it in is going to buy a new game at 60 dollars if he isn't going to get as much back?

Or that somebody who gets burned by bad games that they can't get quite as much money for are going to keep buying new games and as many new games?  Or are they going to cut back... both because of the added risk, and less cash... and focus only on certain games they know they're going to like and do things like rent games more... or god forbid pirate.

It doesn't prevent the consumer from selling the game... however it reduces the price the reseller can sell the game for... because part of the game is now non transferable.

I'm fairly sure I made a good argument about EA's actions in regards to this, an original argument mind you, and it's gotten consistently ignored. Maybe everyone has me blocked on that program someone cooked up a while back. It's odd that at one point though, Kylie and Akvod were able to see what I was typing, or at least the portion they felt comfortable responding back to.

I didn't ignore it... I just agreed with you.

Kylie even admitted that this situation was pretty much exactly the same, since what used people are being charged for was in fact given away free with BFBC1.

I think the general point though is "they just don't care." because they don't buy used.

They'd probably in support of the other ideas floated around by game designers like only allowing new buyers access to the endings.  I mean, just as long as it's downloaded, and not on the disc.

This is simply because people aren't aware yet. Once they found out though...