There is the difference though of the number of copies the seller makes vs pirating which is infinite copies.  If i wanted to buy a used copy of final fantasy 13 right now Id have to be pretty lucky to find one.  I might be able to but with how much I'd save in the effort of looking it would be cheeper to just get a new one.  While if I were to pirate the game it wouldn't matter if the game is backlogged for weeks I could just get it whenever and it wouldn't make it any less possible for someone else to pirate it as well.  While if I did find a rare used copy of the game.  No one else could use that one until I resell it.  However some of these ways to reduce some used games are creative though I'm pretty sure many people won't buy some games if they can't resell them or play them if they can't rent them.  The loss of that player in some regards yes but the loss of the publisher in others.  Having a used game market doesn't stop good games from selling well.  piracy can.

Some of the methods are interesting others I'm not much of a fan of.  Played prince of persia recently on my ps3 had got the game new for $20 enjoyed the games but if i were to want to finish the story it would be liike another 10 to get the epilogue.  I found that a bit frustrating that I bought a game but would have to pay extra for the epilogue.  Yes it's a way for them to get more money off the game since if someone buys it used they would have to pay for that if they want to play as well but at the same time I'm sure it frustrats some of their customers and not just me.  While with assassins creed two you could pay more of extra content in the middle I'm ok with that but I'll now have to be more of the lookout for games that come without the ending included.  I'll probably pass on most of those.

It's the writer being indignant over the prospect of having to buy a game new for some basic functions. I'm guessing he likes buying used.

Apparently he's happier seeing those $20 going to GameStop, seeing as how

A) They receive 40% of their revenue from used sales.

B) They have nothing to do with the R&D or production of the games themselves.

It's saying "I'd rather see my money going to a gallery that sells artwork rather than the artists who created the work."

Or... one could just buy the game new when it goes on sale.

They should make games that people want to keep.

There is a reason why Halo 3 or Starcraft of Warcraft 3 are rarely seen on used game shelves. People keep those games. Hell, I have even bought multiple copies of Starcraft.

When making new games, all the publishers do are to focus on the wow-factor and the first playthrough. Such games that have no lasting appeal are sold because they don't entertain anymore. And I completely agree with that. If publishers don't want their games to be sold used, they should STFU and serve their customers better with games that last.

If the games keep entertaining there is no reason to sell it. Games nowadays stop being entertaining very quickly.

If I buy a game for $60 I expect a certain amount of entertainement value. If the game gets boring after a 10 hour playthrough, it is a lousy game, and I am ripped off by the game makers. Selling the game is a security since it allows me to regain some of my lost money.

If a game maker makes lousy games, then there is no way in hell that they deserve the money from the used game sales. It's their own fault that people grow tired of their games. They should STFU and make games that people want to keep instead. I'm 1000% against developers fighting used game sales.

this.. also if a game is made with no replayability, whats the point of holding onto it. i have never actually sold a game but thats because even when the game has no replayability. if i enjoyed it that much, i'll hold onto it for sometime in the future where i would like to enjoy the experience again. The only reason a game would be sold is due to it lacking something that the consumer was hoping for and thus at the fault of the developer.

also @ impulsivity. then that must mean you're also totally against borrowing games from friends. i don't think any person who has friends has never borrowed or lent a game ever in their life.

The publishers need to FUCK OFF. If they did fucking better games there would be no need to ressel them. Too though to make good games? Don't make them, and open a hot dog car. Stupid retarded publishers.

Eventually everything will go digital. that's just the fate of video games, same as the music industry. same as PC software, just wait till google releases an operating system. most likely
the next windows will be DLC only

   Lets say you like something, say really good high production value games.  You want them to make more of them.  How do you ensure that will happen?

   It's pretty easy, you buy good games new!  If you want it cheaper wait a few months, that 60 dollar game will go on sale for 40 bucks within a month or two if you look at ads (again, 40 bucks that goes almost entirely to the people who made the game) and if you really have very little money wait 4-5 months and play it for 20 bucks when it hits greatest hits status or goes to fire sale prices because its floundering (that's right both great games like Resident Evil 5 and mediocre games like Wet will drop down to the 20-30 dollar range for opposite reasons).

  Sure you can borrow games, but hopefully with the idea of buying it if its good.  If everyone just borrows games then again theres no way to cover the 40 million it takes to make a God of War 3 type game.

   The main point though is used games cost almost the same as new games (maybe 5 bucks less) but not a single penny of that goes to making more good games.  All of it goes to Gamestop who is, more or less, exploiting everyone involved.

   They pay gamers who sell games 40 cents on the dollar or less, then charge other gamers 95 cents on the dollar to buy it used pocketing the difference.  They're like ebay with even more fees.  It more or less fails everyone involved and I'm all for anything that stops that corrupt system.

  Also some truly great games are not infinately replayable.  Some are designed more to be awesome for 10 hours then to be mediocre for 100 (see God of War 2).  Even games that don't take forever I want to see continue to be made if they're good, I don't want even more multiplayer 1st person shooters just because they're "more replayable" to the detriment of truly unique single player games like Heavy Rain.

Key word eventually. Right now we are still many years off. The ultimate slap in the face of digital distrubtion was the PSP Go - how to not do DD. Looking at the most recent NPD chart the Go is hardly selling.

MS has been dipping their hands a bit more into DD though, with their new Games for Windows Live steam like service, and if you go on your 360 dashboard you'll notice a lot more titles for download that are full 360 games (latest being Beautiful Katamari and Condemed). However, for brand new released titles your best bet is still walking into the store and grabbing a copy.

I think the biggest hinderance of DD is the US and other countries internet speed. No offense but I don't wanna spend 8 hours waiting to download a game when I can go to a store 10 minutes up the street and buy a copy. Hopefully Google does a good job with fiber optics.

I love the ideas for giving free content if you buy new, those are fantastic ideas since I generally buy new anyways.

Digital distribution is alright for PC games, but when next gen comes around that means there's a good chance I won't be able to play those games on the new system.

Restricting installs really doesn't have any affect on consoles so I really don't care.