How is the moral side any different compared to selling/buying a used car though? The manifacturer of the car doesn't get anything out of it, the person who bought the car doesn't buy a new car from that company (or another) and I might buy a new car from the same manifacturer, or from another, or buy something completely different. If I sell it through an used car dealer, the car dealer will make money out of it too.

And in that context video games ARE physical goods. You don't own the IP, the distribution rights and further associated rights. You are selling your legally acquired authorized copy of the game - you can neither legally sell stolen goods, not unauthorized copies of IP. Yes, properly preserved a game/music cd/movie dvd is a lot more durable than a lot of other physical goods - but that has no bearing on the right to resell them.

In the end though, the gaming industry will get it their way - we already have impossible to resell DRMed stuff on consoles and it isn't likely to stop at that stage. Then we'll know whether people would be willing to spend way more on games with no ability to resell, or whether there will be a handful of big games deemed worth keeping and worth the price out of the hundreds the industry gushes out.

And I do consider selling your game for change to some crummy 2nd hand dealer, who then resells it at almost full price to the next sucker a situation benefitial only to the dealer - there are better ways to sell and buy games. And not a bad thing if those $10 DLC discourage that situation, but then it also depends on how "bonus" this content is - or welcome to having a major part of the game/an unlock code for it as a DLC.

60 dollars is alot to pay for a game to begin with. If the reason for this price is to help offset the money that the used market eats up. A reasonable solution to combat this would be to offer the game as a digital download for the same price the used game market is charging. This would keep the price of the game higher longer because there would be less physical copies in the real world. It would also save on packaging and shipping.

The problem with your idea this would undercut retailers which is not good business. (this is why often you can buy something cheaper anywhere but the original makers of a product) Yes, it a lot cheaper with digital download yet developers still need retailers like Gamestop to market their games. Thus it's a two edged sword.  Marketing is very expensive so developers would love the idea of going total digital download.

*******

 I totally disagree that morally buying a used game is the same as piracy which is stealing. Like some developer like Stardock has noted these people will steal/pirate anyhow so instead they reward those who buy their games with update /adding to the game. 

Now as far as developer view point they don't get any money for used sales nor piracy. They are more likely to compete with used copy sale than trying to get pirates in buying their game. At Gamestop used copies are usually just $5 less than a new.  Now EA is competing with those used game sales by offering online service to those who buy new.

Whether or not used game sales is right or wrong, I support EA in their decision. It's a smart business move and they have the right to handle their product in such a fashion. It'll make me think twice about prowling ebay for a used copy...at least for EA

Hopefully all the little extras will be announced upfront.

When are you people gonna realize that the gaming industry is our friend?

I'd rather want our money to end up in the publishers pockets who in turn will invest most if it back into even greater games, than in the pocket of GameStop and others who will have to spend the revenue on salaries and office space of game stores.

The used games market is not only bad for pubs and devs, it's also bad for us, the gamers.

@ Slimebeast. When will you realize that the used market is the gaming market's friend, without them, sales of both games and consoles would diminish...greatly. 

Vlad...as usual, you fail, you are comparing apples to oranges and completely disregarding the crux of the issue here, the markets for ANYTHING used, be it physical property, intellectual property, all of it, are interchangeable. The used game market is helpful to the gaming industry in the same way that the used car market is helpful to the car market. You can talk about product differences all you want, but it's a straw man argument...and not a very good one at that. 

When you buy the game you are buying the game burnt onto the disc.  Having the disc is having the right to play the game.  Yes I don't own the game in the sence that I can't rewrite a few things here or try and add content and then go off put that onto more discs and sell it to people.  But I can sell the disc that I bought to someone eles.  I could give it away.  Either way I can no longer play the game and someone else can.  Why should the publisher get paid again?     Now the Idea of making money off of it is a bit crazy.  If I were making money off of it that would mean someone paid me more for it than I paid for it.  I'm not saying that never happens but If i paid full price for a game why would someone pay me more for it?

Now if they don't want their to be used games they can go digital only.  Even then however what's to stop a person from letting other people play?  If all contect were digital only what would stop some people from swaping systems every so often to change games?

Piracy mean an unlimited number of people can play the game without paying for it.  Unlimited.  There can only be as many used games out there as there are physical copies of the game.  Piracy makes copies of the game out there that were never paid for at all.   The used game had to be bought new once. 

When I sell a game I no longer play I have money to buy other things be it games or other goods or services.  It's actuall money circulating in the economy.  When someone pirates they don't get money back.  Saving money is not the same as having money to spend.  You could pirate a million dollars worth of games but that doesn't mean you have a million to spend anywhere else.  Just mean you took stuff worth that much.   

And something else it would be one thing to say that more copies of games sell used than games that are pirated. That could be true. However try taking things to the extreme to see how little the argument makes sense. What happens if almost everyone buys the game used vs what happens if almost everyone downloads the game?

If it was mostly the used games. It would take a very long time for most people to get the game since there aren't that many used copies going around. What would likely happen? People would have to decide if it was worth more to them to play the game now and buy new or if they felt it was more worthwhile to wait. If the publisher saw the game wasn't selling they would lower the price and make more people be willing to pay for it new instead of waiting for it used.

If most people just pirate the game once it was available online they wouldn't have to wait for other people to play the game they could have it right now. The publisher could lover the price but a lower price is still so much more than free.

Yes one can't say that all the copies downloaded would have been actual sales of the game. But you can't say that all the used sales would have been a new sale for the game either. At least not at full price.

Soon they will reaize that EVERYTHING is bad for the gaming industry.

-Buying used games: People buy discounted used games instead of buying new games. Developers don't get paid for used game sales. It's killing the industry

-Game demo kiosks: People play the games for free in the store instead of buying the game. It's killing the industry.

-DLC: People add new levels to their older games instead of buying new games. It's killing the industry.

-Footballs/Baseballs/Soccerballs (volleyballs are okay): People gather with friends outside and rip off the premise of the game by playing outside with a REAL ball. As many as 10 people may play with a single ball instead of each buying a copy of "NBA Live 2011". The result: Industry killing.

-The Nintendo Wii: Killing the industry despite being a video game console that sells video games. Don't argue. Just accept it.

-Movies: People spend so much money on movies that they don't buy the movie adaptation of a particular game (Did YOU buy the Avatar game? I didn't think so..... You industry killer).

-Killing the industry: Quite possibly the number 2 cause of killing the industry.

-Barack Obama: People without jobs don't buy video games. It's all Obama's fault. And didn't he recently say to "turn off the Xbox"? He's killing the industry.


This whole industry killing conspiracy is bigger than anybody ever imagined. It's killing the industry.

Unless you sell the game for more than you bought it for, your certainly not making money off their work. And unless your burning the game first, allowing you to sell your disk while burning the game, it's still only one copy, so your certianly not depriving anybody of money, since that game has already been payed for.

And no, the argument for used game sales isn't the same as the argument for piracy. Because while both do have a positive effect on hardware, only the former can have a positive effect on software. What is the primary reason for reselling your games? it's to buy more games. When you trade in games to get credit towards new games, youre actually supporting the industry by buying their games. If used game sales evaporated tomorrow. Not only would there be a large population of gamers that suddenly finds that their hobby has become ridiculously overpriced, but there would also be a large population of gamers who, because they employ the tactic of reselling their games to be able to buy lots of new ones, would suddenly find that their hobby has become ridiculously overpriced.

If you look at a rack of used games, you're looking at a rack of money that went to game publishers. You're also looking at a rack of money that went to gamers who buy new games. Which is even more money that goes to publishers.

I ask again, how is a practice that gives game publishers lots of money worse than a practice that doesn't give them any?