Don't rental stores have to pay more for the games?

You know people like me would actually benefit from this. If im buying a used game I will pay less because I don't want the multiplayer.

Because Jim wants to play the game that they made. It is not about a physical thing, but it is about a piece of software really.

Of course you don't have to pay for the pasta, because the prodcut has partially been used up, a game is not used up, you get the same things that you would if you bought the game new, except for EA. And so if you want to compare it to you eating some pasta, then actually EA's deal seems fair if you are not going to get the full dish, you can just have what is left

Ok, instead of Pasta... it's a TV.  There, the product isn't "partially usesd up". 

According to you, Jim owe's Panasonic some money. 

If you think it's fair... I think you have a pretty warped world view... where companys BENEFIT from having games people buy but don't want.... and therefore give away.

In effect, benefit by making shitty games or misreprestenting the games they sell.

Also... you should read this... and ask yourselves why used games would be any different.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html

Any economist will tell you... EA is actually shooting themselves in the foot with this.

It's not just a loss for the consumer and for gamestop... it's also a loss for EA.

It's a triple lose situatition.  Companies are just too blind to see it.

EA is a bunch of morons. Online games are populated by the online community. The only community that is completely aware of this strategy and aware that it is alienating them and will thus act accordingly. They are shooting themselves in the foot. Do they think Bad Company or medal Of Honor will ever reach Call of Duty numbers? Not only that it's going to kill the community which is going to kill the game. You have to encourage the community when the games are based around the community, not alienate them. For every used copy of Call of Duty sold there is probably a good chance that person helped convince a friend to buy the game which they probably bought new.  

They don't benefit from you selling the game, they benefit from somebody else buying the game. You take the game up to the counter, and say "I would like to buy Uncharted 2" and they will offer you a used copy. Now you are saying, if you buy that game used, so money doesn't go to Sony, it goes to gamestop. I don't see why you want gamestop having the money.

They are not benefiting from people not wanting the game, they are benefiting from people buying the game. It is notthing to do with it being a bad game, people still want to buy the game, but they are just going to buy it used, because they get the same features, but for cheaper.

Actually.... they do benefit from me selling the game. 

The used market spurs New purchases in durable goods markets.  It's in that article i liked above... and any economist will tell you it's a fact no matter what school of economics they follow.

Here is another link... http://www.springerlink.com/content/f13956304x885554/

That's the second part of why this is a bad idea.

The first part is that it's completely unethical bullshit. 

As for the second part of your statmenet.... think really hard agan.

WHERE DID THAT USED COPIES COME FROM.  I've said it like 8 times in this thread and everybdoy keeps glazing over it.

If there are a bunch of used copies on the shelves for 55 dollars.

Tell me... where did gamestop get those copies from... and why did they get them?

The used market HELPS the New market because people who buy new KNOW they can sell used.  By lowering the price people will get for their games, you are also raising their risk when it comes to buying a New Game.

Raising risk = Less new sales as now you've passed the risk aversion mark for a lot of people.

Even if your right that somehow game developers deserve to make money off used game sales, even though NOBODY in the world is currently afforded the right... your wrong because it will only hurt them.  This is actual widespread accepted economics by economists and not a moral or ethical conudrum... so there is really no arguement on the second part.  No more then say, argueing for creationism in any case.

Even if you are right... you are wrong.

So why should I take this OMG gamer rage outburst any more seriously than OMG Final Fantasy was teh ruined or similar outbursts? What reason is there for a reasonable person to take part in this outrage? From a reasonable standpoint, this is a free market where you have the option to take/leave their offer. Why do people have to get angry about everyfuckingthing and blow up like a drama queen? If you don't like it, don't buy their game. If enough people do the same then they will withdraw it and thats buyer power.  If they don't withdraw it because it works for them *gasp* then you're obviously in the minority and you can step down off your soap box.

Your arguement is "If not enough people are willing to boycott it, it's clearly not wrong."

That's a really silly arguement.

Based on that logic... people are in the minority about being pissed about the BP Spill in the gulf.  People are in the minority at wanting gas companies in general to not gouge people... people who are against child labor are in the minority...I can go on and on about shit the majority of people think was wrong but didn't successfully boycott.

People will swallow a lot of crap... and be unhappy about it, because they want what they want.   The fact that you think people shouldn't be upset that consumer rights keep getting more and more erroded by Videogame companies si just... well stupid.

Video Game companies already hold a lot of special priveldeges most manufacturers don't get.  They want even more... I mean name one other field where this would be an acceptbale practice to force people to pay you on the used market.

Sales will be lower though... every major branch of economics tells us that about the reaction hurting the used market when it comes to durable goods... and this is the second part of why your thesis is flawed.  They don't really know.  I mean any economist could tell you it's a bad idea.  They claim they're losing tons to piracy, even though the research doesn't show this... even in very anti-pirating countries like the US... run by the government.

They point to these, ignoring the real culprits are rising dev costs and poor decisions.  No doubt when sales go down they'll keep their online plan... and instead blame piracy for the further decline, and try and put in more draconian members.  With most people following off the cliff.

I mean, once again i'll direct people to this...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f13956304x885554/fulltext.pdf