I agree with mirgro. I don't see the middle-men as the game industry. Technically they are but I dont want gamers money to go into their hands (meaning Gamestop and other retailers and their employees).

Magazines and websites are different because they're part of marketing and information to gamers, that's intrinsic value.

Same with a developer obviously.

I honestly have no idea how people can get this idea into their minds, that buying used can be worse than piracy.

Yeah, thanks for showing me the light. I'll just pirate all of my games now instead of buying used (aka supplying money to people who do buy new, as that's where most of it goes). Much cheaper for me, and more beneficial to the industry, apparently.

So, you need the stores to deliver the vast majority of your games, but you don't actually want to pay them anything, because why, they don't deserve it?

Either way, you DO NOT agree with mirgro, because he believes that those people aren't part of the game industry, and you just said that you DID agree they were part of the game industry. You also implied that websites and magazines also count. Here's a fact though, they call count, and they are all very important to the industry. Without them it would fail.

...and yes mirgro, please do provide links, I will take a look and let you know what I think.

Nobody believes that, they imply that they believe it, but they will never come out and state it like that, because they are implying, not stating that belief. They are actually saying that piracy isn't bad for the industry, and neither is used gaming. You will not find anyone denying the law that money moving in the economy is better than no money moving in the economy. No one will imply that, lol. If anyone ever DOES try to deny that(they won't), then just quote them the definition of money.

The GAO study:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

There is a link to the PDF in there.

The Dutch study:

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/01/dutch-government-study-net-effect-of-p2p-use-is-positive.ars

The report they linked to was in all Dutch and 150 pages, but the link is in there as well if I remember correctly. (Notice that it says taht specifically for games, pirates buy even more than non-pirates).

Edit: It seems that the actual document of the Dutch study has been taken down from their sites, maybe I can find it stored somewhere. Also still looking for the IFPI report, it seems ot have gone underground.

Edit 2: I found one, don't mind the commentary if you don't want to, but the link for the IFPI study is also in there:

http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/

Ok, so the GAO study ONLY says that it is impossible to determine the economic impact of piracy. It is also related to piracy of all types, not just videogames.

So, my question to you is, if your study says that it is impossible to determine how piracy effects game sales, then doesn't that mean that none of the other studies mean anything at all? Also, doesn't that mean that the effects of piracy could actually be WORSE than expected?

Now, I don't think that every instance of piracy is a sale lost, but I do think that it costs a lot of sales, especially amongst consoles like the PSP where it is so easy, and where many people obviously would buy games if they couldn't download all they want for free....

So, again, the study you presented isn't significant to this conversation, imo. It would only be significant if I were pointing to other studies to prove my point. My logic tells me that piracy causes games not to sell in some cases, and facts tell me that with used games, money stiumlates the economy and with piracy it does not.

The complete effect of piracy is unknown and undeterminable accoriding to your study.

i buy both new and used. 

Nonetheless, the point remains. Some of us would be interested in looking at said studies to examine their validity. If you can't even post a single link when you said there were several prior, then you're talking hot air.

As for the industry, what that is will depend on where you draw the line. For me, it would be defined as gaming being your primary source of income. Thus, publishers, developers, and gaming stores like Gamestop are in fact, part of the industry. If something were to happen to gaming, they would require a radical change to their business to adapt. Thus, this is also why I do not see places like Best Buy (general electronics) and Wal-Mart (clothing) as part of the gaming industry.

This leaves us, the consumer, out of the picture, or so it seems. Our role in this position, is to financially support the industries we feel are worthy of support. Buying used games, while not ideal in comparison to new, does continue to keep money flowing into the gaming industry. And it is this used game revenue that lets Gamestop perhaps order a few more copies of a game to have on the shelf new at release. The rest of things have already been covered in this thread, and thus, I shant rehash.

Finally, you try shooting down the economic law. The way things like that work, is that it is seen as an explainable explanation for something, and is accepted as fact, until something comes along that can concretely disprove it. So, we're back to square one again: proof. If it's wrong, what's right? Can you get economists to agree to this new "right"? If not, then this remains as the current fact.

And the Dutch/ IFPI results?