It isn't not doing anything to cut down on used software sales is a bad business decision. All these factors should be addressed by a smart business rather then allowing yourself to lose millions of potential customers.

Yah the games don't always meet the expectations of gamers. But a quality game should never actually lose money whether or not some consumers don't like it. There are more then enough customers who enjoy those failed products and if used game sales and loaning weren't cutting back on sales many of those failed titles may have broken even or even been profitable.

Blaming the customer is not a good idea, it isn't the customers fault that they can wait a week and buy a game ten dollars cheaper. In this economy you can't possibly blame them. But you can blame the retailers who put such a huge emphasis on used software and in turn cut your profitability by as much as half. GameStop is supposed to sell the companies new software yet they put the majority of their marketing budgets and finances towards pushing used sales which don't help the publishers and developers at all.

Limiting a game to being played on five consoles doesn't hurt the average consumer at all. While I'll admit charging for every additional console you play online with does potentially hurt the consumer it is a smart business decision. Maybe GameStop and other used game retailers should sell their used software at a discount because the consumer isn't getting the whole product, in the end it is GameStop and other used game retailers that are taking advantage of the consumer at the publishers expense.

Someone brought up books in libraries, well a book costs as little as a thousand dollars to publish. You don't need to sell many copies to break even or turn a profit. Video Games cost 10's of million and aren't sold at nearly the percentage of profits a book is. You don't see movies being lent at most libraries and even when they are movies break even often before they even see physical release.

The games industry needs to turn a profit and break even for us to enjoy our big budget high quality software. It is not in the consumers best interest for these publishers to go down or for their IP to fail if they are quality IP.

Do you think its fair to the hundred thousand or so consumers who really enjoyed the game and paid full price to see their IP die because a huge amount of consumers bought the game used or borrowed it? Its not fair to the consumers who enjoy these franchises nor to the employees who worked extremely hard to make those games!

Pretty much sums up my argument. Not every single game that is released on 360/PS3 needs a huge budget, because not every single one of those titles will be able to sell 700K+. Pretty much only established franchises and those games that break the mold sell this much this late into a generation of consoles. Developers and publishers should take more risks at the beginning of a generation, when there are less games to compete with.

Businesses succeed and fail all the time and you can't put all the blame on used game sales, especially with stores like Gamestop only selling used games for $5 less than a new copy (I'd rather buy the new copy).

Last time I bought a pre-owned game was 15 years ago so i really don't care that much :)

Pre Owned games are huge, especially for really good games and popular games.

Many people check out good games by buying Used copy for cheap.

Digital distribution will take care of all these supposed problems that are cutting in to game studio profits...

It's just that full digital distribution is probably a good generation or two away, though :P

The rest TL;DR

The keywords is "potential customers". It's not all black and white. Have you consider that these potential customers wouldn't have bought the game in the first place? And as some above mentioned, he wouldn't know of FF had he not borrowed them from his friends.

My first ever RPG was actually Final Fantasy (ONE) on the NES. I borrowed it from my friend and beat it. Had it not for that, I wouldn't even care or know what Final Fantasy is all about. They would have lost 1 "potential customer" here.

Have you ever heard of "If it's not broken, don't fix it"?

Guess what. EA (first) tried to forcefully "fix" it and I have completely ignore every single game they've released in the last couple of years.

they they can choose to not support gamestop by not letting them sell their games. You act as though its the poor ole game industry. They are big boys and can make their own choices, if they choose to support gamestop by letting them sell their games that is their choice. If its such a problem for the industry why dont they choose to not sell to gamestop? They can also choose to harm their games in the eyes of consumers by placing online cards or first day dlc on the disk etc. Its their choice to make.

You may only buy one game this month, but what about next month?  If you hadn't borrowed that game couldn't you still buy it next month?  Or the month after that?

If you're borrowing a game from a friend there's obviously a want to play it.  That want may not be enough to buy it new, but you're still getting something from it and you're getting something for nothing.  In the case of lending the publisher and Gamestop miss out on the sale.

That all said, I'm fine with used games and even lending games, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.  It's your license so it's yours to sell, lend, or even give away.  What isn't right is two people using the license at the same time.

There arguments are ludicrous, because they ignore a simple truth about economics. Reselling lengthens a potential market. While restrictions curtail a potential market. Prohibiting a secondary market will only result in reducing the market as a whole while also limiting the primary market. Worse yet it can result in strengthening the black market which indeed is a zero sum game for providers. The majority of those who buy or sell used games are those who are of limited means. They cannot afford to pay top dollar regardless. So placing them in a position which will strongly encourage them to opt out, or to turn to illegal sources. Just isn't good for the markets long term prospects.

What always goes ignored in these debates is the fact that the used market spreads the load. When someone sells a used game that money is most often going into buying a new game, or paying for something that is necessary. Which may well mean that person will have more money to spend on gaming at a later date. The person who will buy that used game is going to be able to game within a budget. That means they may not be able to buy all of the games they will play new, but they will undoubtedly buy a few.

Removing the used market through anything close to heavy handed tactics is going to be disastrous for the game market. All it is liable to do is create a back lash. Where gamers abandon individual titles, the market itself, or feel compelled to get titles through underhanded means. Online passes are eventually going to devalue the titles they are attached to. Resellers are going to reduce their prices accordingly taking into account the added cost to the buyer.

I am not saying the industry isn't going to move this way, but it would indeed be a foolish move. Coming down so hard on the consumers is going to backfire on them. I wouldn't purchase a game that had a online pass, because I just do not buy games that devalue so quickly. Yes I buy and sell, but I also buy new. Without the used market I can be honest I couldn't afford to game.