No we should not. The market regulates itself. It's awesome that way. All we need is transparency. Stupid consumers pay high prices, it's been like that since the beginning of mankind. It's awesome that someone is willing to pay 27 GBP for a used game when he could buy the game new for 30 GBP. Thus the original buyer gets back 27 GBP and can buy another new game with this money.

Ok You made a point on ebay and people getting money back (much more than a retail will give you back) and I am convinved.

but I do not agree that a retail does give you £8 for a game taht he will sell at £25. No one but them are gaining from it (an higher margin than selling a new game)

Very good :)

And yes, the low prices paid are annoying, but they are the result of not enough competition. That's why I think the publishers should create their own retail outlets and compete with GameStop.

Do you guys not understand that the money goes to Gamestop for bring a retailer? They work hard at it because people will not sell their owm games and retailers are too scared to form their own retail store. Also, Gamestop is paying people who use that money on things like games so its not like the money goes in some black hole and never comes back to the games industry.

Doesn't matter for me anyway.

I insist on buying new copies of whatever game I buy.

Too paranoid about buying used copies. I keep having that feeling that their ex-owners did something funny to them before they sold their games. Like washing the discs in pee or dipping their game carts in peanut butter or oil or something.

Sounds absurd, yes, but yep I'd rather have new copies so that I know that I'm actually taking care of them from damage I think?

Business area yes. I have a marketing degree, wich is not exactly the same as economics. I am posting as consumer here and less as a professional. My area is more towards where products are aimed and who they are aimed at to achieve profit. The obvious conclusion i already gave: Microsoft cant afford to not aim at a huge chunk of their current market and alienate it, it would be a sure way to make the product fail.

Thus, there is no chance in hell this will happen. Unless, you know... corporte decisions are made by people with more power than brains.

A bit unrelated, but who is making incredible marketing decisions is Nintendo. They are dominating the handheld market and i believe they have a real chance with the Wii U. Why? Simply because their systems are differenciated. They all have a hook that you cant get with any other system, and with the difference in power beeing increasingly less noticeable... i do believe Nintendo have a chance to dominate the home market once again. Sony might be pushed out of the market this generation due to the Japan bottleneck aswell, in my opinion.

That we don't even track

Pretty sure he meant tens of millions of new games sold. 

Which... he's probably right.

At least until something like steam shows up on consoles... though even then while sales will go up revenue will go down.

The advantage of steam is it's ability to run sales for everyone everywhere and in general great price elasticity.

It's not true at all that ridding the secondary market would result in less games being sold because in a market of adversity, opportunity arises.

The reality is that game prices may have more swing, more "greatest hits" titles available, the return of extended demos, cloud computing, piracy, etc.

In fact, I'm going to start working on my proposal, because should the secondary market disappear, the market would be ripe for it.

I will actually agree that sucks.  They shouldn't lock you out of buying new content but I have no problem with giving away content to people buying new.