Outside of places like Gamestop biting the hands that feed them by pushing used over new content, exactly how is it different from a financial standpoint than a library?  People use content they didn't pay for.  It is also arguably close to piracy, except that the games via piracy multiply, while the content is fixed.  From a usage perspective, book publishers are in the same boat as videogame publishers in that content gets out there, people use it, and don't pay them for it.

So what makes it more offensive for videogames than it does for books?  People use content and don't pay the publisher.

i guess he hasnt visit a library for a long time... or dont utilize it properly....

and by his definition... fiction and non-fiction is non history

research material is non history....

ill research on human progress in medical field.... that is non historical...

shakespeare is not part of history...

first edition books are non history....

news paper is non history and should be accessed online...... esp the local news paper...

library doesnt conduct their own work in preservation.... and it is not true is a branch of their science....

library is just a bookstore when they get old XD

Only 5 % of all the writers in the world can live solely from the money they are making with their books. Only 5 %. Mainly the big names, Tom Clancy, Steven King and so on. But most of them have to do some other work. I am for example heavily into marketing. Not because I have so much fun with writing ads. Just because I can't live from the earnings of my books.

So, how many developers can't survive with the earnings from a game?

Used is perfectly fine. Nobody wants to buy something without knowing something about it. So with used products you can win the interest of people. If they like what you're doing, maybe they will buy some of your stuff. If they don't, used copies aren't the problem. It is always about quality. The only reason to prevent used copies is greed. Nothing else. You shouldn't support it. You really shouldn't.

Sadly no.  Most libraries have certain information available for a period of time, but they don't have extended archives any more.  Big city libraries and major universities, sure but your average run-of-the-mill library, no.  Actually surprising considering you can not get entire collections of both newspapers and magazines online, but they aren't available to libraries.  Then you have library systems like ours, where the religious section is larger than the science section, and where there are bibles in the reference section but no encyclopedias.

I had a classmate run into that with our local city library.  They had a magazine sub go back 20 years, but no further and no access to anything beyond it. 

What is nice here, is that we have a state-wide program where if a library somewhere in the state has it, you can get it at your local library.  There are some exceptions, and newspapers and magazines are one as well as some books, but I used the service myself and must say it was awesome!  Nothing like doing a research paper, realizing your local library has nothing for you, then realizing that all the research material you need is available to you, you just have to order it in.

Speak for yourself. The library system in my city was valued to be a $25 million operation in 2011. We're pretty much the Netflix, ISP , iTunes, Pandora, newspaper, magazine and tutoring service for thousands of people. ~_~

The money spent making a game is way more than the money spent making a book. Also, I would say the money lost due to used games is way more than lost revenue from libraries/book stores selling used games.

The cost of entry is also a huge difference. If there's a new book out and it looks interesting, I'd much rather just go and pay $10 for it than wait for the library to get it in, hope there's not a  long reservation line, then eventually go there and find it and check it out, all the while feeling rushed to finish it so I don't get late fees. As opposed to a game, where it's sold new and used right next to one another, and I pay way less for a used copy. And if there is no used copy, a $10 gamble for a book is a much easier decision to make than a $60 game.

A dud by an author is no big deal. Most of the big name authors have written plenty of stinkers. However, a dud by a big developer is a big deal. Developers don't usually survive multiple duds. To me, this says the financials of the industries are radically different. Of course, the financials of the video game industry and how terribly it is run is not something gamers should pay the price for imho but that's for another thread.

Saddly, I speak for the country I live in. :(

No, you missed the point of the post.

The fact is that your entire analogy is not remotely accurate because libraries work cooperatively with the publishers. Gamestop can buy anygame from anyone and sell it at any price they want. Librarians dont just buy a book off the shelf and undercut publishers and give away their product.

The ebook story is an example of how a library cant just buy kindle versions of books for $8 and distribute them to unlimited people. Its showing you that the public libraries dont operate the way you are alluding to.

Your entire post has no logic in comparisons to people arguing about the Xbox One used game debate.

I've never heard of Libraries affecting the sale of books at retail stores.

This used game fetish that developers and producers bring up is just that, a fetish. They can't get over it and it's weird because it doesn't make any sense.