Because people do buy the game new. Where do you think used games come from? By using paid DLC to close the gaps in your business model you are taking it out on the people who buy your game new as much as you are on the people who bought it used, ergo you are trying to wring more money out of people who were already your paying customers. Of course, paid DLC doesn't exist because of used games but to make more money, period. The day used games die, paid DLC will continue. If paid DLC ever goes away it will be because it ceased to be profitable, not because developers are no longer "needy".

Paid DLC exist to keep people working.  Is it hard for gamers to understand that the creation of your entertaiment is a business that need to make a profit.  There is a lot of people who work on a game that are not needed anymore once the game is complete.  2 things happen, they are laid off until the developer can find another project or they become a cost to the business, sitting at a desk drawing a salary.  DLC is a way for those people to stay employeed and also bring in revenue to a business.  Anytime a company can continue a revenue stream while between projects help the bottom line and also help keep their employees paid and not cost the business

Probably a good case would be Rockstar.  They do not make a lot of games and they are probably one of the best in how they develop and make DLC.  While Rockstar is in the planning stage for their next game, content creators are busy making DLC.  This way everyone stays busy and continue to bring in revenue while the design stage is setup for the next game.

Yes there probably a few developers who take advantage of DLC but then again, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase the material.  Everything cannot just be put into a game.  Gamers always feel entitled to material that cost money to make.  There is nothing free.  If a developer decide to give away content, does not mean it wasn't a cost to their business.  Some developers make enough where they can afford to give free stuff away.  Some are living game by game and any extra development time cost money.

badgenome said:
How about from the glorious digital "future" which is already here, today, right now? Digital distribution is not a new thing. It is available on every single console. With so many digital success stories to look at and draw lessons from, if publishers, developers, and platform holders can't get together and make it work, that is their problem and not the consumer's.

Console games do not make the majority of their money from digital sales, its retail.  Yes, every console has a digital market but how many RETAIL games come out day one. The retail market is still the place where console games will see the majority of their sells until the erroision from digital picks up steam.  Also retail chains have put pressure on publishers to not compete with them on digital sales.  They have threthen with not stocking a company games which at this point in time is a very big threat. 

As this being something that is your problem, well its your problem whether you care or not.  If an industry is in trouble then things will start to change and those changes will effect you.  It could be good or bad but it will happen.

And whose fault is this? No one is forcing publishers to do retail. They do it because it is worth their while. The digital future that would have eradicated the evil of used games and saved the industry if only we had let Microsoft bend us over and have their way with us is already here, right now. If used games are really killing you, stop cutting your own throat by releasing at retail and do digital releases only.

Its nobody fault, its the way the market is today. Publishers do not release to retail because its worth their while, they release to retail because thats where the market is.  Like I stated before, Publishers are a business.  Decisions are made to insure they stay in business and what you suggest would put them out of business.  I am sure when the market shift with more purchases from digital sales, you will see publishers start to make more bold decisions but until tha day, they need to accept the market for what it is but plan for tomorrow.

Actually, if MS gave you the abiliy to Sell, Gift and share your game, exactly how were they bending you over?  I am curious on that one because if I did not know better the only realy problem with MS system was the 24 hour check in.  

... that is the exact same thing. It is worth their while because there are so many customers to be reached at retail.

Minecraft, GTA IV: Episodes from Liberty City, State of Decay... any number of games of all sizes and scopes and levels of production value have all done incredibly well launching on digital only and only coming to retail later if at all. There is plenty enough of a market there that, if retail were really eating them alive, publishers could and would cut it out. A substantial number of noteworthy games going exclusively digital would only increase the rate of growth of the digital audience, but that isn't really happening because as much as some in the industry bitch about it, retail is still profitable enough on balance to continue bothering with it.

... that is the exact same thing. It is worth their while because there are so many customers to be reached at retail.

No they are not the same.  Worth their while would mean they have a choice which they do not because it wold be stupid and cost them their business.  Either way, it sematics

Yes, there are games that have done well launching digital only but then again look at their scale.  You cannot name me any game where the investement is in the millions launching digital only.  Just saying, this game has done well on digital without knowing the investement put into those games is not making a correct compasion.  When you can sell 250 thousand and make a profit that means the development of that game was very small so the market for it can exist on a smaller scale.  As the cost of the game increase so is the need for a much larger customer base.  No publisher is going to put that kind of investment and not seek the larger cusumer base to insure they break even or make a profit.  The market will change when consumer buying habits change.  We already saw what happen when a company wants to strong arm customers into the future.

You don't think Episodes from Liberty City cost millions? Seriously?

Will you listen to Capcom when they say XBLA and PSN games can cost millions to make?

Hell, it costs you $40,000 to simply patch your game on XBLA. You shouldn't find it hard to believe that the cost of making a game can get into the seven digits.

Did you even read the article 

The reality is, when you tote up the man hours, games cost a hell of a lot to make when you're paying folks going rates for services. Even the really "small" XBLA and PSN games can easily get into low to mid-7 figures these days if you're doing multi platform releases that have online gameplay that's been properly (not even excessively) [ran through quality assurance]. And that's not counting marketing.

Low to mid range million, Not 10 to 20 million.  As stated, the larger the budget the larger the need to use a larger consumer base for sales. You really cannot disput that.  Digital at this moment does not represent

Think of it this way.  If a game cost low to mid million and it sells 250,000 at 20 dollar a pop, thats 5 million and a pretty good haul.  Now take your AAA game or even mid tier game that cost the average of 7 million to 20 million, how many sells do you think it will take to return back the money on those games.  When the high point on XLA and PSN is roughly a million for the most succesful games.

Oh, so by "millions" you didn't actually mean millions? Way to move those goalposts.

Bottom line is that you can't argue that retail is slaughtering developers left and right so we all need to go digital and then argue that developers can't go just digital because there isn't enough of an audience there. If they build it, the audience will come. If they don't build it, then they are apparently happy enough with the retail situation and their actions speak louder than their bitching.

@OP:

I can't agree with you.

Used games by themselves are beneficial to the gaming industry, as they contribute to fund new purchases of the more intense gamers.

OTOH, what's harmful is GameStop used games business model, because it uses them to unfairly compete with the new games market and at the same times its huge margin on used games reduce funds available to those intense gamers needing to sell older games to buy new ones.

What GS does isn't illegal, it uses both users' laziness and lack of time and its widespread presence to make them a less convenient offer in return for some time and effort spared compared to other used games channels, but despite being legal, it's nevertheless quite harmful.

But if something must be done, it shouldn't ever damage end-users, that are innocent of this, but just GS (and other companies behaving like it), maybe with rules about commercial exploitment of the used market by subjects different from the consumer.

I'm not understanding why this is hard for people to understand.