Well, you specifically cited Gamestop, and Gamestop is kind of the most demonized entity in the used games witch hunt. But yeah, you can trade in used games to Best Buy or sell them on Ebay or give them away to Goodwill. So what? Again, if the industry needs to eradicate property rights in order to live, then it needs to fucking die.

A potential sale is not the same as an actual sale. This is the same way that every act of piracy is considered by some people to be a lost sale, but it isn't in the vast majority of cases. A pirated copy was rarely ever going to be a sold copy. The same is true to a very large extent with second hand sales as well when prices of new games (and even digital copies) are so stupidly resistant to the downward pressure exerted on them by the used market. A lot of those people will just simply buy fewer games, and the Cliff Bleszinskis of the world will still blame the consumer.

Even the complete eradication of used games and a 100% digital market place would not to solve the industry's woes. It wasn't that long ago that we were in the cartridge era, and as Mark Cerny pointed out at GDC, an $80 RPG would see as little as $1-2 going toward developer costs. That was insane, and dirt cheap optical media was something of a savior... for a while. But here we are again thanks, not to piracy or rentals or anything else, but to the explosive growth of gaming budgets because stupid investors and publishers demand that every single game be AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and the next Call of Duty.

Games for PS2-XBOX cost $49 and the price was increased to $59 with PS360, so it's natural to expect another jump to $69 sooner or later.

I assume you mean GameStop

Anyway, depends on the consumer segment you're looking at. Those with low annual income are more likely to buy used and only used, but that doesn't mean they'd buy a significant number of new titles if they had the choice. More likely they'd find a cheaper alternative or turn to piracy to get their games.

People that buy both however (mid-income), are more likely to buy a used game if it's a relative unknown (e.g. new IP or poor marketing campaign). It's cheaper and reduces the risk for the customer. If that customer likes that game they're more likely to purchase other titles from the franchise/developer as well as DLC for the game itself. It's the same logic that's used for Steam sales. Some people may only buy games when they're on a Steam sale but many others get sucked into franchises and become long-term customers.

As badgenome says, there's also those that trade back games so they can purchase new releases which further fuels sales for publishers.

Also, some of those with lower income are younger gamers (e.g. students) that in in a few years time will have a significant pool of dispoable cash. If you've sucked them into franchises via used games, when they have the cash they're more likely to purchase the next iteration new.

Blaming used games is simply an easy target for the industry's own inadequacies and is short-term thinking. If you need to blame the used market then you need to look at your business model as it's obviously flawed.

The problem was never games being sold back.  The problem is that the only company to benifit from used games is gamestop.  The consumer, developer, and publisher all gets ripped off when that next copy is purchased which is a 10% difference ($6).  Often times used games are even more expensive than a new copy, no joke.

I really appreciate posts like this.  I like being challenged with well thought out arguments and clear and concise reasoning. 

The thing is, I completely understand and pretty much agree with you. Gaming publishers do not deserve special treatment at all. They collected their game asking price when the initial sale occured and this is when the transfer of ownership happened. Games are still clasiffied as goods and there is no reason why their economy should function any differently from any other goods.

My post was mostly inspired by the fact that I am seeing significant stagnation and repetition in gaming and the number of AAA titles I have desire to play is becoming smaller every year. With the way next gen is starting, I am not seeing any signs things will change. Looks like next gen is going to be about massive day 1 sellers that ride the hype train, and indie titles that do great things but don't have the budgets. 

Another issue with the current business model is that console gaming is slowly becoming service based rather than being the goods you buy. Everything is presented on a string, with more better things to come later at a price...For example I really enjoyed Gears of War when it came out, but now I feel that in order for me to enjoy it I have to buy the game, seasons pass, DLC and god knows what else. I have no time, money or patience for this...

All I am saying is that I would be willing to give up used game sales, even though it isn't the correct thing to do, if that will make publishers take more risks, deliver more quality new IPs, more single player experiences like the Last of Us... I'd be willing to throw publishers a bone even if they don't desreve it. 

The used games thing was only a temporal patch, the problem is that there are several devs that are compulsive spenders. Dev costs would have keep increasing until they were again in trouble, so in the end it wouldn't fix anything.

Lack of variety will hurt the industry in the process. Focus in less and less genres, and less and less people will buy a console.

It's all their fault. Wasting ludicrous amounts of money isn't required to make a game that makes a profit.

Completely agree that used games are ruining the industry, The xbox one was almost DOA because of them. Now they are not an issue any more that console has a fight chance.

Just shows the damage that they can cause.

No one gets ripped off. That's the point.

pub/dev get more new sales as the person trades/sells in their games.

people selling games have a lot more choices than gamestop. you can get far better value using CL or eBay. I don't know why everyone only assumes GS when talking used. eBay resells FAR more games than GS with far higher returns.

people buying games blah blah same rant as sellers above but also get FAR better deals using CL/eBay.

That is a very one sided argument.  Let's say Naughty Dog makles a game.  Someone beats it at launch and then sells it the very next day (X1 allowed this).  That person gets about $25 back.  That is fine.  The next game that person buys is from a different company using the $25 but is that next game used or new?  Who knows, a lot of variables takes place.  Now the game you sold back is also being sold used for %10 less and the developer/publisher just lost out on a  copy sold even though that person who purchased it would have bought the game new anyways seeing as it is as I said only %10 discount.  Example being $6 for PS3/X360/WiiU.  While only $3 off on DS and 3DS games.  That isn't a big enough discount to change people's opinion on buying the game.

Xbox One's original plan was to allow you to resell your games, so for all the people who beats a game and then resells them it would not have effected.  Then you have the people who buy used games, it would have effected the absolute minimum while also boosting money for the developers/publishers that worked hard on those games in the first place.

People was over-reacting to the situation.  the only problem was the 24h check in.  Not used games as you could still resell them.

If someone buys a new game and resells... anywhere but GS they'll get closer to $50 and they are more than likely buying new again.

You can pull any one-sided situation you want, but fact is used game sales have existed the entirety of gaming and have yet to be a reason for a crash or shut down.