Here's proof.

Me!

I do this all the time. I also take more risks on full price, day1 games because I know if it's crap I can just pop it on ebay and recover a good chunk of money.

I wouldn't have bought half the games I did this gen without the ability to sell them after I was finished with them.

Why do you thing Aliens: Colonial Marines sold so many copies?

I knew that game was a risk but I bought it knowing the risk was low due to my ability to recoup my money.

The second hand market seems to survive in every other industry out there. What makes gaming so different?

1. I didn't say that. I said that you need to make people want to keep your games. I didn't say that you shouldn't have anything in the game that isn't specifically geared to that purpose. I said that the game should have value of some sort that makes the player want to keep the game. This could be strength of story, quality of gameplay, a method of keeping things fresh (like free DLC), human interaction (multiplayer, either local or online), or sheer amount of content. Can you name a genre of game for me that isn't capable of having at least one of these?

2. Ocarina of Time is a game that has demonstrated longevity of ownership. It is entirely a single-player game. People keep the game because of the combination of an enjoyable game world, a strong story (improved upon by Majora's Mask), and content. Keep in mind the numbers it sold on the N64, which was a system that relatively struggled, during an era where there wasn't just used games, but also widespread renting services. Mario 64 similarly sold exceptionally well without multiplayer or DLC. More recently, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 comes to mind, and Wind Waker HD is going to prove that people will even re-buy games that they already have if it's a good enough game, even for only a relatively straightforward update (Zelda OoT 3D already proved it once - indeed, I own both a N64 with OoT and MM, and a 3DS with OoT 3D). As for Epic, I can't really comment since I don't know the situation you're referring to.

3. YAWN... tired old arguments. Nintendo puts out more new IPs than most publishers. Just on the Wii, there was the Wii series, Endless Ocean, Captain Rainbow, Disaster, FlingSmash, Zangeki no Reginleiv, Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower. Sure, some didn't make it to some territories, but that's a significant list of new IPs... remember, that's on ONE platform. I'm not counting new IPs on the DS/3DS during the Wii's lifetime. I'm also not counting WiiWare titles. The point I was making, that you completely ignored, is that Nintendo doesn't just try to make megahits - they recognise that not every game is destined to sell 10 million copies, and they spread their development over a variety of games. Hence why you have games like Super Mario 3D World on one hand, and Yarn Yoshi on the other.

4. My conclusion is that used games impact new game sales, but the impact is not simple, and is more likely to be beneficial than harmful to any quality game. Used games harm games that are developed by PR checklist, the ones that have a list of features that are shoehorned in to allow them to put something on the back of the box as a selling point. The companies that have been struggling most have all been the companies that follow that approach - Activision, EA, and THQ are/were all examples of this approach. It shouldn't surprise you that the companies that use this approach the most are also the ones calling for an end to used games.

On the flipside, the companies that tend to focus on giving more to the consumer, like, yes, Ubisoft (OK, not so much in the past, but in the last couple of years they've improved a lot), have been speaking in favour of used games, and have been surviving quite well (they made a profit in the year ending March 2012, and a larger profit in the year ending March 2013, at a time when a lot of companies have been falling apart - also note that Ubisoft's lineup for 2013 includes the new IPs Watch Dogs, The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot, and Nutty Fluffies, and they had ZombiU at the launch of the Wii U, and they also have The Crew and Tom Clancy's The Division in development.

Most of the time its not the ridiculus high Budgets but the ridicolus high Advertising some games get. That and some unbelievable high and again false sales predictions are the main reason for some games flopping.

The really bewildering thing is when they do this with franchises that haven't shown the capability to sell anywhere near what they'd to to recover costs. Like Dead Space 3 needing to sell 5 million when the best selling game barely sold 3 million, and this after Calladoodying it all up and turning off the very people who liked the first game.

I did not buy a single used game this gen but do not like X1's old policies ...why? The consumer should be enticed to switch not forced. If DD titles were cheaper the way they should be considering the savings to the publishers, consumers would go that route instead of buying used games but alas, the x1 games would have been the same price which is a scam.

The second problem is, if DD becomes the only option, I dounbt game prices would go down as fast as they do now. For comparison, check how often the prices of most dlcs (usually digital only) change over time vs the prices of the actual games (retail). A lot of game dlcs are still full price while the games themselves have become dirt cheap.

My advice to those who buy used games though is this: I you really want to save money, buy a few months after launch. There isn't much difference between $55 and $60

so the past few days i have been seeing the same point argued by this dude(disolitude ) over and over ! he just words it differently! please just ignore any of his future trends so we can be done with this

dsolitude is obviously passionate about the X1. Let him do his thing. There's room for everyone

You're wrong. Hopefully in 6 months time, I'll be able to prove it to you.

I bought into the used game argument but my opinion of our industry has changed.

The main issue right now is inefficiencies when publishers moved into the HD generation. Costs skyrocketed when creating new engines, which all publishers did. I think most will take Naughty Dog's approach and optimize exisiting engines for the next gen rather than build from scratch thus reducing costs. Whena game like the Last of Us and Uncharted has a fraction of the budget of multi-plat games you know the issue is with the publisher and inefficiencies/lack of ability to control costs.

I don't understand why this is portrayed as a unique problem that is devastating to the video game industry.

Video games are exactly like any other piece of media. Why are they treated differently? Used books stores have been around for centuries, people still buy new books. Authors/publishers still make money from their works. Used movies and movie rentals have been around forever, and music, etc etc etc.

Consumers are buying a gaming experience, when they are done, and no longer want to have access to those experiences, they are selling them, usually to buy new gaming experiences. Publishers do not deserve to be paid for each PLAYER that plays the game, but for each UNIQUE gaming experience available to the players as a whole.

The arguing against used games is telling consumers "Well, you have a game that you no longer want to play. You have two choices, keep it forever or throw it in the garbage"