http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002035113

Key point is "Honestly, publishers can gripe about the used and rental markets 'til the cows home, but the reality is that the First Sale Doctrine permits the legal re-sale of this product," notes the IEMA's Halpin, "so it's a moot debate. If we, as an industry, are truly worried about the commoditization of our products and the erosion of wholesale and retail price points, there are far better uses of our time to that end. We need do nothing more than come together and discuss the matters face-to-face and agree upon resolutions that are both practical and legal."

When you buy a game you can do anything with it short of copying it and distributing copies. 

#2 . "At Atari, Stocks says he agrees that if a consumer buys a new game with credits for selling an old one, it does "help keep the churn in the marketplace. But publishers are spending most of their marketing dollars at the time of the launch of a product and most TV campaigns run a week to six weeks past launch. Yet, in that timeframe, somebody can buy a cheaper, used version of the game and that is certainly not helping the publisher who has made a massive investment not only in the game but also in the marketing of the game," he notes. "So, yes, the used sale can generate a new sale later on, but that's not when the money is really needed.""

I used game is likely to become a new game at some point.  No pirated game ever will. 

#3.  "And when they trade in their games and get a GameStop credit, what do they do with those credits?" he asks. "They buy games, of course. Sometimes they buy new games. If, instead, they buy used games, so what? In creating more demand for used games, it keeps the price of used games up, which means there is less cannibalization of new-game sales. It's all a very delicate balance. And I think the market will tend to keep things in equilibrium."

Used games recertify the value of new games.  Particularly if you've ever bought a used game and the condition was less than you expected.  Much more likely to go new next time. 

#4.  "I appreciate their perspective," says the IEMA's Halpin, "but have a hard time seeing the sales erosion that the publishers' claim. I've had these kinds of discussions before with publishers and I suggested to them they should look at rental and used as avenues to expand their potential base. Imagine if rental had never come along; it would have been phenomenally detrimental to the growth of the business. Any publisher today will tell you that Blockbuster and Movie Gallery are both Top 10 customers for them. We work in a hits-driven business and games that don't sell well in the first 60 days have a financial impact on the entire sector. The used and rental markets expand that window and permit secondary opportunities."

Rental places are large customers of the publishers.  Interesting.  I think it leads credence to the whole most consumers don't see games as a $50.  But also shows that their are cheap alternatives to getting to play the games such as a $5 rental rather than illegally downloading the game. 

Bottom line is used game sales are a reasonable and legal outsource to high game prices.  And in the end only one copy exists.  So if you like the game enough to keep it or purchase a new copy yourself, the publisher got money from that game.  This is never true for a pirated game.

 I'm going to quote this from the thread where developers only recover 30% of their development costs because I think it applies here to.

So while I'm sure that their are developers that are working at Walmart because they were laid off.  This is the most likely result of piracy.  Less inovation and fewer competitors.  This Holiday season only has 3-4 games that I feel I need to have.  Most Holidays, it's easily over a dozen and I never get to all of them.  The video games industry is having record years nearly 20 billion in revenues and the top third party EA http://www.cnbc.com/id/25917631 can't even make money.  I know most of you will say they don't deserve to make money.  But then you expect them to make better games when they don't.

Yeah, piracy affects game sales, but how much??? because do you think all people who did download the iso or backup would have bought the game if piracy didnt existe??, many times industry overeact saying they losed big money vs piracy, but if piracy didnt existe would they have sold all those pirated games on originals??

Piracy has a vast effect on the industry and greatly effects game sales. For proof, look at PSPs great hardware/terrible software sales.

1 - Even if I would import from such places there is such a heavy taxation in my country (you pay 160% of the value of the product if it is more than 50 dollars) that the prices become pretty much the same as the ones you buy here. So it´s still an
unbelievably unfair situation. It´s not just the companies, my government like to screw with me too.

2 - You are kind of right. Some people will only pirate it because it´s cheaper for them. However, if prices were greatly reduced, the companies would sell a lot more here, because many customers like me who see a real value in it, would want the real thing.

Not to mention the problem is that it costs $1000 per year. It shouldn´t. And it´s not for free. It´s just a much smaller price. In fact, by your argument, you´re kind of agreeing with me. If the companies released their consoles directly here, and forced the government to diminish taxes, the price would me much cheaper, and a lot of people (including myself) would buy the real thing (because of the growing economies).

P.S. - Another thing that really adds value to the game is online. Because I am a pirate I can´t experience playing online, downloading demos, etc.. If I bought the real thing I would be able to do such things and I would feel like my money was well spent (that I got a lot for it)

3 - Piracy is not stealing. To steal is: You have something; I take it from you; Now, I have it and you don´t. In this case, I have mine, you have yours, nobody is missing anyhitng because of it. What you described is the difference between steal and theft.

Theft - Take something from someone without them realizing it.

Steal - Take something from someone directly, by forcing with intimidation, weapons, etc.

Fool yourself, go ahead. Piracy is ok, because it's not stealing. However you look at it, whether piracy means the exact same thing as stealing or not, doesn't matter one damn bit. It's just as wrong. But go ahead, convince yourself piracy is ok, because it's not stealing.

That depends on how you view stealing. I do a lot of paid photography work and my fiance is a professional photographer. If someone uses my images without permission or payment then it is annoying, but I don't regard it as stealing because they haven't taken anything off me. If someone broke in and stole my camera gear or hard drives and discs with photos on I regard that as theft. They have taken real physical things off me and I can no longer use them. If someone copies a photo off my website they have not taken the photo from me. It is still on my website, it is still on my hard drive and I can still use it. They have not deprived me of my property, therefore it is not theft.

I understand and fully accept that other people would view it differently. Neither is ultimately "right" or "wrong", they're just different points of view.

The more people that pirate, the less quality software is available.

Let's take a look at china as an example. It's a massive market. How many software developers are catering to the Chinese market? Ever played a CRPGs? Do you ever talk about importing one of those awesome Chinese games? Rhetorical questions. I'm sure there's probably some, but it isn't on the same scale as in those countries where more people purchase than pirate the games. So china, by its rampant piracy, has actually decreased the quality of "made for Chinese" games.

ferret: Intangibles have value that can be lost when reproduced. Copyright & Trademarks have value and is actually an item appearing on balance sheets as an asset of the company. Usage without permission degrades both. In that way, someone can take something from you without having taken any physical item.

For example. Let's say you took a picture of a really sexy woman that was going to be sold to the coca cola marketing division, and somebody copies it and sells it to pepsi co and it is used in their marketing campaign before your deal is sealed with coca cola. You can no longer sell it to coca cola and it has lost its value. It's entirely your choice to pursue the person. If you just want to be annoyed instead, that's your choice. But most professionals would pursue damages, if for nothing other than to discourage other people from copying their images.