It depends where you get it from.  Gamestop has prices like that for used, but others are closer to 30-50% off.

I bought all my X360 games used and I'll do the same when I buy a PS3. The only new games I'll buy this gen will probably be FFXIII. Games are too expensive this gen.

I do not really think that Used games are killing industry, shops that sell them offer a cheaper alternative for this generation titles , especially from Publishers like Nintendo who usually keep the prices of their games quite high for a long time, they got their money for that copy ,and if selling it trough is not illegall there shouldnt be a problem, by selling second hand copies shops are helping comanies to promote their products among users.

Also shops like CeX (in the Uk) or gamestation are the best place to find titles for older consoles , i'm quite tempted to get a dreamcast this year along with few quality titles.

But personally i like to buy new games: not scratched ,i like the freshness of the box , plus i really enjoy buying a game.

Killing nah....Hurt them yes.

I find it difficult to believe that used videogame sales are really impacting the industry when there is nearly a Billion pieces of videogame software and over 100 games that sell more than a million copies in a year. What is killing the industry is that for every piece of software that sells a million copies there are 2 pieces of software than need to sell a million units of software that fall far short.

 Which, of course, just highlights the developer arrogance and apathy that I mentioned before.  A developer with a reasonable level of humility will produce a game within a budget which the likely-worst-case sales scenario would still cover the cost of.  That is not how most developers think, however.  A great deal of studios make the games that they want to, regardless of actual demand or interest in that kind of product, do no analysis of market impact (opting instead to assume that past market trends will continue or that everybody will love the game because the studio that made it loves the game), spend a huge sum making the game look as good as possible, and then are baffled when their product which most people didn't want fails to sell well enough to cover the ludicrous and unjustified budget they allocated for it.

 The developers most hurt by used game sales are those arrogant developers who ignore consumer demand.  These "single serving games" that have no replay value and occasionally not much first-play value are the ones getting hit the hardest, especially when they're uninspired "clones" of more popular games (how many Halo-alikes are there now on 360?  How many FPS games does one console need?).  The developers who are doing the trailblazing (or have done the trailblazing historically) and setting the trends, however, don't seem to be doing that badly.  The reason for that is simple enough: in 2006, the cycle of the industry got rebooted.  And we're currently in the part of the industry cycle where innovation is rewarded, and imitation is punished.

I understand IP rights and the EULA's exceptionally well, thanks.  EULAs have been ruled both ways - usually very narrowly.  There isn't much out there that sets a solid precedent one way or the other.  There are some big cases if you want to search, but in the end, they have mostly been declared unenforceable when it has been determined that the end user was not given appropriate opportunity to read or at least receive a copy of the EULA before proceeding down the path of using the actual I.P.  Again, courts have ruled both ways...  Some have gone through multiple appeals.  Connecting to the company's server isn't necessary -- just proof that the user had an opportunity to look at and agree to an EULA before using it.  The main problem is that little proof and the old standard of reasonableness...

The landmark case is ProCD vs. Zeidenberg and was a "Shrink Wrap EULA".  The court found EULAs valid and enforceable in that particular case.  There are others that go in the opposite direction as well, but this one really stands out if you read the text.

In case you haven't noticed, much of what Sony is doing on their PS3 (downloaded content, for the most part, as far as I can tell) requires that you agree to an EULA of somore sort.  They are quite wordy and mandatory before you proceed.  I've not seen anything of the like on my 360 and Wii.  Why do you suppose they go through this process?  Are they setting themselves up for something in the future or just being overly anal?

Regardless, The Uniform Commercial Code does not protect a consumer from all contracts -- just unconscienable ones or ones that lack consideration.  As far as I know, the UCC has not been directly modified to address electronic contracts though I haven't studied commercial law in a number of years.  I'm assuming the DMCA was part of the effort to fill the gap. 

In the end, a carefully worded EULA along with a means to actually deliver it effectively (and prove it so) is the real catch.  That would mean, for the most part, delivering an EULA before splitting the shrink wrap because all retailers won't take back opened stuff.  In that case, the seller of the software would have to agree to take back opened software which just opens the floodgates to "90 day rental from Wal Mart".  That's a tough one to get past and perhaps the single biggest obstacle IMO.

There is a huge difference between buying used games and pirating games.

If you buy a used game, the overall supply of that game remains the same, while the number of available new and used copies of the game on the market goes down by one. Because of this increased scarcity, the market value of the game will increase, and if enough used copies get bought, consumers will be forced to buy a new copy. Before this point is reached, sales of new copies will increase anyway, as the difference between new and used prices gets smaller and more purchasers decide the discount isn't worth a slightly inferior product.

If you pirate the game, you increase the effective supply of that game by one by publishing your own copy. The number of new and used copies available on the market remains the same. If enough copies of the game are pirated, the market is flooded with cheap copies of the game and the value of legal copies drops down as illegal copies become readily available. Few people would choose to buy new if an illegal copy can be conveniently had for 1/10th the price.

This is just economics, and is completely aside from any moral or legal questions of the equivalence of piracy and used goods.

DLC will help a little with the problem but until digital distribution is the way the vast majority of people get their console games it will continue to be a major problem.