WOW!!! lol

OMFG, dude, you went off.

True colors FTW. The bolded parts had me literally gasping in disbelief.

First off, lol, the gaming industry, believe it or not, consists of developers, publishers, corporations, outlets, websites(like this one), magazines, GAMERS, reviewers, television, and all kinds of people. A lot of people here make their livelyhood off videogames, but they don't actually publish or develop them.

I highly doubt you give a shit about anyone but the developers, however you should.

Believe it or not, money changing hands between the people involved in that industry stimulates more money being spent on said industry. This is a fact. It's economics. You know it's right, you just don't give a shit, isn't that right? Upwards of 200 hundred dollars can change hands over 1 used game, 60 of which always goes to the outlet.

As for your disregard for the law, you're not alone. Sometimes I disagree with the law, but without law, there is chaos. Without law, everyone pirates games, and there is no videogame industry.

If everyone pirated them, no one would buy them. If everyone sold them used, then people would still buy them. More than once in fact. A pirated game will always have contributed nothing, and taken away from the economy, far more than it gave it, which is nothing.

You speak of "right and wrong." Well surely you think that "sharing a game with friends online" is wrong, don't you? You sure didn't act like it was, lol, but if you really believe in your morality argument, then you should. You care about developers, right? Well piracy takes money away from them, and gives no money back, to anyone.

Now, how bout the kid who rented Super Mario Brothers III from Fanks Rent to Own when he was 5. Was he morally wrong? I think Miyamoto would have been ok with that kid playing his game. In fact, I think he would be damn proud to have made that kid happy. And you know what? The kid PAID for the game he played.

Everyone PAYS for their games, except pirates. That's the major difference here and what you refuse to accept. You PAY for something. When you PAY for something, you aren't stealing it. You are buying it. When you take something for free, from a corporation that is actively trying to stop you from doing so, and when it's also illegal, it's called stealing. It's stealing. One didn't pay, one never paid, because one stole it. When you steal things, when you pirate things, you don't pay for them. You steal them.

Do you see the difference now, finally? Get over me, and my attitude, and see my argument. Do you see the difference? For real bro?

Oh come on, lol, now you're just being silly. Calm down, plz. That last paragraph is flame worthy as all hell, but let's stay civil. No need to start a flame war here.

I think Final Fantasy for the famicom was a pretty decent gamechanger for the FPS genre. I think Devil May Cry pretty much invented the modern hack and slash genre. I think FFVI(or VII) reinvented the JRPG, and I think MGS totally owns the stealth action genre, and was revoltionary.

Of course Survival Horror was invented on the console, with RE1, and I have a hard time thinking of a more influential TPS than RE4(though I'm sure this has a PC port out there somewhere). Gears of War was based on it.

That is, of course, excluding the fighting and platforming genres....for some unknown reason. I can certainly give WRPG innovations to the PC, since KoToR did eventually go multiplat, and BGII/Fallout2/DiabloII exist. Also, there is the RTS, FPS, and MMO genre, but really, RTS and MMO games are pretty much exclusive to the PC. Half-Life is a great game.

That said, there are many genre defining and changing titles on the consoles, that you aren't giving any credit. To say there is only 1 is shocking to say the least.

First of all to address KOTOR. KOTOR is a copy of Neverwinter Nights, same fighting system same everything basically. Except it had 3 classes whi.e NWN had 9, had only a handful of feats while NWN had hundreds, and a hadful of spell while NWN had well over 150. KOTOR is literally NWN but simplified kiddied up and set in Star Wars not Forgotten Realsm

Also Final Fantasy was not an FPS it was your RPG, however that just copied Wizardry even in its JRPG elements, however it did give the first top down map idea, I'll give it that. Diablo was your original hack and slash with "you vs hudreds of enemies" type of action, if you mean combos and stuff as hack and slash then please look at . As for stealth and MGS, please look at the Thief series on the PC. True survival horror was invented with Silent Hill which was on the PC and even earlier if you wanna say that the point and click adventures can be horrific. TPS is a pussified versioin of FPSes and if you mean horror shooter please look at Doom or Doom 3 even.To add more, Need for Speed was originally on the PC, and I haven't liked a NFS since Hot Pursuit 2 or Porsche.

Games with platforming and party games I don't mention because they are actually meant to be played on consoles and not PCs.

I thnk you completely missed the point. I have never argued whether piracy is right or wrong o whether used selling does the same. I'm arguing that on the individual scale they are equally bad, with used game selling being worse. As for laws, of course about the chaos.

On the individual scale, piracy taes as much money away from a developer and publisher as does selling yoru used game. I've already shown you, it's the exact same. In fact piracy would equate to giving your game away, not selling it. It all amounts to other peple playing it without paying money to the developer and publisher. It's not about paying or not, it's about where the money goes.

Piracy is also not stealing, it has not removed a copy of the game or prevented anyone else from using the original, it's jsut a copy. That's not stealing. When you buy a used game, you are stealing jsut as much from the developer and the publisher. You jsut stole it from them by paying another thief who makes money out of the theft.

Vlad: So you are saying that it is immoral to buy used cars, used books, used clothes and even old houses? None of them benefit original makers either but I doubt you would consider buying them immoral. I don't see any difference between buying used car and buying used game. There is no difference morally and legally because both are original physical items.

If I don't like the game or I don't want it anymore, I should have right to sell just like any physical item I have.

Did you even read the first setence of the last post I made. I'm saying buying used cars will be the same if you could copy the car. Also games are not physical items, they are digital, that's a HUGE difference.

A. Piracy takes much more away from a publisher, even on an individual scale. The publisher gets paid for every game sold, and resale stimulates interest in the product, as well as benefiting the gaming economy.

B. The gaming economy doesn't just consist of the publisher. There are middlemen, like Steam, that also get a cut. There are also gamers. The most important part. They pay for everything(unless they're pirates). Giving money to Steam, or Gamestop, or gamers, allows them to increase the size of their business, or the rate at which they continue to purchase games, benefiting the publisher indirectly, while helping the economy by increasing the amount of money spent on each game. Pirates save money by not buying games, but they won't reinvest that in games, because they are pirates, and choose to steal their games for free, unless it's a console game which they can't pirate. With selling used games, the original purchase always ends up with money to spend on another original purchase, which he might do. Rentals to a greater extent, benefit the publisher directly, and often benefit the actual developer more, than a single sale would.

C. Piracy benefits the pirate only, and hurts the publisher, the distributor, and the entire economy, gaming or otherwise.

D. Piracy IS stealing. It's not stealing physical property, but that is just cemantics. Piracy is stealing digital property. You contradict yourself. How is "piracy is not stealing" congruent with the phrase "When you buy a used game, you are stealing jsut as much".

E. In your example, it wasn't even "the exact same." I've given you multiple examples very clearly and concisely stating the differences, but you continue to ignore and marginalize them.

We are at an impass. You refuse to admit that economics exist, and you try to generalize this argument down to its lowest common denominator, by only worrying about how the publisher of a game benefits directly from each individual SALE(much more than they benefit from each individual download, I guarntee you that). You also refuse to listen to reason. I don't know what else there is to say at this point. I've issued you a very complex and cohesive argument, which you completely dismiss, so I've probably been wasting my time.

Actually some games are physical items. They are discs. Being able to sell physical things you don't want anymore is an important part of the economy. PC developers have added measures to keep you from being able to do just that. Console developers haven't. Thus, your morality issue(while completely wrong) is moot. It is still a major weakness of PC gaming when it comes to the price of said games, and in my eyes, pirates will always be thieves trying to get something for nothing, while people who trade in used games are HELPING the industry by driving it forward with capital and investment.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm really not.

Either way, piracy is illegal, the buying and selling of used goods is encouraged in a capitalistic country, and even the developers aren't against it, because they could put a stop to it instantly. Whatever you, and the small group of PC fans choose to justify piracy as, can't change that.

So really, your only issue is with the reselling of used games individually, and not the rental of games, the borrowing of games, the trading of games, and the buying of used games at a place like gamestop?

Also, your rebuttles aren't very good. The reason they aren't very good, is because it's hard to have a rebuttle in this instance. You just have to create so much spin and confusion around the subject that you can pretend you are arguing a point, but really you are just stating an unpopular opinion, not even shared by the developers you so highly tout, and attempting to marginalize every factual point the detractors are making.

"Oh, legality doesn't matter, stores and the economy don't matter, everything you've said doesn't matter, really if the developer doesn't get 60 bucks everytime his game is sold, it's piracy."

That's wrong. Pirates are getting something for nothing. End of story. Let me know exactly which part of the used gaming industry you think it piracy so I can explain why you are wrong, better.