You can lend, borrow and sell a game on PC almost as easy... renting is something that console gamers bring up, yet is almost no different from piracy since you're not only not supporting the developers, but you're also giving money to people who are hurting them.

No, you can't lend, borrow, and sell games on PC nearly as easily. Especially when they are DLC.

Renting is no different from piracy, lol? You know the developers are paid by Gamefly to allow their games to be rented, right? Some developers don't even allow their games to be on there, very rarely. So, paying a developer for the right to rent their game, in the united states, is the same as stealing a game off the internet, and not paying the developer, the rental agency, or anyone involved with the gaming community a red cent? How's that work shio? Aren't you just completely biased, lol?

There are probably countries where it is legal to molest goats. Who are we to suppose their motivations?

I'm fine with not getting exclusive 1st party games and sticking with games that last forever. When the consoles get something as high quality as say.... Deus Ex (people still replay it everywhere 10 years later), X-COM (same, almost 20 years), Diablo 2, Warcraft, Starcraft, Half-Life. Come talk to me. So far there hasn't been a single huge game outside of platformers and fighing on the consoles, certianly not 1st party ones. I have yet to play a good FPS or RPG game on a console. All are too kiddy and simplified for the audience/controller (compare Morrowind to Oblivion, Oblivion sucked the big one and Morrowing was absolutely awesome).

As for your logic of spending money = stimulating economy. Which economy are you exactly stimulating? Yes you get more money but what the hell do you do with it? Buy more used games so devs don't see any more money anyways. It doesn't matter if there is exchange of money or not, the publishers and devs still don't see any of the money, a la piracy.

The arguments are also not selective at all. I did the math for you, with piracy the devs get 50 bucks and with tradeins they see 60, the initial buyers. Anything afterwards they don't see. Please, stick to the math. How is it any different. Show me and back it up.

This is where I stopped taking you seriously, because it is impossible to sell a console game to "everyone."  At best you can pass it around your circle of friends, then hock it on ebay or at Gamestop, but many more copies than one will be sold. 

/bow

lol, yeah, I pointed that one out earlier. :)

So you're the "leet PC gamer" I keep hearing about. Thanks for doing my math...

The math? You did the math all right, using spin, and relating it to god knows what.

The real "math" doesn't exist, because we don't have real numbers.

What is "real" according to facts, is that stealing a game's code via download off the internet illegally, is called piracy.

Buying a copy of a game from gamestop is called "buying." It's legal, and those two things aren't the same.

If they were, they would be called the same thing. When you went into gamestop, the guy would say, "What can I pirate for you today?"

Your faulty logic comes in at the point where you assume that the ONLY thing that matters in this conversation is the end result for the videogame publisher. That's simplistic, and totally irrelivant to the overall gaming economy.

What is deceptive about your logic comes when you assume that a single disc copy of the game causes as much money to be lost to the developer of a game, as a single pirate who uploads said game. That is a plain and simple obvious fallacy.

Now, to back it up.

Developers have stated that they have started releasing their PC ports late, so the bulk of their sales(consoles) won't be affected by piracy.

Case in point, Assassin's Creed 2 was just delayed for PC for this very reason.

Developers have also went to great lenghts, adding DRM, and online registration, in order to prevent piracy. On console, developers have the option to require registration(or in Sony's case: burn proprietary disc lables onto the disc when you enter them into the console) but they won't, and don't do it. They fight piracy. They don't fight the used market. Not in any real way, beyond words.

Now Sony has aspirations to move its PSP console to DD, but this is a very small new console, and an experiement. Of course, developers want to make as much money as they can off of a game, but that doesn't mean they consider stealing the game, the same as lending it. No one does. Not even you. I believe you are probably just taking this stance in an effort to defend PC pricing, or piracy itself.

Come on man. You know you're my buddy Vlad so I won't be harsh, but come on! Obviously with piracy, only one copy would have to be sold and then uploaded onto the internet to spread to every torrent site on the net. Hypothetically, it only takes one copy to spread to the entire PC gaming population. One used copy however, could never spread to the entire console gaming population. A single physical copy can only travel so fast and to so many people. To create a viable used games market, a certain amount of new copies have to be bought first.

That is how it's different.

So trade-ins are just a smaller scale of piracy. I'm willing to buy that. But it's still very similar. Piracy on a smaller scale is still piracy. If piracy was reduced to 90% would you still call it piracy? I think so.

With the way they affect the bottom line of publishers, yes it's a smaller scale of piracy. That's what makes piracy so much more dangerous than used games though. It only takes one copy to spread everywhere. Used games will always have to be supported by a healthy new games market to exist. Piracy doesn't have to. I know certain DS games that have been downloaded more than they have been purchased. The used games market could never have that kind of discrepancy for years and years of reselling the same games over and over.