I'll demonstrate:

Your fail? Ok!

"People buy more games because they have more money when they get used games" = "Peaople have ore money when they pirate games to buy games"

And I retorted with "Well, no actually, most people who primerily purchase used games will, in most cases, purchase a new one once in a while, and they are freeing up capital that will eventually be used by other people to purchase new releases. There is a differance between pirates and people who purchase used games...and that is money, One is more willing to spend it, the other one is more willing to keep it"

Of course this post was earlier before I adopted the rights argument (see below) so technically, money is not the only differance. 

"I wanna play the game but don't wanna play full price and the developer won't see my money and I won't have enough to buy other new games" (a.k.a entitelment) = "I don't have enough money but I wanna play the game anyway, I will save money for better games and pirate this one, developer won't see anything" (a.k.a entitlement) (why the fuck do you feel like you have to play the game at all without paying for it? In both cases you are cheating the developer out of money.)

What? I want whatever you are smoking? You fail on so many levels, try taking what I say in context. I never said those exact words, and when I said anything close to that, it was paired with equally important wording which you conveniantly missed. Secondly, thank you for pointing out that piracy would skyrocket without the used market. I actually didn't think about that before your post. If I can't afford a game, and I can't sell used games, I WILL pirate said game.

People who buy used games are PAYING for the right that the origional owner of the game gave up, the right to play the game. Pirates don't pay anything, for the right to play, which has NOT been given up by the origional owner of the game.

Am I missing any other sorry arguments for me that I haven't summed up nicely?

XD, you havn't summed up anything I havn't DESTROYED with a good argument.

@Zen

My theory is that game stores are becoming useless. Steam has shown that an independent, private studio can distribute its own games. I'm sure Valve has enough money to even open uup its own retail stores ala MS and Apple by now. General retailers and other such only leech money from developers, and while they are needed for the time being they will become obsolete in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later. Also if that retailer industry goes to hell then developers will hurry up with finding alternate ways of getting their games to people. I would gladly support anything that gets rid of the middleman.  When that happens piracy and used games will become equally damaging even on a wide scale. As it stands on the individual scale they are both equally bad. Hell even he arguments for/agaisnt are the same, see above.

Yes, game stores are useless, that is why their business is booming...XD get a clue dude. Also, used game are GOOD for the gaming industry, how many times must we go over this? You get an F for not reading.

What are these other options that help the publishers just as much?

The used market for one. It helps devs out in so many ways.

Lets say there is no used game market, and a new game is coming out next week, it looks pretty good, but you really don't know if it will be worth $60.00.

1: Do you buy the game and potentually waste your money because you know you can't sell it? Or

2: Do you pass?

Now lets say you choose sceanario one:

A new game is coming out next Month, it looks pretty good, you really want to buy it, but you don't have enough money, you DO have a bunch of games that you beat, and that last game that you decided to buy, then found out that you did indeed waste $60.00. Now, if you could sell those games, you would have enough money for the new game that is coming out. But since there is no used gaming market, you will have to pass on the new game.

Let's say you chose scenario two:

A new game is coming out next month, it looks pretty good, and you are sure you will like it, you have enough money for it since you didn't buy the first game, now you can buy this one!

In both scenarios, the devs made the same amount of money, $60.00.

OK, Now, lets say there is a used game market, and a new game is coming out next week, it looks pretty good, but you really don't know if it will be worth $60.00. You buy the game knowing you will be able to recoup some of that money down the road.

Now lets say you choose sceanario one:

A new game is coming out next Month, it looks pretty good, you really want to buy it, but you don't have enough money, you DO have a bunch of games that you beat, and that last game that you decided to buy, then found out that you did indeed waste $60.00. Good news! You can sell those games, you do, and now have enough money for the new game that is coming out.

Now, you could pass on the first game, but since you know that you can still get enough money from selling your used games, this is less likely to happen.

In this scenario, devs make $120.00 collectively.

So... do devs make more money with the used market? Or without it?

@ Vlad, then fewer people would be gaming, this is a BAD thing for the entirity of the gaming market. Btw, you still havn't answered my question, who do you work for?

Wow. That was remarkably drawn out and unecessary. I said BUYING used games was moraly objectional, and I specifically stated SELLING your games is not. You just went on a long explanation trying to prove to me that selling your games is a benefit, when I actually agree. It's the cheapskate that buys your used game that needs the moral adjustment. That individual paid nada towards the publisher.

Actually it was very necesary. That wasn't just for your benefit, but it is something I have had to explain several times in this thread, so making it simpler just seemed like the necessary thing to do.

If selling games is not moraly objectional, then supporting people who sell the games is not either, if nobody is buying used games, then nobody will sell them. It's the cheapskate who buys my game that allows me to sell it in the first place. While that individule is not paying any money to a dev (directly anyway) I may be paying the money that they gave me, to yet another dev. It is inconsistant to claim that buying games is moraly wrong while selling them isn't...the two go hand in hand, without one, the other does not exist. And as Vlad so graciously helped me discover, if a person cannot buy a used game, where the money may go for another game. They will probably just priate it, in which case, nobody gets anything out of the deal.

You're still talking about the moral responsibility of the collective. That bears nothing on the moral responsibility of the individual. Collectively, used game buyers keep the cycle going. Individually, they don't contribute a damn thing.

Yes they do. The money they spend on the used games will (in most cases) go towards a new game. Buying a used game is just as moral as selling one.

There are also unseen benefits that emerged because of piracy existing in the bigger picture, but that doesn't mean an individual pirate gets off the hook.

Yes, but the damages outwiegh the benefits.

1. How do you figure? The money a person spends on used games will then go to them buying a new game? I don't see how that makes sense.

Yes, If I have a game that I bought new, then beat. And I want to get that new release that just came out, but I am a few bucks short, I will then sell the game on the used market and use the money to buy that new release.

Also why do you consider any of this moraly obectional? I'm basing it on the argument that the publisher should see money, and depriving them of it is the objectional part. If you differ in your stance we might as well stop talking now.

The publisher will see money, the only way the publisher could have been deprived money, is if a person did not buy the game because they didn't know if it was worth the money, and they knew they couldn't sell it.

2. Regarding the piracy, prove it. Prove the damages outweight the benefits, and also prove the used market is more beneficial than harmful. Publishers seem to think both are pretty bad, so if it's their interests we're protecting in this moral battle, we also have to abide by their stance on both issues.

Already done...twice... Pirating takes place when one person purchaes a game, and with it the ability to play said game. They then upload it to TPB for many people to download. The don't lose the ability to play the game, and many others gain the ability to play a game for free. Fewer people who pirate games, are likely to actually purchase it. (the game pirating demographics are much differant than the music pirating demographics so that does not apply incase you were going to bring up those)

When a used game is sold, the ability to play said game is transferred.

Publishers are not thinking of the rammafications of doing away with the used market. Pirating would skyrocket, saled would plummet. I refuse to abide by a publishers stance, they have (what they believe) a vested interest in making everybody pay for the game brand new, and that is downright criminal.