So, I'm sure this has been asked before but, do places like EB give a cut of the sales to suppliers when they sell a used game? Or do they just pocket the full profit, and screw developers and publishers out of another sale?

a game that is traded in is the property of that store and that store only.. developers get no paper! haha

Therefore we can assume that a game's lackluster sales is 100% the fault of EB, ha. And those 3rd parties tried to blame me and Nintendo..

Part of "Selling" something means transfering ownership. Once you sell a game, it's not your game anymore. If that person wants to sell it again, you have no right to any of that money. You don't own it anymore.

I have heard from many people that the used market does not hurt developers, and this is their explanation.

When a person sells a game to the store, what do they usually use the money for? New games. And it is not like there is an infinite number of used games for the buyer to purchase. I went to a Gamestop recently because I wanted Animal Crossing. I didn't find it used, but I did find it new for a decent price, so I bought it new. Had I found a used copy, I would have probably bought it.

Also consider that the resale of that game to a new owner only stands to increase the popularity of the francise (provided the game does not suck.) Fan support has been known to move developers. So if a Dev makes part 2, 3, spin off ect...a fan is a fan and may be first in line to buy the game.

So in short, no!

I've seen quite a lot of gamers who kiss up to the developers "oh poor developers, they aren't making enough money! Yes please, take more from our wallet! Stop buying from the resale market! Stop renting games! Stop waiting for the bargain bin! That's an insult to the hardwork of these developers" (yes I've heard the anti-bargain bin one before) Apologists like that are suckers. I am a consumer participating in capitalist society, not a social worker. You think Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, EA, etc. all became successful corporations by being suckers? No, they achieved success by being ruthless. Game companies feel that they have the right to do whatever in their power to nickel and dime you as much as possible (raising the price to $60, DLC abuse, rehashes like SSFIV, yearly editions of sports games, Guitar Hero, etc. with not much in the way of differences. Now you have companies like Bioware requiring that those with a used copy of ME2 PAY just for the privilege of being able to buy DLC. lol.) You think I have sympathy for them when they pull stunts like that? I took full advantage of the resale market (I only have a couple used current gen games but I bought a lot of brand new sealed copies off people) and I'm doing the gamefly thing now. If game devs don't like that, too bad, so sad. There's no way that the government would be crazy enough to make selling and renting games illegal. You don't see Ford whining about people buying their cars second hand. Ford already got their cut from the first sale. Same goes for the software developers. Why should they be given special rules?

In an era where publishers are like "noo wait, don't ship out the game with full content at $60. Give then an incomplete game and then nickel and dime them for the rest on XBL/PSN marketplace", why should any gamer care so much about having their back?

It hurts it as much as piracy on the individual level.

Nope it does not.

A lot of those average or below average games are bough only becouse the buyer is sure he can get a big part of his money back when he resells it.

I'd never buy ME, SW:TFU, PoP, Sega collection, Terminator Salvation, Viking Battle for Asgard or Alone in the Dark if i weren't sure I'll be able to get some cash back after selling them (that's 1/3 of games for my ps3 i have or had)

Vlad, do you have your counter argument ready to be copied and pasted at this point. I'd hate to think you have to type out the whole thing every time this topic comes up. You must have increased your WPM by 10 if so.