zombie84 said:
There is nothing wrong about not paying companies when you buy used shit. That's like giving Ikea a dollar everytime you turn on the lamp you bought at Fred's garage sale 6 years ago. Or giving Honda a dollar every time you bought that used Civic off your friend in 2004. Does any of that make sense? Of course not. If I go to Goodwill and get a Hungry Hungry Hippos board game I don't owe Parker Brothers anything.
It's an odd obsession that VG publishers have developed. I mostly agree with you. But there are a few major differences:
A well kept game disc is sold as 'used' but is virtually indistinguishable from a new product, unlike cars, homes, or food. A closer comparison would be to books, movies, music, and other media, etc... Which, of course, have endured the 2nd hand market for decades.
But still there are two major differences... cost for games is signficantly higher than those other ones, and the rate at which the medium develops.
As you said elsewhere, not playing older games is like not watching 7 year old movies or 10 year old books... except that it's not. My brand new BD player will play any BD or DVD (and even CDs!) I have in the house, regardless of how old the content is. My bookshelf holds any book, parchment, scroll or papyra that I've ever procurred and my one and only pair of eyes are capable of reading any of it (or at least looking at the pictures). Currently, playing retro games (or even current games) requires quite a variety of unreplaceable hardware and each black box only plays a small percentage of my total game collection.
Therefore, there is less incentive to keep old games around since the relative effort of playing old games is much higher than that of consuming other older media. A lot of people have old movies and old books that they've already consumed, but fancy the idea that they will consume them again and will need ready access to them. I think gamers, on average, value their already-played games less and are less likely to keep a large stock of played games... though it sounds like you and I are exceptions to that generality.
Since gaming is an expensive hobby, and the value of played games sharply declines after release, the gamer is incentivized to sell the game as soon as he/she finishes it to recoup maximum value. Other gamers, you and me again, are content to eat the scraps off their table and, sometimes indirectly, buy these games from them, empowering them to pay full price for their next game and starting the cycle anew.
Which is the factor that the decriers of used game sales seldom acknowledge. The purchase of used games puts money in the pockets of the people buying the new games. Without which, they would buy fewer new games. It's the same as automobiles- if a one couldn't sell or trade-in their old vehicle, how many would be able to buy a new vehicle? Generally speaking, the money that trades hands with the buying and selling of used games (or cars) stays in the game (or car) market. Sure Gamestop is often making a percentage as the middle man, but how different are they than other middlemen? Without them, how well would games sell at all?
All of that being said, I think the publishers have a right to try to monetize used game sales. I think I have an equal right to refuse to do business with them.
I think if Sony or MS actually tried to implement such a feature it would be halted by the supreme court.
I can't see the Supreme Court getting involved. It's effectively the same thing that's been going on with PC games (nay PC Software) for the past decade or more. Every disc comes with a 'license key' without which the disc is more or less useless. The license is nontransferable, and used software sales are all but a thing of the past. Of course, so much software is sold directly online anyways, it's kind of a moot point by now.
Video game companies are rolling in money--
Except for all of the ones that recently closed. :(
[the cost of Xbox Live is] the sole reason I never once recommended people to buy an Xbox 360 when you could be playing the same--and more often than not better--games online with the PS3 for free.
C3PX already made this comment, but I agree with his assessment. As an owner of both systems, I gladly pay $3 a month for the service of Xbox live compared to what I get for free on PSN.
Personally, I don't have any problem with not buying their stuff, ... and the games I enjoy the most aren't even being made any more anyway.
There's something kind of ironic about the proximity of these statements.