If you're buying a used fork, you're paying for the use of the fork. If you want a disc then you can go to Best Buy and by a blank disc. But you're not....you're buying a disc with the software on it. The software is what you are paying for.

That is true for anything that doesn't suffer as much from degradation. Any digital media, for instance. Or books. It could even be applied to 'good as new' second hand products, or refurbished second hand products.
It's not like games don't suffer from degradation at all. The whole medium is practically on fixed fashion and technology timers. Especially online titles.

I would actually agree that online passes and new sale content aren't that bad though. It's a more costumer friendly scheme than most DRM we have to deal with on PC.

The way I understood it is you buy and own the discs, but you aquire a license to the software on it. Either way when you buy or sell it you lose posesison of both the discs and liscense. So why does it matter? You've got your license, who cares who you sell it to? There's no difference form selling anything else. The video game industry just has to svck it up like a big boy and learn how to entice new customers to them. I expect a crash in the near future if the recent automaker disaster is any indication of how well companies adapt in bad times.

This all depends on the terms specified in the individual item/retailer's warranty/return policy, no? I've never seen any replacement programs that will cover negligence without a fee and/or return of the original disc. How is this any different than how tangible products are handled?

You missed my point. I was replying to his comment about tangible items being susceptible to wear and tear, pointing out that video games are effectively no different. That I'm technically paying for the software doesn't actually matter because the software and disc can't legally be separated and then sold. The game circulates in a manner that's no different than a fork. When it becomes scratched, breaks, it's highly unlikely that I'll be able to go to the retailer or publisher and get a brand new copy, unless it was defective.

I only deal with used games because companies don't offer enough supply and don't make it easy enough for me to get games, especially older games. Like where I live there is no convenient way of getting games such as Morrowind, Okami, Persona 3, Age of Empires 2 and a lot of really good games, many of them classics. You can order them online, but at a much more hassle than it is for me to go to a store that deals in used games and then buy it there at a reduced price.

For me there is demand but not enough supply.

Sure they can. Consoles have digital distribution as well as PCs. Not as many games but there are some. So they can be seperated and sold legally.

I'm talking about individuals separating the software from physical media, not developers/publishers themselves. Even if you make a backup, you're required to destroy them in the event you lose, sell or destroy the original, so, assuming the involved parties are legit, full ownership and the product in its entirety are being transferred (again, like any tangible item).

Hang on? For the use of the fork? So I'm renting it? Nah. I buy the fork it's mine to do with as I please. Ownership is transfered and the previous owners has no claim or right to how I use it.

Software has too many grey areas over ownership, usage rights etc. It really needs to be simplified and put into less ambiguous language. Before digital distribution it was simpler. Normally I'll purchase a hard copy when given the choice. Once that's in my hands I'll use it how I wish. I've paid for it once, not paying for it again. EULA's are a mess, a largely ignored mess until aspects of them became enforcable. Now because there is the friction caused by the way that drm and digital distribution restrict what the end user can do as was seemingly the original intent large numbers of us aren't happy.

Second hand market is a good thing in my eyes, the publisher and developer have already been paid once for that item, if they want people to purchase subsequent titles then they need to accept not everyone is going to blindly chuck out ￡30-40 on a title when they can try it for a second hand price. If they like the title then chances are they'll purchase other subsequent titles, maybe even pre-order them. Treating the customer like scum because they won't pay top price is a good way to loose customers. In between lousy drm schemes such as Ubisofts always on or Steam as well as the general attempts to undermine the second hand market I can fully understand someone saying they've no desire to continue playing games if they're going to be treated in such a manner.

Are they lost sales? To the publisher sure. To the retailer, no. They're an excellent way to give more people the opportunity to play your titles and to increase your potential sales though. If the publishers are too dumb to see the long term advantage of the second hand market for short term profits then more fool them. Can't speak for others but when publishers pull mickey mouse like Steam or Ubi's always on I loose any interest in the title or subsequent titles from that publisher. Flip side is I favour publishers like CDProjekt Red instead.

Other advantage of second hand is it allows you to find older titles that aren't readily available or that you might not have heard of.

All comes down to which group you're more concerned about, the publisher or the customer.

If I may be so crude, in regards to the increasing number of companies offering online pass features to hurt used games: [censored] em'... [censored] em' all.

Why would you be renting it?

That makes no sense.....I don't think you understood what I was saying.

No, it's not a lost sale. If the game gets played for two years by two different people, where's the difference between that and it being played for two years by the same person and the second person not playing at all? However I look at it, it's just the publisher getting greedy by wanting to be paid multiple times for the same sale. As long as there aren't multiple copies of the same sale being played at once, I don't see what the problem is.

Of course this isn't good enough for the publishers and they want to condition us into good little consumers who won't expect the usual rights of selling on items once they're done with and will readily accept nonsense like online passes, monthly rentals by rolling single-player and multi-player into one etc, but I remain unconvinced. If they want to sell more copies, make better games instead of trying to rip off their customers, something that's seldom been a proven long-term business strategy.

I dunno, I do worry when I even see games buyers equating used sales with piracy, itself a grossly overblown term for copyright infringement; when I read that sort of thing, it seems that the gamers have lost the battle against corporate greed, and I grow despondent.

If games are going all digital (and I'm definitely seeing that happening in the future) I think a lot is going to change. Long term profit by simply lowering the base price of a game over time will be possible, as it is on PC now with Steam/GOG/Gamersgate/etc. I don't think the second hand market will be a big deal anymore then.

Games on Steam have a much longer longevity in sales than console games: They don't disappear from the shelves because of new games that come out, or retail copies simply running out and no longer being produced. I doubt people are still buying brand new copies of 4 year old 360 games, unless they had a rerelease.

You have Plants VS Zombies on PC which is almost 3 years old, but because of the large discount it currently has on Steam it's #5 under Steam's top seller list.

People will have access to cheap games that aren't second hand.

Problem with that is that games on Steam are often more expensive than a physical copy from Amazon or a high-street store, which combined with Steam's rather controversial idea of ownership (and possible termination) doesn't make it a very attractive proposition. At present, I'll only buy something from Steam if it's on sale or if there's no alternative; otherwise it just looks like a bad deal to me.

I'm disappointed in some companies seemingly embarked on a race to the bottom e.g. not including printed manuals (such as SW:TOR) or making Steam compulsory, however it's bought (Skyrim) but I don't think that's the answer.

Have you seen the price an xbox copy of Morrowind goes for? Ouch.

The problem is console games are too expensive, and they hardly ever get marked down. I can go on Steam and get cheap PC games all the time, but I can't go down to Walmart and grab a cheap console game. Instead I have to go to Gamestop, or on Craigslist, or whatever.

Not everyone can afford to buy brand new videos games at $60 a piece.

Wow I just looked it up. I still have my GOTY Edition in it's original case with booklet and all, it might be time to cash in.

About as much as I think the used car market is lost sales.

When has their "controversial" idea of ownership and possible termination ever been a problem?

MIllions of ppl use Steam on a daily basis and are completely happy with it. So this "I'm just going to stick a bad Steam opinion here for the sake of it" doesn't cut it.

If it were the big problem you say it is then the millions of ppl wouldn't be playing on Steam daily.

I live in Canada where we get shafted on prices, the prices on Steam are equal or cheaper. Then once the Steam deal kicks in you save so much. I suppose Amazon could be cheaper, but it's also more of a hassle unless the game is steam based. I want a single repository of games on a central service.

Edit
Don't even get me started on how brick and mortar stores here feature less and less PC games except the big AAAA titles with tons of player base and marketing. So Steam allows me to get games I otherwsie woudln't be able to. It's a service, not just a simple buy the game and it's done type of deal. I do admit it has it's downside, and may not be for everyone. Just that for me, it's clearly by a wide margine the best thing for me as a PC gamer and my needs.

a lot do love using Steam and that is fine, But you cannot deny that many are just as likely using Steam because there is no other legit means to play the games they paid for. That's the trick of Steamworks, it makes it look like everyone is happy to use steam.

And while 2nd hand sales may not put any new money in devs pockets it's not a bad thing for the industry imho

your paying for both, or game publishers/manufacturers would be obligated to replace broken discs for free

Why should the developer get money on the sale of a used game? Upon buying it you own it, it would be like saying Ford should get a cut of the money when you sell your old 98 tauras to a person or friend. (just an example.) I personally think it should be illegal for them to make you have to pay an online fee to play used games, pardon my language but that is just [censored].

I wonder why they stopped making psx games..

You can get most of those AAA ttiles in other ways than Steam. It's not Steams fault that they did it the right way first.

Steam allows more good that it does bad.

Would you say that after buying a movie theater ticket and watching the movie, the ticket should remain valid and you should be able to sell it to someone else?