Personally I can never understand the whole rage-against the used game market mentality. If anything developers should thank the used game market because its what keeping mass piracy at bay. You can add the fact the used game market actually add shelf-life to titles that would otherwise have short lives in retail.

@Andre, the problem with that theory is the $20 titles you buy new still has a cut going to the developer. The $20 used title generates zero for the developer. That is where the anger lies.

@ Jerome Russ

I'm familiar with that arguement, but when you really think about it the used game market is really part of the ecosystem when you consider the fact outlets like Gamestop are part of the industry(that being the retail).

Overall though I think the whole used game market is killing the industry is just more corporate nonsense from the like of corporations like EA.

What I think must be understood is video games are not unlike any other commodity that retains its value, such as automobiles, DVDs, books, etc. Game developers/publishers seem to be the most vocal group, upset that someone chose to buy a used version over a new version. What this overlooks are the benefits of having your product in someone's home, regardless of where it came from. Maybe they bought the used version of your game and were impressed with it enough they are going to pre-order the sequel. DLC revenues are another helpful way to earn money from the used game consumer. The problem lies in predatory practices, such as Gamestop's practice of pushing used versions of newly-released games. Retailers are supposed to be our allies and there's obviously a conflict of interest here, but I hear they are going to stop doing this for new games in their first several weeks of shelf life so that should be some relief. Don't be upset that there is a second-hand market for your game. In fact, if your game has value on the second-hand market, that usually indicates it's a good game and if demand is high for this game then demand will be high for your next game. So rather than stew on the fact that someone who could have bought a new version of your game chose to buy a used version that you saw no revenue from, think of constructive ways to generate revenue (without the consumer feeling nickle and dimed). Add value to games that you can only get when you buy it new, such as free DLC codes or other one-time use services. If your game is valuable enough to the consumer, they wont want to trade it in. Your average consumer is not going to do us any favors and buy the new version of a game just to make us happy and rich. They will buy what they feel delivers them the best value and it's up to us to build that value.

I have no sympathy to the whole, "we don't make money on the used game market" argument. If I buy a new game I gave a cut to the developer and the publisher. When I sell that game most of the time I turn around and invest that money into a new game. The developer and the publisher didn't have to do a thing to in order for me to generate additional cash to buy again.

Secondly, I hate the whole kiosk system that is now being shopped. I think it is really stupid if they do it like Walmart. Gamestop with continue rule the used market because you get to turn your game into instant cash with no stupid machine to delay my transaction.

I know why they are using kiosks. To reduce costs. But that is not a good idea at all. Gamestop is all about service and you get no service with a kiosk.

I agree with Steve. Either lower your prices new games, offer more DLC and the likes, or be quiet and deal with it. The reason the used market is huge is because the lesser quality games are not worth spending that much money.

Hate Gamestop, but they definitely provide a service many people enjoy. Happy customers equal returning customers.

"When I sell that game most of the time I turn around and invest that money into a new game."

@ steve roger

Developer X doesn't care that you invested in a new game from Developer Y. What they care about is that someone else can come to the store and instead of buying a new copy of their game, they can buy a used copy of the one you just sold back. That used copy generates no new revenue for Developer X. If that used copy is sold back and bought again, then you have three people who played your game for the price of one.

Well it doesn't matter who gets the money, it's the same idea as piracy. Piracy allows infinite copies for a finite amount of work. Upload video game X and have it downloaded a theoretical infinite amount of times. Used game sells allows for infinite copies for a finite amount of work. Whether gamestop or the developer gets the money doesn't matter. Some will say "the developer should get the money they made the game." and I would agree to an extent, but if they're given money for used game sells then they're no better than gamestop or a pirate, infinite profit from finite amount of work.

I can understand how the developer feels, but it just doesn't ring true. Because they get the money directly or indirectly from the sale of their game as a new product and then they get a second helping from the sale of that game as a used product. The money mostly goes straight into the game economy that benefits the developer. The economics of the used games market shows how important used games are to feeding the machine.

I think the lack of re-sale for PC games has actually caused more harm than good. If I was a kid I would rather buy a console game that I could resell and buy the next big thing other than buying a license to play Spore forever.

I will admit, I buy used games about 95% of the time, frankly because I find the retail prices for video games to be a form of price-fixing. The used game market is actually a better representation of quality. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts was the game that really convinced me of this. The game debuted at $40 and was one of the most innovative and long-lasting games on my 360 to date. You can't convince me that a game that is less than 4 hours long (IE Bullet Witch, Heavenly Sword) costs the same to make as an Epic like Fallout 3 or Twilight Princess. Where does this extra profit go? Developers? (When you're done laughing, let me know.)

When all games are released, more or less, they're $60 for PS3/360 and $50 for Wii. If you look at the used versions of the games, the high quality, long-length and worthwhile games are usually $5 cheaper than their new counterparts. (In this case, I buy the newer version.) Then you find games like Bullet Witch, which at one time was $60 new, $30 used. And even then, that game wasn't worth $30.

If Devs should be upset at anything, it's the price fixing that goes on with newly released games that really pushes consumers to buy the less expensive counterparts.