Aerodynamic

@Tommy758

Poor Canada ... will the injustices ever end?

See how that spokesdude in the zip sweater has to hold his arm out, with the glazed look in his eye, to move the Kinect hand? Navigating the dashboard with Kinect is a chore. MS is pushing this tech system wide and I'll still reach for the controller to do everything.

@Copybass Ah jeez zombies

Exactly. EA has gamers figured out. Buy them off with a free game. "Steam who?"

@Accessgranted

Ha, I know what you mean. I get upvoted most of the time, except on this issue. I am for the devs vs. used games. Can't be on the popular side of everything, I guess.

@Altairio

What I have been saying is, the industry knows what it's doing. It's not "my" argument. I don't have to know anything about this topic to side with the companies that make their living selling video games. It's you used game buyers who have to "know" everything, to tell devs how to do their jobs.

@Altairio

I explained the trickle-down concept perfectly well. But I'm talking to a) a gamer, which means tunnel-vision b) a used game buyer, which means whatever it takes to justify complaining about not getting 100% of the product for 60% of the price. Only on game blogs do your viewpoints rule. Part of your problem, isn't it, because out there in the real world, the developers don't share your opinion, so all you have is this forum to be agreed with.

@Hoops

You are incredibly arrogant to talk down to me. I have engaged the arguments in good faith, reiterating what has been said to me, and showing where I feel the true nature of the problem lies. The problem here is not my comprehension, but your dismissing wholesale what I said. You have no interest in an exchange of ideas, it's pretty clear.

Obviously, if the economics of used games sales helping new game sales were true, as you say, companies would not do what id is doing. Only your pure arrogance misses that point. Companies are in business to make money, and when a single gamer thinks he knows more about the economics of video games than corporations paid to make games profitable, we must be on the fantasyland called the Joystiq comment board.

If you don't have enough money to buy as many new games as you would like, then buy fewer games. It is a choice every generation has had to make. Except, in previous eras, we couldn't just take what we wanted and call it "repurposing" content because the cost format didn't suit us. And we didn't say our repurposing was great for the companies we took product from. Because video games are on sturdy digital formats, gamers can bend the fair-use laws and buy used games they literally cannot afford. You should be happy with that being the case. When games go full-download, you won't even have missing pieces of the game to complain about.

@Altairio

Ha, I was around when trickle-down economics policies were being enacted, so yeah, I think I understand what it is.

Reagan said, "give the money to one group" (in that case, rich businesses) and it will "trickle-down" to the poor, by way of economic growth/jobs. As we can see in 2011, rich companies simply sit on huge cash reserves and the money doesn't make it to the poor. It was a flawed concept, and most people saw through it even back in the 1980's.

Today, used game buyers want to give money to one group (Gamestop) and argue that their used game purchase "trickles up" to game developers, through their used purchase financing a new game, through word of mouth that the used purchaser gives if he likes the game, etc. This system is equally flawed, because your argument of a redistribution of wealth, through Gamestop, causes such a random effect--which new game is purchased, if at all--that it's not even worth taking into account.

Yes, some dev may sell their game to a used-game buyer who traded in, or the used game buyer could just sell a game and pocket the cash. Then what? The game he bought is repurchased, with zero benefit to a developer.

You guys want cheap and easy gaming for yourselves. Who can blame you for wanting that? But when you try to make economic arguments to back up your scrounging ways, you fall apart, seriously. Just buy the games you can afford and leave the economic arguments to others.

@Altairio

It's not up to us to assign a value for a game. It's our right to buy the game, or not. Used game buyers come up with so many clever arguments.

Buying a used game is legal. So is a game company creating more value with a new game purchase. It seems to me the system works, with both sides getting something they want, but not everything. Such is life.

What I find funny is, 20 year olds trying to argue game policies that have been combed over by cost accountants. id knows exactly what it's doing.

If it were up to me, used games would be illegal, because as a digital product, there is little wear/tear on the product like a used car, etc. I am a content creator by trade, and I think they deserve full pay for their products. (And I don't think id cares that you sold a game to buy Rage. It's another clever argument. Funny how every gamer becomes a Reaganesque trickle down economist when it comes to game greed.)

id wants its money, upfront. Your rosy scenarios about trickle-down from the used game market may work in some prolonged way, but can you blame a company for wanting the maximum number of users to buy its game new?

I'm pretty sure id has hired an accountant or two to crunch these numbers. Why is it only the used game buyers who think it's unfair? Maybe the policy is working as-intended.