I don't really think that's fair. However, that isn't the topic of discussion here, so there is no point to bring up other industries. If they could monetize used sales without affecting me like EA is trying to do, I wouldn't mind. In fact, I would encourage them.
Really? Now you're just trying to attack me with ad hominem. Can you step above childishness for one conversation?

Actually it's exactly what's this about.
The $10 project is EA's way to make money out of the 2nd hand market.
The 2nd market shows people are willing to buy games, music, movies, etc. if the price is right.
EA is affecting every gamer.
No 2nd hand market means less initial sales.
People will pospone buys till they can get a game for a descent price.
Less initial sales means publishers will take less risks, something that's already happening.
No 2nd hand market also means people are more likely to "buy" digital downloads instead of the physical product.
Steam is more likely to have a descent and better sale a lot earlier than retail stores will be able to.
A higher market share for Steam isn't good for gamers.
It means we get more DRM invested games which we don't buy but only rent.
The 2nd hand market has existed for ages and never did the original creator of the good get money out of it.
I don't see why game publishers should be any different.
2nd hand goods are part of the economy.
EA should realise that people buying 2nd hand games are willing to pay for games if the price is right.
Keeping prices artificially high for a longer period of time, which is happening with games these days, isn't good for sales.
Things like game of the year editions, being able to transfer the character from the previous version to the new one, giving early buyers access to closed betas of other games, etc. is what 's good for sales.
We're willing to pay, but we do want value for our money!

Yes, and no one has yet shown that it is wrong. They have shown that companies almost never make money from the 2nd hand market, but not that it is wrong for them to do so.
Incorrect. It shows that people are willing to buy games, music, movies, etc. if the price is cheaper than the new price.
Citation needed.
Citation needed. Also, if they're already taking less risks because of less initial sales, how is the used games market helping?
So used game prices being lower is bad, but new game prices being lower earlier is also bad. Okay.
Once again, it isn't that the price is too high, it's that the price is lower for used games. Most people that I have met who primarily buy used games buy them because the price is cheaper than the new price, not because the new price is too high.
Activision disagrees with you. I wish prices came down sooner, but it isn't necessarily bad for business, as Activision's increase in revenue this quarter will tell you. CoD4 has sold over 13 million copies and the price has only dropped by $10.

While this may be true, is it a big deal that a company is now trying to make some money off the second hand market? Keep in mind here that this model isn't going to kill the used game market, nor is it an attempt to do so. You can still sell/buy used games with this model. All it's doing is saying "Hey, great, you bought our game used. Now, if you want the extras that we provided with it, you'll need to buy those from us". I don't think this is a big deal as it stands now.
Now, if this ever morphs into the type of thing that some people are worried about (i.e. publishers start releasing incomplete games and you must buy the extras in order to even complete the thing), then I'd have an issue. But I seriously think the market will not tolerate that kind of model anyway, so it doesn't really worry me.

Yes they sighed... could be worse.
Anyway, I'm sorry I didn't expected you to loose your temper and start talking like a devout for a company that sells you fun and just want your money.
I know blizzard has always done quality job, and I played and bought their games since the first Warcraft and yes they deserve some praise. I'm myself waiting for Diablo 3 with serious interest hopping they'll continue the same way they did for the second one : expansions and that's all.
What seems wrong is to pay 3 games with the same name and gameplay but different content to have something complete, but I don't have any idea if they will price them the same way tough but it seemed that they where willing to. I've argued with a friend about that he told me "come on this is S-T-A-R-C-R-A-F-T !" so what ? I never said they where free or that they should be free. You got that point, but some people don't bother with campaigns, I'm not one of them but I always considered Blizzard campaigns as tutorials with entertaining Warhammer Battle/40K like stories. Pretty normal for a game that aims to be a multiplayer reference. So far I've heard that the pseudo-LAN require battlenet and internet because as always every player is treated like a possible pirate. I don't know if this issue and the statement is still correct tough. Sure you'll be even able to pay for them, I wonder how this will work in practice and if it'll be successful, which I doubt. Can be fun but also complete waste of time for some. Already done in Dawn of war. Pretty vague, sure they might add good things as they always did, tough paying for the same game 3 times seems exaggerated to me despite all they can add in, usually people get used to what they have in the original box and wouldn't accept total revamping (something that could be worth the price) without complains, especially multiplayer communities. Overall it seems they're doing more a kind of Starcraft-WOW business model, that I don't like at all.
I just don't get why you feel like playing the lawyer for free to defend the companies you like. I'm not insulting, I'm just very sceptic and a bit sarcastic and none, especially business companies is flawless and deserve godlike status because a majority says it's awesome or simply let it be.

The answer to your question is that the originator of a work has a reponsiblity to sell it for proper value initially. Once it's "out there", it's fair game.
In fact, I think copyright law needs to revert to it's original intent; to allow a publisher and their IMMEDIATE family to profit exclusively from the work. Corporations SHOULD NOT be allowed to own copyrights for media/art, and thus, Mickey Mouse should be public domain ages ago.

I believe they're not JUST about the money.
Also... I'm grateful for all the hours of fun they gave me. They deserve my trust and sympathy.
What about Lost Vikings ? These are awesome games :]...
It's pretty much an issue of just what they are going to put inside. If they stick to the old plan of every damn game having the same MP and the only thing different between them will be the campaigns - you can always just buy WoL and ignore the rest if you don't care about the plot.
As for me - single player is something I play almost exclusively, so the whole POINT of buying Starcraft 2 for me will be the awesome, immersive story.
As they've clearly stated - it just doesn't work that way. Campaign maps will never make good tutorials for MP.
So it's pretty much worth any price they can put on it. I would also like to add: "come on - this is B-l-i-z-z-a-r-d !" ;P.
It's incorrect. The connection is required because it keeps your profile synced. Avoiding piracy is an added bonus.
Have faith - this is Blizzard we're talking about...
Now that just heresy ;[... As an adventure player at heart, these are the kinds of things that got me the most excited. I always struggles with the RTS part of the game, even though I kept getting a bit better...
They've already changed a lot from the original, despite the hardcore conservative fans going "Nooo - leave it there ;_; !" ;P. Besides - Brood War was a pretty decent addition, wasn't it ? Imagine having two of these...
Then again - it still may just be campaign + same MP, so you'll just buy the first game and I'll catch 'em all ;]...
Indeed, WoW is the Hitler of Starcraft arguments...
Then again - I have no idea what you're pointing at, this time.
Well... That's simple - I like them, I respect them, I trust them.
I don't care what the majority says - it's about me and my experience with their products.
As for the "no company is perfect" argument... Well - people are neither, but we love them at times anyway, right ?
I'm pretty sure we're both going to enjoy SC2 and D3, no matter how different are our views at this point...

No.
Erm... when did Activision use a draconian DRM model? 2K, yes. Ubisoft, definitely. But Activision seem to have kept it reasonable as far as I know.
C&C4 uses EXACTLY the same model of DRM that Ubisoft plan to now use. They even tried the same trick of saying 'there's no DRM, but...'.
Shareholders. Now you're onto something. Yes. I can agree with that. This is nothing more than an attempt to appease shareholders by making it look like they're pro-actively tapping new markets.
Then you've paid no attention whatsoever to the views I have very recently expressed about the company. Namely and [url=http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/question_about_other_digital_distribution_services/perm=28/#p_b_28]this. I have no bias against EA. Just shitty business practices that, like you say, value shareholders far more than the customers they rely on.
The whole point of GOG is that you buy the game and own it. But yeah, it's not like you can resell GOGs at all. That's true enough. But then you would never really have expected to be able to.
With retail copies you do expect to have that ability and that right. Second hand sales are becoming increasingly difficult anyway thanks to the likes of eBay. Branding various aspects of the game DLC - thus unsalable - just renders the the whole game unsaleable.

Agreed. The reason people buy 2nd hand is the price difference. EA makes what? 20% off of retail copies? Less? So why is it that the digital download copies are the same price or more? They make anything up to 100% of the money off of those through EA Store. So why not use that as a platform for offering 2nd hand price beating offers?
Like Gabe Newell said: if games were a lot cheaper companies would make a lot more money from them. Of course, he's too much of a hypocrite to take his own advice, but that doesn't make the logic behind it any less sound.
As for copyright, while you've got mega corporations trying to turn western nations into police states (the ones that aren't already there) over copyright, I don't see the situation changing.

TBH I am not following this at all. Somehow we have strayed into copyrights.
Look if you want the shiny EA extras you buy the super mega mac meal. If not you buy the value meal.
Are there honestly people on here saying they DEMAND stuff from EA when they bought their game from Gamestop second hand?

Ah, sorry. Then I don't know why you are okay with F3's DLC but not DA:O. Not like you can resell the GfWL versions... Or the Steam versions. You can only resell the GOTYE version.
Activation. Please read before going on a tirade and using the world's best buzz-word ("draconian" :p).
Okay, what is wrong with that? Should EA refuse to let their shareholders and what not know that they are trying to plug a hole in the money bucket?
And again, you kind of skipped the part where this is an incredibly un-cited and un-sourced article on something that was quite probably never meant to be publicly distributed. So if it is okay for GoG to try to pro-actively tap into new markets by giving people gateway games in the form of Tex Murphy, why can't EA try to make something on the resale of games?
Because you can bet your bottom dollar in time that CD Projekt didn't say "Let's give away free games because we are so nice" and instead said "Let's give away a free game to reward our current users, and to get a bunch more users in time for the insanely awesome X-Mas sale"
Was more referring to CD Projekt the dev/publisher as opposed to GoG. So think TWEE, or the Polish version of lots of RPGs.
And how did making Operation Anchorage untransferable make Fallout 3 unsellable? You already acknowledge that F3 is okay, so why was it okay to not be able to give someone DLC from your GfWL acount, but it is not okay to not be able to give someone DLC from your EA/Bioware account?

I just don't see what the big deal is with somebody giving you something extra for free if you buy from them. It happens in every business. Just happens that somehow gamers in general tend to be entitled conspiracy theorists, on the internet at least.

I tend to agree. If the second hand copy flat out wouldn't work properly without someone paying some extra in to the kitty, that's a problem. However, that isn't the case. The game will work fine, you just won't have access to DLC without paying for that access.
So the game still functions. Kind of hard to see an argument for how selling a product that remains fully functional second hand is somehow 'illegally gutting' the second hand market.

fuck gamestop and the second hand market, they're all bullshit.

Harsh words but well said.