Most pirates don't go out and buy the game they already pirated, that is correct. But most pirates do go out and buy a different game from the money they saved by getting the other one for free.

I hate the way a part of the gaming industry is going...

First: I want good developers to have my money (examples: Bethesda, Larian and CD Project Red, as well as a lot of quality Indies). However, I used to feel the same way about Bioware (who still get a bit of money from me, but I hate giving it to them!), so it's something that can change if the companies change..

I accept the "one user at the time", obviously, but I don't accept that my product is forever linked to one user. When I buy myself a new phone, as I do once or twice every year, I give my previous one to my girlfriend, dad, mum, kid etc. This way I don't feel like I'm throwing away money. When I buy a dvd I often end up giving it away after a while, and when I buy books they are often read by myself, my girlfriend and my mother.

When I buy a PS3 game I expect to be able to give it away after a while (within the family, as I never sell games), and if I can't it will lose value for me. A game I would previously buy for €60 would then become a game I'd only buy at €10.

Arguably yes they have taken in the complaints for each game and improved on them.

In ME1 people complained about..
The Mako controls
Resource gathering
Inventory Management
Upgrades(yes many people complained they were annoying)
Fixed game points
Lack of ammo

In response ME2 had
The Hammerhead. Controls were improved as were it's maneuverability
Resource minigame and a use for them
Inventory reduced to armour and weapon selection
Upgrades were removed and integrated with the armours
There are only 2 choke points 1 of which is a disc change for Xbox owners...
Ammo added

People complained about.
the LACK of inventory
Linearity
Lack of MP (seriously)
Ammo being added (bangs head against wall)
Boring minigame

ME3 we get
Inventory back
Less linearity (apparently)
MP
Ammo changes
Minigame changes

Kinda says to me they are listening to the complaints and improving the games with each one... Just because it doesn't match your views on what it should be doesn't mean improvements haven't been made

Tthe difference is that second hand games are completely legal whereas piracy isn't. In the US we have first sale doctrine which allows us to take games and movies we've bought and sell them second hand.

Game companies are better off because they get their money up front even though the cost of the game is probably not worth what they're asking. Plus, unlike with piracy, they have to sell at least one copy for every copy you see on a second hand shelf.

So, no, it's not somehow, there's a very specific reason why second hand is better. You can't have 4 million second hand copies on the market without having sold at least that many games in the first place.
It's a legal right that they have. The game industry repeatedly overcharges for their products. Without the second hand market that fact would become obvious to them really quickly when all those folks wait to buy copies until they're affordable.

If I buy a game for $60, play through it and sell it back for $30, I've effectively paid only $30 for it and in order to see that same play to cost ratio, I would have to wait until the copies were discounted that far if I couldn't flip my copies.

The developers have nobody to blame but themselves. In just about any other industry they would be expected to figure out how to convince people that it was worth the full price.
Wait, you're bitching about people utilizing their legal rights to buy and sell second hand copies, but you support piracy?

I'm not even sure where to begin with how wrong that is.
No, because you're assuming that everybody pirates all of their media and that nobody ever buys a legit copy after having pirated one either. The industry isn't doing well compared to the late '90s, but they are still selling enough copies to keep in cocaine, so I think it's reasonable to infer that most people have more respect for the industry than you seem to think.

Seems to me that you're mostly just rationalizing your views rather than actually considering that piracy might not be equivalent to second hand sales in any reasonable way.

I think if a game is traded in then resold the origional publisher should see a little from the resale of the title. As it is they only get money from the new sales and the reseller gets every penny from a resale.

I think the second hand market would probably be better supported by developers and publishers if they did receive something from resale.

I'm not bitching about people buying second hand. I'm bitching about people buying second hand and feeling superior. I couldn't care less how people get their games, but I don't like judgemental hypocrits that think of themselves better than of others (I mean that in general, not addressed to anybody on this thread). And I think people really shouldn't care about what is legal or illegal, but what is right and what is wrong. (Well, don't get caught should be your prime directive of course)

The point I'm trying to make is that neither piracy nor used games are hurting the industry in any relevant way.

I personally don't like used games, because my money should go to the people that earned it, not some middle man.

And I find it quite interesting that everybody thinks that the money gained by reselling games goes back into the market but the money saved by pirating games goes somewhere else. The truth, as always, is inbetween. From my personal experience I can tell that many of my friends were avid pirates during their teens and early twenties. But they always put a little money aside for games they really liked (Tomb Rider, Starcraft, Time Commando, etc.). Nowadays there all rather succesfull in real life and don't need to pirate anymore, because they have the funds which they are investing. (Like my GOG shelf with 50 games I will probably never install).

All those "hardcore pirates" that never pay anything wouldn't be in the market either way, so I don't care about them.

No-one is stopping you sending the original "publisher" of an item money when you buy it second hand.

Question is.. do you?

The thing is though that if someone buys a second hand game it shouldnt be down to the individual to have to think about that. I think it should be done by the reseller. Either that or somehow sort out second hand stuff direct from publishers and cut the middle man out.

I always buy new, I can understand though why people buy second hand, price of some of the new titles can be way OTT. If there is something I'm not sure about then I wait for a price drop in a Steam sale then pick it up. I usually only buy the PS3 games I want that are console exclusive, if you shop about you can get new titles for a decent price.

Also going on what you wrote there, if someone buys second hand then gives money to the publisher it will have cost them as much as a new title which kind of defeats the whole buying second hand.

I'm not sure that the comparison is relevant , as cars are tangible goods and often considered capital goods, while game licences are intangible consumer goods. Fairly different market economics

Yet, the reasoning of the publishers seems indeed to be that second hand sales are lost sales. Worse, they tend to consider games as services rather than goods.

Still, a functionnal second hand market has advantages for users and for publishers ( if they fail to understand that consumers will pay more for games with a resale value than for games they can't sell back ...) , but that discussion now belongs to the past. Most games cannot be sold 2nd hand anymore. Our only option is to be clever enough not to buy them at full price.

The worse is yet to come, methinks. There have already been quite a few games that are linked to a machine rather than a user. Limited number of activations. In some cases, that infamous drm system has been removed, but some publishers seem to be willing to push that ever further ( and be inflexible : Ubisoft with its latest Anno release f.i., some reviewers had problems testing it on different graphic cards as the f...g thing counts any change to the hardware as a new activation ) . This in my view is totally unjustified.

And publishers keep looking at "pay per play" as a possible future as well.
-

That's a no then... funny, that.

That doesn't even make sense.

New game: £40
Second hand game: £10
Money sent to publisher: £AnyNumberOfPoundsYouWant

That is basically the idea of the whole "pay what you want" bundles. I seems to work for now. Also, the musicians that use this model seem to be rather pleased with it too.

Well I'd allow only people with brains and manners to post, but then again here you are.

No

QED

Just looked at my shelf. 14 PS2 games are used however most were bought years after they were released or sold as new. Should I have to forfeit the ability to get games I missed out on when they came out because the gaming industry feel they should get special treatment?

Yeah but that is the extreme with your amounts there. If you look at games like CoD and BF3 or even popular new titles on console for example the price between new and pre owned is a lot smaller. Sometimes only £5 difference between new and pre owned.

If all pre owned were £10 and then give another tenner to the publisher then that would be fair enough. The price fits in with the re releases if done that way. That amount is also higher than buying pre owned at £10 price point and then buying an online pass which go for £7 I believe.

The online pass has come about due to the popularity of multiplayer games I think. More servers required which costs more money to keep going. Multiplayer dosnt really interest me with shooters though, but thats by the by.