It seems to be deeply embedded in our nature, people won't function this way over the longterm I think. Of course with enough omnipresent and zealous law enforcement and anti-liberty type treaties and laws people could still be prevented from taking back their culture, but their nature seems to be to want to share it.

Don't worry, our time of "plenty" seems to be coming to a rather unpleasant end, your children, should you choose to have any and should we not self destruct completely will likely live in far different world by their own middle age (and probably curse our selfishness and stupidity).

They might get the profit from your initial buy, but they lose the profit from the person who bought your used copy. I can understand why they'd want it gone, but I hope they come up with an alternative method, perhaps by allowing resale directly from the publisher itself.

That's not "losing" profit in any sane definition of the term. It's a good, so long as they insist on treating it like a good, this is how the sale of goods works.

So in other words if they cannot be paid twice for the game, then they will try to do away with trading entirely. Well what a suprise, they think about there own greed and not about the shops they ship the games to....what a shocker

Has anyone noticed they already do this? I bought Warhammer 40k for my PS3. Used, it's $25 USD. New, it was $31 USD. The new copy included a passcode to play online that is being sold for $10. That $10 fee means the company gets at least $10 no matter how they sell it to you. The company got more money than the store did from me because I wanted the code worth $10 and was willing to pay $6 more to get it. That's the RIGHT way to encourage people to buy new games.

I mean, yes, this locks you out of the ENTIRE GAME, but this isn't new. And it isn't necessarily horrible, since it's just the natural evolution from DD services. (In fact, I'm surprised the next generation isn't anticipated to be entirely DD).

What do you mean paid twice for the game? They want each person who play the game to pay for it, they don't like the fact that two persons can play the game while they only receive money from one of those persons.

Edit: I don't quite understand. Someone is willing to pay for the game, but chose to do so in a way which did not give anything to the publishers. How is that not a loss, when that person could have bought it in a way that did actually benefit the publishers?

Did you deny money to the publishers when your spouse watched a movie with you, what about when your brother or kid played the video game you purchased. The market your positing does not exist and never did. To act like it ever did exist, could exist, or will exist is like taking a drug induced fantasy seriously.

Money from the resale of games fuels the purchase of new games. People are able/willing to allocate a certain amount of money to various forms of entertainment; changing the pricing of entertainment isn't going to change the amount that people spend, it's just going to change the amount of entertainment that people get for the money they're willing/able to spend. Or, more likely, people will just go to competitors that are offering a better entertainment/money value.

If MS actually does this they'll be getting a swift kick in the ass from basic economic principles.

They get paid once for the game, which basicly gives them a profit either way considering the cost of a game brand new. And I dont see them making a loss in sales for new games, so why go so far as to try to stop trading in games?

They are basicly wanting to be paid twice for one game via trade, and for the money to go to them rather than the store selling it. Because they dont get paid twice for it, they want it stopped completely. It has nothing to do with them wanting 1 person paying full price and not wanting a second person buying it, its to do with pure greed. They dont think of the store selling the game and them needing to make a profit to stay in business, they think of only themselves.

They are huge corporations who make millions upon millions in cash, and the small store's barely make any money to keep them afloat so they have to do what they can to survive. Trading in things happens with not just games, but computers, laptops, dvd players, TV'S, camcorders, mobile phones and just about everything currently available. Are these big company's going to try and stop them too? I dont think so...

The difference is that when you watch a movie with your spouse, or let your children play one of your games, those people didn't actually have any intention of actually buying the movie or the game. However the ones buying a used copy of a game does have an intention of buying the game, and the publishers would obviously rather have them buy a new copy so the publishers get the money, than have them buy a used copy so only the store gets money.
But it doesn't really matter if you would consider that a loss or not, what matters is that the publishers consider it as such, and they will do everything they can to stop it from happening. Which is why I think a compromise between publishers and users would be the best idea, since as it is currently no one will win.

And that is the point exactly. Pure and simple greed. Screw the stores that sell our games, we want ALL the profit and for them not to make a single penny. Oh I tell ya, if they try this with every piece of technology in trading stores, there would be a riot on there hands lol

Absolutely not, they had an intention of playing the game. There's a difference. You're assuming there's a market where none exists (or at least not the one you imagine). It boggles my mind that people have no problem understanding the idea that killing the used car market will actually hurt Ford, Toyota, etc. because the number of people buying new cars every 2-3 years would radically drop but people have trouble understanding that this is how massive amounts of people finance all their non-consumable purchases.

If those people couldn't buy it used they'd simply borrow, pirate, rent, play at a friend's house, or do without. As well, the number of people financing their new game purchases with trade in credit would drop, gone are a large number of your college frat boys (because if it's between alcohol and video games, alcohol gets you laid, the video games are going) that you use to fill out your server matches, gone are the teenagers that can't really get into gaming as a hobby (and may be distracted by a different hobby by the time their income increases), gone a a large segment of your new video game buyers. The existing new game buyers you'd lose (especially in the initial, full priced period) would exceed by an order of magnitude or more any people you'd convert from used sales/swapping with buddies to new game purchases.

The developers are losing nothing but a fantasy that's, frankly, just a teensy bit insane to believe in.

I have a few questions for you thebum06. Have you ever bought a second hand TV, or dvd player? Where do you think that money goes when you buy it? To the people who created them or to the store selling them? Has it hurt the TV industry or DVD player industry by trading secondhand devices? Can you even see where my point is leading?

It's mind boggling that certain people think publishers should get special treatment when it comes to used goods.