Perhaps? So you're making an assumption now?
How are video game developers supposedly losing money to second-hand sellers where other industries are not?How does it stifle innovation when they were paid for the product? Once the product has left their hands, which it did once it went to the retailer, they should have no expectations to be paid any more money for that item, because it is no longer their property.... when retailers only make a couple of dollars from a new game sale (by GameStop's claim, which is why they are bullish to sell used games), then they want a percentage of a used game sale? Sounds greedy to me.
The developers are already paid by the publisher. The publishers then sell the developers games to the retailers, the retailers sell them to the consumer.That's called marketing. They're working to their advantage. GameStop isn't the only company to do that, and again, if the publishers don't like it, they can either compete, directly or by forming a union between them, or by trying to make an agreement with GameStop and other second-hand retailers to get a profit from used sales, but in order to do that, they need to bring something to the table to make it profitable. And, to try and make an agreement with second-hand retailers, they would probably have to make agreements with movie and game rental companies for second-hand retailers to bite.
And besides, if publishers really feel that GameStop threatens their livelihood, why do they sell games to them? They have the right to deny selling to GameStop or other second-hand retailers. Or, even worse, they can start putting EULAs with console games (or worse, DRM) and "kill off" all capabilities of second-hand sales. And with it, the industry.I believe you're the one trying to argue for them in a way that is inconsistent with every other industry. The burden is on you to prove it right.It may not be practical, but if they aren't willing to compete for that money, they honestly don't deserve it.
You have to take a broader look at it. What you're asking for, for a cut to go back to the developers/publishers would a) require either a price raise for used games from the second-hand retailer, which hurts the company, b) causes less money to go to the second-hand retailer, which hurts the company, and c) cause other industries to want the same, most likely starting with movie and music companies.Considering it is, as of right now, as "recession" resistant as it is in the US, means it isn't hurting nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.Better for the game companies, but possibly not better for the consumer, and, being a consumer, that's where my concern lies.

Nope, I never said it was fact, just said you might like to read it. It was an interesting read, was it not?

Revenues are higher, costs are WAY higher, prices still pretty much the same, end result being they don't have enough cash lying around to be able to afford more risky, innovative titles. For example, In '97, Fallout could get away with being a simulation of PnP RPGs - many would argue that nowadays, Fallout 3 couldn't have gotten away with being anything but a shooter-RPG. Games becoming less diverse is something I find to be very unfortunate.
The former.
Yeah, you can buy the exact same game for slightly more money. Fair choice?
I wasn't too clear about this, sorry. I meant retailers not being allowed to sell second-hand PC software being legally enforceable: that'd mean the first sale doctrine isn't absolute, then.
Because then they'd be losing a significant amount of their retail sales as well. Lesser of two evils, basically.
I believe Steam is actually doing pretty well, despite the lack of second-hand sales.
Oh, come on. I've already provided the numbers I'm going by, all I'm asking is that you do the same.
They expect the game to be sold to one person (see the EULA), so the game's priced accordingly. Ever noticed how other software differentiate between single-user/multi-user/unlimited licenses as well?
So does mine. I just don't think Gamestop's bloated existence contributes much to making better games.

i did read them before linking. the point is that the EULA was challenged and found to be non-binding. another case, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, came to the same conclusion regarding EULAs as in the adobe case regarding non-bundled software.
the basis of the challenge against EULAs is that they are a form of contract law used for the purpose on circumventing consumer rights and federal statutes.
no one is arguing the illegality of EULAs. the argument is whether or not they are legally binding. the terms have different meanings.
it's still your choice. no one is forcing you to buy used.
no, you misunderstood what i had written. when i said legally enforceable, i was not referring to what you have written directly above. i was talking about forcing retailers to give a percentage of the profit of used game sales to developers, which was your suggested option b) several pages back stated. you wrote, "used games for 20$, where a) 0% or b) 10/20/30/X% of which goes to the devs." option b) is not legally enforceable because developers do not own the copies anymore -- ownership was transferred to the first buyer. courts will not budge on this.
retailers can sell used PC software; however, developers have made the sale of used PC software valueless by tying the software to unique CD keys. therefore, retailers have no incentive to sell used PC software.

Publishers had no problem selling games before the existance of GameStop. I would think if they stopped selling new games to GameStop, many people would not shop there due to a lesser expectation of buying a game. Hell, there are games I can't even find in GameStop, used or new, that have been out long enough to possibly have been sold to a GameStop.Steam doesn't do console games.Which were only the numbers saying how much GameStop made and their profit margin, not how much the video game developers and publishers have lost due to second-hand sales, which is what you are claiming, but what I'm not seeing.
Quite frankly, I don't believe they can come up with those numbers, because, just like piracy, there is no way to correlate someone who did not purchase the game (in this case, new) to a lost sale. For all they can know, that person wouldn't have purchased the game at all, in which case the amount of money they would see is the same: $0.PC games do. Console games do not have a EULA as PC games do, therefore, the publishers should not necessarily expect the game to be sold to only one person.
Since PC software, including games, are usually installed onto a system and do not always require the disc to use the software (bet you'd love Windows if it required the disc in the drive to boot up, huh?), they include licenses that state that it can't be resold, so one person can't install it, then pass it to someone else who also installs it. That would be two copies for one purchase, which is what they do not want.
There are ways in some cases for the license to be revoked so it can be transferred to another or returned, but, quite honestly, most companies wouldn't even handle it.
Console games don't have a EULA, but also require the disc to actually play. Therefore, one copy per purchase, no matter if it is the first purchase or the fiftieth.
Oh, and since we're talking about second-hand games and retailers, GameStop in particular, it's pointless to keep coming back to PC software. They refuse to buy them second-hand due to license agreements (officially) and limited use registration codes (primarily), but they will buy console games, which contain neither.I don't think the fact that they keep trying to sell tech demos or "eh, good enough" games to people contributes much either. In fact, it's probably worse, because it lowers the people's trust in the company, makes them less inclined to purchase games from them in the future.

I don't know how many times I tried to convey the fact that PC game resales and console game resales are two different things..

Games are expensive enough as it is, pricing them with the expectation of only every fifth or so guy paying for it would be pretty bad.
Yeah, people are willing to spend two billion dollars (that is, real, actual money, not would-be revenue as is the case with piracy) on used games, but if they had to fork out five bucks more for each title, not a single copy would be sold. That's quite an extreme price sensitivity you're suggesting there.
Instead of buying 12 used games for 55 bucks a year, you could just buy 11 new games for 60 instead. Not a horrible sacrifice that has to be made.
Well, they're just making what the people will buy, I guess. But even then, there are a couple of good games even on consoles, so saying "let 'em die" would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
You should've just started off with this, saying that no one can prove anything, anyway. I wouldn't have bothered, then.

in the instance of games hardware however, I find new to be the best..
as in I bought the rockband drumset new, because used it was only 5 dollars cheaper..
and we all know that the rockband drumset hangs around forever.

I don't disagree that developer costs have spiraled out of control, but a lot of THAT is there own damn fault. Stop trying to pump out 1000 titles a year, half of which are absolute B-list garbage you're not even going to break even on. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on insane high end graphics engines that only 20% of gamers can even USE, and ignoring making the game actually interesting and fun to play (Hi there, Far Cry 2). Cut down on overhead and insane development costs, and the cash 'loss' you're suffering is going to drop off substantially. Plus, as added bonus, you'll actually have the time and resources to SUPPORT your releases, which tends to make gamers happy.

Very well put, sir!

Especially going into a recession, every dollar now counts. But, at the same time, quality of product counts too. New games (except from GameStop) are "guaranteed" to be in working condition. Used games, including from GameStop, are at most "guaranteed" to be just the disc and "in working condition". Note, that "in working condition" generally means jack squat when you're referring to GameStop, though.
At best, if a person can buy a game for $60 complete with the disc in pristine condition or buy the same game for $55 complete with the disc in pristine condition, what do you think they would buy? The only thing that works in favor of the video game developers is that the latter is not a guarantee.
Besides, I don't recall any specifics in those numbers of "how much GameStop made" that specified how much of those profits were from their second-hand sales of games actively being sold as new in the same time frame. Remember, GameStop and other second-hand retailers will sell games from older generations that you cannot buy new. Calculating that would be closer to any numbers they can claim as "lost sales" than just every penny GameStop and other second-hand retailers earned.It can be if you're not privy to buy them all at the same time and on the fence about some of those games, even worse if the publishers don't provide a demo. That way, if they're disappointed about the game, they won't be out as much money if they turn around and trade it in, as long as they would get the same amount for each trade-in (meaning the used copy is complete).I'm didn't say "let them die". Never did, and I don't believe they should, either. But, I honestly think they're doing significant damage to themselves by focusing their resources too far away from the quality of the game, which hurts sales because more people will feel that the game is not worth the price, so those people will either skip the game entirely, wait for it to drop in price to what they want to pay, or wait for a used copy that is within what they want to pay.
Unfortunately for video game developers, the first and the third are more likely, and even the second would hurt their profits.Won't stop some people from trying, but estimations can be made. The estimations should not assume a 1-to-1 correlation, but considering they've tried that from estimations of lost sales to piracy, I bet they would do the same for second-hand sales, which doesn't help their cause.

People are probably going to start thinking around here that I have no taste, but I just started playing Far Cry 2 and am actually loving it. Granted, I've only put in a couple of hours since I want to finish Still Life first.

As much as I agree with that, 100% of Xbox 360 gamers can play xbox 360 games (we would hope) and same goes for PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP.
Some DS games even work on the PSP. SO :P
remember that for the most part, pc games aren't sold second hand.

I agree with you. I guess I'm sort of looking at the fact gaming companies are crying about lack of revenue from used sales. Well, okay, instead of trying to get extra revenues that by ever business law you are not entitled to, maybe try reducing your costs and overhead to balance it out.