This.
Seriously, If I like a game, I'm going to keep it. I went on a month long trading spree because I sold Too Human on Xbox 360 to a store that allows me to return used games I bought from them within 7 days of the purchase. Out of that deal, I played a number of games, Armored Core 4, Devil May Cry 4, Prey, Overlord, Burnout Paradise, Quake Wars: Enemy Territory, and Deus Ex Collectors Edition, and Duke Nukem 3D.
Can you guess which of those games I kept?
Burnout Paradise, Quake Wars: Enemy Territory, and Deus Ex Collectors Edition, and Duke Nukem 3D.
I didn't like the other ones, so fark 'em.
If I make an investment in something that I later realise was not a great investment, I feel like I should have the right to sell off that investment, even if it is at a loss, to someone who might benefit from it, greater than I would.
If you think I should be forced to live with my crappy choice, then that's your opinion, I respect that you're allowed to have opinions, but it doesn't mean that if you try to force your opinion on me, that I'm not going to fight it, or completely ignore you.

I was talking about buying games used when it's available from retail as well, not saying that you should forever keep everything you buy. By all means, go ahead and sell them - just don't feed the leeches siphoning the game industry in the process, as that's pretty counterproductive.
Go pirate the games, and you'll have all the time in the world to decide whether it'll be a good investment or not.

Ah, I wanted to say, again, I have absolutely no interest in Pirating console games. As I could lose my ability to play online multiplayer. And in somecases, piracy is not an option.
There are very small, to no places where one can buy second hand PC games where I live.

Yah I think I'm done with it too. All the points have been variously repeated by people so there is no need to continue. With that I'll say I agree with you and be gone *poof*

Doesn't "profit" refer to the amount of cash they don't actually use to buy new titles to stock their stores with?
Which would be piracy, things don't get much cheaper than "free". Even that aside, it seems to me that it's not exactly that it's the cheapest option, just that it's slightly cheaper. And it's not like Gamestop would absolutely need to have a profit margin of 50-70% on such sales - they're just greedy bastards, that's all. But people buy into that sort of stuff anyway, because hey, you save a couple of bucks!
Developers getting some cash from all this doesn't mean cutting off the youngest portion of the consumer base, just cutting off a part of Gamestop's profits and giving that to the content creators instead. Not a huge loss there.

sure, but what i'm referring to is revenues, which is what you use to finance expenditures. furthermore, profit isn't just pocketed by business -- they use it to reinvest in their business and keep it moving.
not necessarily. there's no reason to jump from used games to piracy. i hear that there's a position open over at epic games for people who perform that kind of mental gymnastics. along with monetary value, there's ease of access. it's easier for a kid to buy a used ps3 game than to figure out how to mod his console. i don't mention pc games because used pc games are rarely available anymore. unique cd keys did away with that over a decade ago. just ask eb games -- oh wait, they were bought out by gamestop when they couldn't turn a profit anymore, after what i just mentioned happened.
furthermore, where are you getting your percentage figures? or are you just making shit up again?
it most definitely does. if a kid into games has the option to buy a $20 used game or buy nothing at all, the kid will buy the used game. take that used game away, the kid buys nothing, and will likely spend the money elsewhere. 10 years later after the kid has a full-time job and lots of expendable cash it's too late, since the kid has gravitated to other hobbies.
oh, and i wanted to add that developers don't deserve to make money on second hand sales. they were already paid for that copy -- the first time it was purchased. ownership has already transferred. in the united states, this is referred to as the first-sale doctrine, which i linked to in an earlier post.

Here's some reading material for you, then.
, [url=http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/46853]#2, , [url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/editors-view-used-games-are-damaging]#4.
I just realized I could've just linked to that fourth article right off and save myself some typing. Heck, almost all the typing.
You're missing the point. It's not "a) used games for 20$ or b) no used games", it's "used games for 20$, where a) 0% or b) 10/20/30/X% of which goes to the devs".
I'm aware of the first sale doctrine, thank you. Being legal doesn't mean it's automatically right, though. Not sure how that relates to the impact of second-hand sales on the gaming industry, either.

Dumb. You know, DRM is not just designed to make us hate each other, but it's also to block people from selling their games, after all, publishers don't make more money if they let you resell games, and they want you to buy a new one. It fucking sucks (pardon my French), I know. If publishers could find a way to lockdown the console games with DRM, they would.
Second hand is great! I've been to friends' houses, and sometimes I get games they don't play anymore (or didn't enjoy). I remember getting a used copy of X-COM Special Edition (or Collector's, I forgot) from a buddy of mine, and "used" as in played once. I loved X-COM, and I was psyched to get my hands on it.
Also, second hand saves you money (duh), and also can potentially make publishers money! If more companies realize that people like selling games to each other on eBay, given to them by friends, etc., then publishers would have the sense to strip off DRM on PC games, and let people swap and sell games freely. Then people would be incentivized to buy new games from these publishers, if they enjoy it. I don't see why this is a bad thing at all. Hopefully GOG will understand this and they'll let people swap games of equal value (ie. swapping a $5.99 game for another $5.99 game between users).

Ok, a shop has to give you 10 and they'll sell it for 40 and have 30 profit.
While I don't care who gets the profit, I do understand that publishers don't like to see one of their products being sold 10 times only to see the same product being returned and sold again several times.
I'm not claiming it's wrong, I'm just saying that I can imaging certain publishers feeling like they are missing out on a great deal of additional profit.
You also seem to refer to a US law, I'm not sure if it would do the rest of the world much good.
Games rental for example has recently been officially prohibited here in Belgium after some good nudging from the industry. I can however imagine that it is perfectly legal in other countries.

So are the car manufacturers, computer manufacturers, photo camera manufacturers, music cd manufacturers etc. It doesn't change the fact that this whole claim "we want money from second hand!" is plain stupid.

From a consumer point yes. From the guy wearing a suit, driving a big company car, having offices across the world and only living for the cash it makes a whole lot of sense.
The industry is no longer ruled by the games enthusiast, but by the stock-holders and investors. For every million they pay they prefer to see 5 returned. If they don't get the return they expect, they shrug, sell the company off and move on to something else.
With the games industry growing this isn't going to change. The new industry fetish is distribution control. Reselling isn't exactly distribution control.
BTW there are already some car manufacturers who dabble in the car resell sector. Nearly New Cars by Mercedes-Benz for example.
This topic isn't about right or wrong, I create it to discuss cause and effect.

Anything to suggest that it's nearly on the same level as with games, though? As in, selling used <whatever> being more profitable than actually making <whatever> ?
Plus, there's the difference that with most of the other examples, "used" means "of lesser value", with software it means "pretty much identical to new".

It is the exact same from the viewpoint of the developer. How is it unfair?Only if the developer is of the opinion that the products they sell are worthless, in which case they owe some money to the people they've defrauded.
You're either selling something, or you're not. By selling something, you transfer the ownership of that something, to someone else. It is no longer yours. Claiming you deserve a piece of the pie if the something happens to be resold, is a breach of contract, and closer by far to piracy than any amount of 10 year old bit torrenting kids ever will be.
If you cannot understand this, then I suggest you go see a doctor. If you just want to sucker people with inane sophistry on a BB, then by all means, carry on.

Heh I find it funny you are using my quote there for this. If you had read any of my other statements here, you would realize I agree with you :P Thanks for using me though. I had to actually reread your post acouple of times. Here is a tip for everyone: It is really easy to just post without thinking in a forum; don't do that it can make you look like a dork.