Hehe. Actually, the first sentence of "my" reply was what I was responding to. It just... didn't work.Assuming you mean "failed attempt at piracy", yes.
In reality, all 50 paid. 40 of them just didn't buy from the developers. Like I said earlier, unless you're claiming the games are either worthless or at least massively overpriced, and that the developers are defrauding their customers, then the developers have no claim to the value of the games, after they've sold them. They have already capitalised fully on a transfer of ownership. Trying to negate such a contract after the fact is at best breach of contract, if not outright theft.
We're not talking about leasing or renting games here, we're talking about buying and selling them. Successfully maintaining control of something you've sold is called stealing.
Second-hand sales are perfectly acceptable, because it involves the owner and a buyer to negotiate a transfer of ownership. Exactly like the initial sale.
Man I hope the quotes work this time.

They did :D it's cool man..cool.

When I get a used copy I do not pay the developer. That is right. They got payed when the game was bought the first time. Then some one trades in the game which is selling the game to the store. Now the store is the current owner and it sell the game that is why the store gets the money because it is the current owner.

it's not the same in every other industry, why should it be for games?

I'll admit there's not a lot of material on second hand sales for other industries, but I will say that is probably because they don't care.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117984706.html?categoryid=3048&cs=1
Although, I did find that link, that blamed poor DVD sales to high gas prices and blu-ray. Meaning of course that they don't blame it on Piracy or second hand sales of DVDs. So it seems many industries don't care about money lost to those sectors because they know there's nothing they can do.

Problem is, how far up the ladder should this go?
If you want to argue that video game developers should receive a commission off of a used game sale, what would stop the companies that supply the components that make up the game (the materials for the disc, the plastic for the case, the paper for the booklets) from wanting the same kick-back, after all, if the video game developers can get some kick-back for resales of their product, why can't they?
And, even worse, it would stretch outside the scope of just video game resales. Why not used car sales? Would you want car companies suddenly wanting money for each resale of their cars, then all the materials suppliers for those car companies wanting money for each resale as well?
I buy a $1000 TV. I let friends over to watch it. Following your example:
7 people watched shows on my TV, but only one person paid for it. Do you really think that the TV manufacturer really should be paid for every person who could or did watch something on that TV?
5 people end up owning the same car over the years, but only one person bought it new, and would sell it in much worse condition. Should the car manufacturer be compensated for the other 4 owners? Or what about from a car rental place? Those cars could have dozens of different drivers each year. Should the car manufacturers make money for each rental?
Why should video games and video game developers be so different? In fact, some (PC) developers have already developed ways to destroy the capabilities for second-hand sales: DRM (e.g. SecuROM, Steam, etc.) and MMO subscriptions, just to name two obvious ones. In the former, most cases really limit (SecuROM) or deny (Steam) resales, and the latter, resales are usually frowned upon (account banning), but even if it's allowed, the developers still make money for the subscription. Yet some still want to make money off of second-hand sales.
I see that as greed. Plain and simple.

If you want to argue that video game developers should receive a commission off of a used game sale, what would stop the companies that supply the components that make up the game (the materials for the disc, the plastic for the case, the paper for the booklets) from wanting the same kick-back, after all, if the video game developers can get some kick-back for resales of their product, why can't they?
Should the people who manufacturered the computers they made the game with get a slice?
or how about the operating system people?
the list goes on and on.

I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a gamer, thus the emphasis on the creative people behind it. And I don't think there'd be much to gain from people supplying the plastic for the game case getting a bigger cut. Better quality plastic cases? I honestly don't give a damn.
Eh, let's not go there. At what scale is sharing acceptable, at what point is it not? Sharing with a friend of yours is okay. Sharing a game with a guys at a LAN party is still okay. Giving the game to everyone in your class, possibly. Sharing it with a hundred others on a torrent - not really.
I'd say when you manage to make multi-billion dollar enterprise of it, it's quite firmly in "not okay" territory.
If it has to be different so it doesn't discourage content creation, then why should it not be different? As for the car analogies, I seriously doubt that second-hand, almost brand-new cars going for 90% of the original price are making used car salesmen more profit than the manufacturers get by selling new. I'd be honestly surprised if they did.
Yep, and I don't want them to take much further. Pushing them in that direction certainly isn't going to help.
I find this a bit odd, that somehow Gamestop deserves that 50% of a game's price, yet developers are greedy with their 7% or so. To be quite honest, I don't see the enormous value that Gamestop supposedly produces to make them worthy that sort of cash.
The OS people were likely even less involved in the creation of the game than those printing the manuals.

And if I want to look at it from the perspective of a car manufacturer, or TV manufacturer, or etc.And here's what you're going on about. It's not about second-hand sales. It's filesharing.
If 50 people play a game, but only 10 people paid for it, the only thing to be concerned about is how those other 40 played the game. Did they download or make illegal copies? Did they buy legitimate copies second hand? Did their friends let them play their legal copies in their own home, without transfering ownership?
In only the first case should the developer expect to be compensated. It's the only case where they weren't already compensated for the product.
But the topic is about second-hand sales. Not illegal copying, so that point is moot here.No, but by your comments, the original car manufacturers should get a percentage of that sale, to bolster "research and development" for new cars. The same way you claim to want it to work for video games. Again, why in this case should video games and video game developers be so different?
The thing is, they went in that direction by choice. I don't fully support them using DRM to manage second-hand sales, but I have no problem buying games that cannot be resold, only by my own preference that I do not resell my games.Hmmmm, it's more that GameStop is succeeding at playing to how they can make money from it. They are willing to buy the game at a certain price and intend to mark the price up to their "used" price. The only matters that work in their favor is if the person selling the game is fine with what GameStop will pay, and if the potential buyer is fine paying what they sell a "used" game for.
There's nothing stopping people from cutting out the middle man (GameStop, etc.), and, quite honestly, there's nothing stopping the video game companies from trying to compete in the same space. They just choose not to, then some take to complaining about it.

The gamer would be on the other (i.e. consumer) side of things, you know.
There you go. If they're not similar, why couldn't they be different?
Putting it another way: people aren't making a killing by selling second-hand stuff at the expense of content creators in other industries - why should games be any different?
What exactly do you mean? It's hardly a matter of choice, unless I'm missing something. Other than being able to "choose" to make solely MMOs, more DRM, subscription-based games, etc.

maybe i am dumb, but if I buy second-hand car or TV, then really I am NOT interested in giving my money again to manufacturer. In all history selling was just about one, you sell your product, you sell it whole, with rights to do anything with it, why should be SW something else ? If I buy new car, and it's not what i was expecting, I will sell it, I will get my money back, there is no damage to manufacturer, it just moved in chain of use, that car just changed its user. What can I do with game which I do not like ? Keep it ? Destroy it? Or sell it to someone.
By the way, stupid example:
example one:
1) i buy the game
2) i dont like the game, but friend of mine do
3) i sell the game to him
then I should pay to distributor of the game if I understand you
example two
1) friend of mine wants game, but he doesn't have money and time at the moment
2) I buy this game and try if to see if I should buy it too
3) I give it to my friend and he gives me money he owns me for this game
Now, where is the difference ? Both examples was the same situation, but different point of view

You tell me why it isn't different. Is 25% of all revenue being sucked up by Gamestop-alikes really that common everywhere?
And it's not as if Gamestop would collapse it they had, say, a profit margin of 40 instead of 50 percent. That's still double what they make by selling games new.
Yeah, as before, "let's not go there" with the scale. Also, you missed the part where you're supposed to sell the same game to three of your friends and end up with twice as much money as you originally bought the game for.

But you are taking the side of the video game developers, even if you are "looking at it as a gamer". What about a car enthusiast, taking a side for the car manufacturer? Same deal.I don't think you read my comment very well. Your case and my case are similar, where in both cases money should be kicked back to the original creators for second-hand sales to bolster the company for future endeavors. But the whole point is that it should not be any different. If they don't like that people can sell their games to another company, and that company can turn around and sell it for a profit, then they are being greedy, since every other industry expects that they will make no money off of second-hand sales.Uh, neither is GameStop. They sell a video game they bought used just like every other second-hand retailer.Brick and mortar stores or online facilities for buying their own games back, then offering used games they received in that fashion at a discount.
If they're not willing to compete in that space, they have no room to complain about not making any money there.

The main difference between you trading with your friend is that there is not a third party making a profit of it.
This thread has turned into a right or wrong thread. All i wondered is whether publishers have a valid point when they say that large scale second hand sales of new games is hampering the amount of profit they'd have.
Also watch out with the believe that what you buy you own. If you'd buy a flag with an EA logo on it, you might own the flag, but the logo on the flag is still the property of EA.
As a more specific example I'd like to take rental and public performance of music and videos. I dunno if you ever noticed, but although you buy a DVD, you are not automatically allowed to rent it out, nor are you always allowed to use it for a public performance. Same goes for audio.
In many cases you buy the right have and use something. This is completely different from owning something. I wouldn't be surprised if games had the same legal status