Space Marine is also confirmed. THQ don't seem to have much of a universal policy on anything but Relic are pretty good about patching up their PC games. Which is lucky considering how unbalanced they are.

Hmm apparently the use a code to unlock the last boss idea is not that far...

You do realize the whole world is laughing at you?

What I mean is that they do substantially patch them. Compared to say Volition that's pretty good. Of course the end result still isn't perfectly balanced by a long shot...

The problem the video games have is two fold. 1) Assuming the disc isn't wrecked or is blocked by DRM, the second hand copy is fundementally identical to first hand copies, unlike books and cars. 2) Unlike music and movies, video games are expensive. £40 for a video game is pretty steep compared to £10-ish for an album. The thing is that games should really reduce in price as time marches on: compete with the second party market on price. If a new copy of a game is £5, no-one going to bother saving the pennies with a second hand version. Of course, this only is workable with not-new games (I'm thinking Batman: Arkham Asylum and associates here).
The irony is, excluding games produced by Vivendi-owned companies, PC games tend to reduce in price in retail fairly rapidly (e.g. I've seen Just Cause 2 at £10 a few times), despite the second hand market getting pretty much killed off. Which I presume is one reason brick & mortar shops are sidelining them: not enough profit.

Games can't get some kind of exemption though, in my opinion. Books, music, movies... they all find a way to make money, so do games. If game publishers want to explore other revenue streams they should do that, but killing resale is a bad idea. Resale fuels new game sales... many people trade in games to buy new ones and many people would not spend $60 on a game they could never sell. A lot of smart people have said that DRM and thus the loss of resale on PC games is one of the reasons for their decline.
Again, I don't personally buy used for recent game releases, but attacking consumers for buying used is a bad idea if you ask me.

I disagree with the "books" part - a slightly creased back won't stop any reader and few books you buy at a quarter of the original price will be in any below average condition. And the same goes for DVDs and CDs as well, two other huge mediums so his point stands.
Ah but you missed the real mark there. People keep movies and CDs because they're meant to be watched or listened to more than once. Ironically, a game which is 5 times as expensive as a movie or a CD is often being replayed LESS. You can directly blame the quality of the games for that. Basically, too many games have zero replay value or are too repetitive to be worth more than just a few hours of playing.
Publishers don't seem to get that but paying $50 for a game which then lasts 5 hours is not a satisfactory experience and it's no wonder many seek to recover as much money as possible by selling their games on eBay. It's also no wonder companies are so greedy to go for Steamworks because it stops any reselling.
In the end, it's all about money - on both sides. The customer feels cheated because the game lacks the content to be worth keeping and then the publishers start whining if that same customer sells on his copy to recoup the money he feels he wasted on the game. Solution: make better games that are replayable and you'll see a lot less copies floating around.

Complaining about money lost to piracy is one thing, but complaining about money lost to used game sales seems a bit silly to me. Economically, the practice is sound enough; THQ makes money from a sale to a consumer. The consumer gets a little money back by selling it to Gamestop. Gamestop profits by reselling it to a different consumer, and buys more new games to sell along with the used stuff. Admittedly, a smaller proportion of cash is going to THQ in this series of exchanges than it would get if it sold to both consumers, but it's not like selling used games for cash is going to ruin the whole industry.

So im an idiot for trading in some games that I have not played in a long time, that are not worth selling on ebay to gamestop with a trade in offer and getting enough credit to be going out with 3 used games that are buy 2 get one free?

If you got a good deal on selling used games to Gamestop (or any similar store for that matter) then I think you can consider yourself in the minority. I've heard too many ludicrous tales of woe related to selling 2nd hand games to stores like that to see it any other way. Recently someone here told me how they got 20p (about 30c) for a game. That's really just taking the piss.

The irony of the Penny Arcade strip's and THQ's positions is that while the second hand game buyer isn't the game publisher's customer the saintly new game buyer is... except the saintly new game buyer is also the evil second hand game seller. When THQ or EA take 10 dollars of value from the used game they take it straight out of the pocket of that new gamer buyer.
Seriously I just swapped my copy of Darksiders with my buddy's copy of Fallout, were the gaming publishers really cheated? I suppose someone will make a case for it, but they'll sound like a tool and it's the same argument here.
I don't know why game publishers think their market is some special unique butterfly, different from every other market in the world, where the second hand market actually supports the first hand market. It boggles the mind.
Btw, DRM has always been more about 2nd hand game sales than piracy. It's funny to hear a gaming company come out and throw down on the 2nd hand market, though.

It's not a sense of entitlement. Any businessman who still has a job looks at what who in their target demographic is not buying their product, why, and how they can get them to. That isn't greed; that's business sense. The used game market is filled with people who would otherwise be buying their product (maybe later, when the price dropped, but still purchasing it). People in the game industry are attempting to monetize this audience. Music, movies, and games have the unique characteristic that they don't degrade over time, making a used purchase identical to a new purchase. You both are mistaken when you say that the movie and music industries don't do similar things to this. Many movies now offer, with the purchase of the DVD, a free pass to download the movie off of iTunes or some similar service. This is a one time use code. Some CDs come with similar one time use bonuses. This is the exact same thing.
The only entitled people I see in this situation are those who buy used and expect get full use out of the product. These are not THQ's customers. They have no right to complain when THQ gives them a less than complete experience, because they didn't give THQ any money. They haven't bought anything from THQ.

Btw, I don't actually use these sites, but I understand they are decent, if you find one suits your needs it probably will net you a better deal than GameStop:
http://www.goozex.com
http://www.sayswap.com
http://www.gametz.com

Since there's DRM on the disc and the plastic is not freely replaceable and it does degrade, I'd say you're wrong about games never wearing out.
Can multiple people play them? Sure I guess. But who cares? A well bound book will last longer than your standard video game.

What you're describing here is EA. EA adapted to using DLC to increase the value of new games. Or arguably, they designated some non-essential content to be only for people who buy new. Either way...
Comparatively THQ just sounds incredibly bitchy about sales they aren't profiting from. That's not productive at all.