Yeah but on the one hand... most people who do play sport games end up buying new versions year after year after year after year... after year.... after year.....
I buy mostly new, and if I buy movies or shows from Amazon or whatever service and get the free thing...... I get the whole... Ah Shucks sorry not in your region bullcrap....

Video games last longer than the systems that will play them, which is why people have the games on GOG but can no longer play them because their computers are outdated.
THQ is doing the same thing. They're going to sell (or already started? I'm not sure, I don't really buy console games) online passes to their games. It's sort of like how for many MP PC games you need a CD key, but if you could buy one for $10 with a used game. This article was in response to people who bought used games calling them greedy. I think this came from them being annoyed at getting flak from people who aren't actually their customers demanding the full product.

You may be right, it may not affect many people, I was just pointing out EA isn't really much different than THQ on this point, as Navagon seemed to feel they were. I don't fundamentally disagree that THQ are clearly hallucinating a very strange reality right now, they are. The strangest part of this is the semi-veiled admission that this is what all this DRM stuff has been about all along.

You, sir, seem to have no kids (of age to play video games at least). I assure you, many discs wear out. In addition several disc based consoles are notorious for scratching discs quickly into drink coasters. I even have cartridge based consoles that still work but not all the cartridges do.
Again, I think the real point of this argument is being conveniently ignored: the second hand buyer is not THQ's customer, but the original second hand seller; the saint who bought the video game in the first place; is. This is the person that is losing the 10 bucks, not the second hand buyer (who will pay 10 dollars less for a used copy, accordingly) or any second hand middleman (who will also pay 10 dollars less).

I imagine THQ is also pissed about people who decide to just not buy their games, or only buy their games when those games are on sale for very low prices. After all, they get no money or very little money in those cases as well. Fuck 'em. Whiny bitches.
Took the words right out of my mouth. For people who plan to resell their games actions against used game sales decrease the value of the games. Congratulations THQ, you're looking to give potential customers less of a reason to buy your games. Morons.

Does selling pizzas count?
And I know what I was saying. =P

Companies often tend to take the worst case scenarios and push them to ridiculous extremes, while ignoring all others.
The second hand market can free up capital for first-time buyers to buy more new games. If people can't sell their games when they tire of them, they may simply buy fewer games. That's because not only do they have to spend more per game, but they risk much more by being unable to pass off to someone else a lemon, or just a game they find they aren't a good match for, or that they discover demands a lot stronger system to play smoothly than the company advises on the box. (That last one is pretty common, and game companies need to take a hard look at themselves before they flap their lips about anyone else being unscrupulous.) If you can sell off an unsatisfactory game, then buying it isn't such a gamble.
The thing is, game companies may want it, but customers don't like the idea of being screwed by a lousy game. You can't expect customers to be gleeful about getting stuck with lemons, and "Tough shit, that's the breaks!" isn't really an attractive or fair attitude they are likely to endorse.

Disks don't wear out if you take proper care of them (although I do realize children are a variable you can't really control). Furthermore, disks wearing out tends to be more of a binary (works/doesn't work) situation than a gradient, and you can't really equate that with used games sales (as ostensibly you wouldn't be able to sell non-functional games). The only console I'm aware of that had a scratching disk scandal (and I definitely could simply not be aware of more) was the Xbox 360, which only scratched disks if you alternated its position between standing and laying down while it was reading the disk, which seems a bit daft to do anyway.
Yes, the second hand buyer will theoretically get less money on trade-in, but that's not the service THQ is offering. They're offering a game that you get to play on your own system, no promise of sales down the line. I think what bothers me about the whole scenario is that people feel like they have to buy games right when they come out and sell them used right after they finish. It's entirely contrary to my method of waiting a few years for games to drop in price before purchasing them, which anyone with a modicum of self-control should be able to do, especially since once you're used to playing games a year or two behind, you have a steady (or even steadier than normal) stream of games to play.
From how I see it:
Buying games new then selling them immediately:
+ Get games right away
Buying games a year later then keeping them:
+ Tends to be cheaper
+ Own the game as long as the disk lasts
This is quite possibly the most atrocious straw man argument I have ever seen. Congratulations.
Yeah, it's such a bad business model that EA has stopped doing it. It's also the reason why DD is completely failing.

Lets look at the example of Second Hand College Textbooks. The Publisher knows they will never make another cent on a sale beyond the first so the Price of a College Textbook is out of this world.
If game publishers followed this trend we could be paying well over $100.00 a title.
So they make a valid point that the publisher is not making any money on the sale of the game. They have every right (in my opinion) to charge for online use of a title that is not owned by the origional purchaser. Either that or they will be jacking the price to make up for it.

Looks like the companies are just gonna have to suck it up and make better games. The sale of used games is gonna happen whether they want it or not, via online, stores, or yardsales. Half the problem is yawn worthy game after yawn worthy game a lot of people don't want to buy new anymore, plus the economy. There is nothing to be done about it.
And they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they charged for online services for "Used" users. Way to alienate your customers! Maybe if companies made better games that didn't require 30 patches, or day one DLCs people would buy new.

People who buy their games used aren't their customers. If you buy a car from me, you're my customer. If you buy a car from a guy who bought a car from me, you're not my customer.

I buy nearly all my PC Games new. However I wait till they are in the $10 - $20 range. The last exception to that was Dragon Age: Origons - which I pre-ordered and had the day of release - but that is most certainly the exception. I do buy a lot of console games used but they are mostly for the kids and no real online capabilities so no problem there.

Read Lou's post right above mine. I forgot to reply to his post.

Let me break it down for you: Once you purchase something you own it. Period. These EULA's and TOS agreements don't have a snowball's chance in Hades when it comes to reselling a game you bought. You OWN that disc, and it is YOUR RIGHT to resell that disc. Period.
Same with dvds and cds. You have the right to resell it, however you do not have the right to copy it and hand out copies to all of your friends.
Same with cars. You have the right to resell your car, forever.
Same with all physical goods: You have the right to resell, period. Unless it is specifically stated in the contract you have to sign for certain physical goods, you have the right to resell.
This may vary in certain countries but this is the way it works in the States. The EULA doesn't mean a damn thing and all it's ever been good for was Blizzard suing a bot programmer. Oh and it's a good excuse to ban hackers in online games.
You have a constitutional right to resell a physical game that you buy. You waive that right when you buy a digital distribution copy when you sign the site's agreement either A) When you create an account or B) When you purchase the game. The digital distribution channels more often than not have you agree that the game is linked to your account permanently in either of these situations, so in this case the point is moot.
I don't have a problem with games using Steamworks to essentially cut away the second-hand sales market. I don't have a problem with physical games requiring a disc check and minimal DRM to verify that I own the copy. I DO have a problem with companies in ANY industry that whine and bitch about something they have no business whining and bitching about.
With all due respect, getting rid of the second-hand market will cause a decrease in overall profits, not an increase. It is GREED that is making companies like THQ and Epic think the opposite.
It's also a sign of the human condition: gimme gimme gimme more more more, to hell with you and your wanting to save dollars because your kid needs a checkup with the family doctor.
As I said, if companies want to limit the second-hand market, use Steamworks. For Gawd's sakes don't continue with the constant online activation thing, though. We all see how well that's doing for Ubisoft. However, they for sure shouldn't be so blatant about wanting to get rid of a legitimate and legal market.

^^^^^ /thread. I am calling it xD