If that's the case, then this issue should go away by itself as the companies doing this find that the consumers take their money elsewhere.

I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot more of this stuff for a while as companies try to figure out what does and does not work, and hopefully someone will key into a solution that meets the needs of all parties: the original consumer, the second-hand consumer, and the company. The market will sort itself out and we'll find multiple approaches that manage to appease nearly all of the consumers. It won't happen overnight, but they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, some folks aren't going to be happy. Nothing new here.

What I suspect it might morph into is buying a monthly or annual membership that eventually covers all online crap for all titles from that publisher, maybe with different levels based on how many titles you're looking to cover.

If you buy a car second-hand and simply drive it how you wish (akin to single-player, offline use), then you don't pay the manufacturer bupkis. If you subsequently use the manufacturer / dealer services for maintenance or parts, then you pay for those (online play on publisher servers, DLC, etc). With respect to online play only available on the publisher's servers, the difference is that I can get a car serviced anywhere. But that's not an issue relegated solely to the second-hand market, since everyone is stuck with that server limitation, and thus it's not exactly a direct issue. Like many others, I'd prefer that anyone could set up and operate a server for online play, but it's the dev / publisher decision to do so and the consumer decision to buy into it or not.

And no, the publishers are not under obligation to fix it. Just about any EULA states this. Caveat Emptor and all that. Obviously they DO fix it because to not do so for the major problems will create, well, major problems with PR and future sales. The only obligation comes from keeping their name in the best possible light. Again, it goes back to the consumer deciding whether or not something is worth it.

If there's no warranty, there's no obligation to repair. The only warranty you get on software is that the media it came on is readable.

You're wrong, you buy a car used and the manufacturer is still on the hook for any and all recalls, just as if you bought it new.

As to the market sorting itself out, I have no faith in the whole free market nonsense, clearly market bullies and monopolists can keep that from ever working. Gaming is hardly the only industry to suffer from that. The cell carrier market has sorted nothing out, the high speed ISP market has not either, neither has cable/satellite TV, etc. etc. It isn't going to happen in gaming either, because if the big publishers collude we're fucked. Hell, Hollywood owned almost all the theater chains and colluded like crazy until the USSC said "No, stop it, remember The Sherman Antitrust Act? You're in violation." Otherwise you'd see an even more locked down Hollywood.
A lot of jurisdictions include fitness for use laws and companies don't get to avoid them just because they'd like to. So yeah, there is a warranty, it's implied by the company selling their product in said jurisdictions.

Merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are irrelevant to most consumer software purchases. Merchantability just means the goods are no worse than similar goods that pass in commerce, not that the goods are altogether free from defect. Since most software is, frankly, as infested with bugs as a cheap motel, buggy software is not unmerchantable. Fitness for a particular purpose applies only when you have relied on a merchant to select goods suitable for a particular need you expressed to him.

Even if these warranties are not successfully disclaimed (and disclaimers usually are properly given by well-written EULAs), they are much more limited in scope than disgruntled consumers would want them to be; which is to say, they are usually no help at all.

I didn't mean to say that the publisher/developer has an obligation to fix a game after they release it. But, like orcishgamer says - there are recalls. If you sell a car that is a security hazard, you'll end up paying dearly for it. Obviously no-one is going to lose their lives over a game, but the principle stays. If I buy something and it doesn't work as it's suppose to, I'll take it back to the shop. The EULA is one thing, but in countries like the UK, you also have the Sale of Goods Act that will void a lot of EULAs, and for a very good reason.

There was a fairly strong debate in this country a while ago when Black Ops was released because people called it a sham. The game was unplayable for many. The consumer protection agency here didn't go through with the complaint but they potentially could have. These days publishers can release a bunch of bullshit and get away with it, which is unacceptable in my opinion. Let's think back 10 years when Fallout 2 was sold in bargain bins due to customer complaints at release because it was an unfinished game. Releasing a buggy piece of shit (with on disk DLC) is the standard nowadays and this is shocking. I hope that this era in the video gaming industry is coming to an inevitable end and I would like to see strong regulation put in place.
It's essentially a scam though, which will have legal repercussions.

Yes but a used purchase is not really a purchase at all to the company, they get nothing from it. Multiplayer is the same as support if you ask me, the same as me buying Windows and getting updates. I don't think that online support should be given for people who never paid a dime into the product to the company.

I know people here dislike that attitude and associate it with DRM, but what can I say, I'm an outlier. I hate DRM but I also dislike people who buy a game used or from Taiwan or whatever and then expect to be treated like a real customer.

The manufacturer is not on the hook for providing the buyer with a special road to drive on with other buyers of the brand, is not responsible to provide free cosmetic upgrades to the vehicle, does not have to provide performance enhancements that were not installed at the time of the original sale, and is not on the hook for free repairs or modifications for design issues that go beyond the scope of safety issues or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or that weren't specifically covered under the warranty agreement. I can't think of any safety issues, or safety standards, for computer games but I can think of plenty of "well, it sure would be nice it this ran a bit smoother or the graphics were a bit prettier."

If I buy a game, I expect to get full functionality. The idea is that once someone pays for a game, they own this copy and they can do whatever they wan to with it. If they want to sell this game (like any tangible property) they are allowed to do so, because it is theirs. I don't see any reason for why the developer should a 2nd cut from a game? They already sold it once?

And the thing about Taiwan - well that concerns parallel imports and Ramsey's price discrimination theory. Have a look. The concise concept is that a company will make more money from price discrimination (even though this might lead to parallel imports) than from having a universal price (and reducing sales as a result), while at the same time, maximising consumer welfare.

It is not a matter of modification, it is a matter of delivering the product that was initially promised.

Like what? In this case, I suppose that would be online play. But they only made that promise to the original purchaser.

Going back to the car analogy, there have been some sales of very premium brands where training and track time came as part of the deal. When that car was sold, the manufacturer did not then have to provide the same training or track time to the new owner. That's essentially what people are demanding of the second-hand game market.

I agree that it's a crappy deal to not get the playability patches (those that fix actual bugs, not just provide enhancements) on a second-hand game. I think we're at a point where patches are simply expected and rare is the title that doesn't need at least one or two things fixed, not just spruced up. Online play, though, is another matter and does not prevent a game from being played unless online is the only mode available.

It sucks for console gamers except they're the only ones still generally able to buy and sell used... or swap with buddies or any number of things I do with my console games. Good luck doing any of it with your Steam enabled titles... sucks, wish PC gaming was still all around better.
Original buyers rarely get free repairs at the shop (seriously most warranties don't cover much past 36,000 miles) either. Second hand buyers aren't asking for special roads, that analogy sucks. Gaming companies are saying "You can only play this on our servers and we'll provide one play slot per game... until it gets resold then somehow we can't afford to keep providing said playslot." That may be the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard, someone who keeps playing their game for 5 years straight costs less than 2 people playing it sequentially over 5 years? Hint, they cost the same. And people would be happy to drive on public or 3rd party "roads" if the manufacturers weren't forcing them into driving only on their special road.
No they didn't, they said, "Here is our product and it works like this." Except now they've engineered a system where they can arbitrarily take away a feature people generally like from selected folks that do something with their purchase that they don't like (i.e. resellers and second hand buyers).

Let me reiterate this is the bed they made, they made it this way on purpose, there's no bloody reason to feel sorry for these buttheads, because this is the the way they want it.

EDIT: If you bought a used car and the manufacturer turned off the included navigation system, demanding 200 bucks to make it work again, wouldn't you be pissed? You bet you would, it's a cash grab, just like this.

My car doesn't have a navigation system, so I'd be more impressed that they installed one.

To answer the heart of your question: yes, I think that manufacturers/publishers/whatever should get a cut of used product sales.

That's the thing, why do I need to do that with my Steam enabled titles when they cost me $5 or less each?

Umm, why should they? Why the heck are video games some special snowflake? The RIAA doesn't get a cut of used CD sales. Authors don't get a cut of used book sales. No hard goods manufacturer gets a cut of used sales.

What reasonable justification can you put forth to explain such a stance. Just because you really like video games doesn't really cut it.

I don't think video games are special. Like I said, I think in all industries, used sales should give a cut to the manufacturer/publisher/whatever.