Buy used? Can't complain.

[GoldenRaz]

So buying used games gives THE GAMES INDUSTRY! a legitimate reason to throw a temper tantrum and ignore any complaints about their games' faults? Ok, I can see how one might have that opinion. Good for you. And you're right that if you find the condition of your game lacking (scratched disk or whatever) then yes, the game store (when did everyone start buying used games at GameStop and nowhere else?) should be the ones you complain to.

Other than that, I really don't see your point. Does me buying a game used make my subsequent experience of playing it "not worthy" or somehow discredit the very existance of that experience? Does me buying used somehow make my opinion of it immediately inferior to the point of not even being worth the energy of forming it? If so, that's just silly. How I acquired the game doesn't sully my opinion of it. I'm still quite able to form an opinion of it, and that opinion weighs about as heavily as anyone else's.

Really, that was so passive aggressive that I half expected the OP to end with a "STFU, bitches". Was this supposed to make me buy every game brand, spanking new by trying to guilt trip and bully me to change my way of thinking? If so, better luck next time 'cause that didn't bite.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Here's the difference. One of them is a FUCKING CAR.

I fail to see the difference. BMW don't schedule press conferences to discuss how people buying their cars second hand is causing them to implement a biometric key that only allows the first owner to drive it.

People buy cars used to save thousands of dollars.

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

There's a huge difference. They're different products that cost different amounts of money, and one of them is important, and the other is a fucking toy.

You aren't going to get anywhere comparing video games to cars. NOWHERE.

 

[Hunt3r_of_3vil]

Wait, I have one question to make sure I'm keeping up here.

> Hasn't the developer already been paid for each and every copy of a game that is on a shelf in a store stockroom or in the possession of anyone who has visited a retailer or used an online service?

I mean, really, I'm 99% sure that the retailers are not getting these things for free, with the hopes the publishers will be paid back in the future. If that is the case, they're making money off titles that haven't even sold yet.

 

[kwydjebo]

Okay a few things to the original argument (You have no right to complain if you buy used.), and skipped a few pages of posts here so if this has already been said, so be it.

1) THIS IS AMERICA!!! And as an American (well North AMerican in my case) I have the god given right to complain, ***** and moan about whatever I please. You have the right to Ignore me. If I buy a game New, used, got it as a gift, or didn't buy it at all (went to a friends place and played it there), I have a right to complain about what I experienced. I also have the right to form an opinion based on watching a youtube video and then Yahtzee's review....that opinion would likely be termed "Second hand" or "Ill-informed", but its my right to be that way, and to complain thusly. I therefore complain that the little goth girl shows up way too much in Bioshock, and the game would be way better without her! (I've never played it so take it for what its worth)
Conversely, you, and others have the right to ignore me completely.

Ain't freedom grand?

2) The Game developer DOES NOT HAVE TO listen to customer. Once a game is released, they are well within their rights to say "That's it, don't call us, we be done"
Now for future customers they might want to garner some goodwill by, you know, making current ones happy. THis is the internet age, and word travels fast when a company is known for a shoddy product and even worse after market support.
AND here's a crazy idea. If a Developer makes a game, gets feedback, maybe they can use said feedback and MAKE IMPROVMENTS TO FUTURE GAMES! User input can (and should) be very important to software development. Knowing what your end users want and like and don't like can assist in making software BETTER, and thus more appealing for future users.


3) GAME COMPANIES SEE NO MONEY FROM USED SALES. Not always.
True if I buy Fallout 3 used (as I did) Bethesda sees not one red cent. But when I enjoy the game and buy the DLCs, or am encouraged to buy Fallout New Vegas as soon as it comes out, isn't that a residual sale that I likely wouldn't have made if I hadn't rolled the dice on 20 bucks for a used game (And actually My Fallout 3 was stolen long before I finished it so I bought the GotY edition new, but that's an odd case).

4) Why are Used games so different than used other things? Houses, Cars, comic books....Spider man's first appearance was in a 12 cent comic, I don't hear a lot of crying about how poor marvel gets nothing when someone buys it now for 20 grand. Some cars are worth far more now than they were originally, do we lament for poor Ford? And more importantly if you don't buy a Ford, are you no longer entitled to say you think a particular model looks stupid? For that matter, and going by this logic, when the Wii came out, you had no right to complain about the dumb name unless you bought it?

5) As a consumer I pay goods and services a fair market value. I like sales, but failing that I am willing to accept the Market's wisdom in setting a price. The understanding, of course, is that when I, and many other gamers pay $x for a game, some of that cost is going to pay for the original development, cost of the physical packaging and game disc, box art, shipping to the store, store's overhead, etc...and in the end, hopefully some profit for the devs. Now if I buy a direct download, where there is NO physical cost, and presumably far less overhead cost, why do I pay the same, or (as I've heard people say) more?
As well, if I buy Used, the devs may not see profit from MY purchase, but they got profit from the original purchase, which I have now payed a portion of, think of it not as buying used, but as a Time Share!

 

[Vegosiux]

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

I'm insulted by that notion and I don't even buy used games! (I buy them when they're discounted, does that make me a cheapskate too then?)

You know to some people 10 bucks is a great deal of money what with lack of disposable income.

 

[Robert Ewing]

With used games I think the argument of 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' rings ever so true.

For example, no fucking way would I ever pay the £40 for an annual sports game like FIFA from EA. Screw that, i get it from a used game dealer. And give their chain a helping hand instead of fueling that exact same shit churned out each year.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

I'm insulted by that notion and I don't even buy used games! (I buy them when they're discounted, does that make me a cheapskate too then?)

You know to some people 10 bucks is a great deal of money what with lack of disposable income.

Yep, I surely do. And I'd say that if 10 bucks is that big a deal to them, they have other shit to worry about besides video games.

 

[Vegosiux]

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

I'm insulted by that notion and I don't even buy used games! (I buy them when they're discounted, does that make me a cheapskate too then?)

You know to some people 10 bucks is a great deal of money what with lack of disposable income.

Yep, I surely do. And I'd say that if 10 bucks is that big a deal to them, they have other shit to worry about besides video games.

Really now? What kind of shit, for example? Is this the part where generalizations start (as they usually do) how lack of disposable income somehow equals being a lazy ass who needs to get a job? Do we want to go down that road then?

Because you know, I would say that if they complain about video games, that means they likely have that other shit barely covered, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be complaining about videogames.

To say nothing on the fact that seeing how you can keep your expenditures to a minimum is the most rational thing to do, regardless of what your income is in the first place. What's the saying? A penny saved is a penny earned?

 

[everythingbeeps]

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

I'm insulted by that notion and I don't even buy used games! (I buy them when they're discounted, does that make me a cheapskate too then?)

You know to some people 10 bucks is a great deal of money what with lack of disposable income.

Yep, I surely do. And I'd say that if 10 bucks is that big a deal to them, they have other shit to worry about besides video games.

Really now? What kind of shit, for example? Is this the part where generalizations start (as they usually do) how lack of disposable income somehow equals being a lazy ass who needs to get a job? Do we want to go down that road then?

Because you know, I would say that if they complain about video games, that means they likely have that other shit barely covered, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be complaining about videogames.

To say nothing on the fact that seeing how you can keep your expenditures to a minimum is the most rational thing to do, regardless of what your income is in the first place. What's the saying? A penny saved is a penny earned?

No, this is the part where you completely (possibly even deliberately!) misrepresent my point in order to start a fight about something else entirely.

My point was simple: if you're that hard up for ten bucks, maybe you have other priorities than video games. And maybe you should be more careful about which ones you buy. If you're bitching about a video game, it's because you weren't careful enough before buying it. People with plenty of disposable income can afford to buy Dragon Age 2 without researching it enough to discover that it's kind of a piece of shit.

People who are scraping pennies together shouldn't buy compulsively buying games they aren't absolutely certain they want.

 

[Vegosiux]

My point was simple: if you're that hard up for ten bucks, maybe you have other priorities than video games. And maybe you should be more careful about which ones you buy. If you're bitching about a video game, it's because you weren't careful enough before buying it. People with plenty of disposable income can afford to buy Dragon Age 2 without researching it enough to discover that it's kind of a piece of shit.

People who are scraping pennies together shouldn't buy compulsively buying games they aren't absolutely certain they want.

Well, thing is, if you have to work hard to break even, then you're not likely to have much time and/or energy to go into "research". So you're going to see what's advertised, and what has the most hype associated.

Now, if it's a new release, there's also the problem of not knowing the game isn't going to deliver, because, well, it hasn't been released yet. There's no way you could have known. But it was still hyped. See, Christmas releases. So much hype, so much publishers telling us "This is what you need, nay, this is what you crave". Then the game turns out to be a flop. Well, naturally you're going to be miffed if you spent a large chunk of your disposable income to get it for your kid.

I'm starting to stray here, but even with miserable income, people want (and need) to just treat themselves (and others) sometimes. And well, if they get screwed on that, they're more likely to go "Fine then.".

Anyway, as I said earlier, if I think the game is worth what I paid for it, I'll be keeping it, and as someone else said, the fact that the first owner of a used game decided to get rid of it is a complaint in and of itself.

PS: No, not deliberately, just tainted judgement from past experience.

 

[everythingbeeps]

My point was simple: if you're that hard up for ten bucks, maybe you have other priorities than video games. And maybe you should be more careful about which ones you buy. If you're bitching about a video game, it's because you weren't careful enough before buying it. People with plenty of disposable income can afford to buy Dragon Age 2 without researching it enough to discover that it's kind of a piece of shit.

People who are scraping pennies together shouldn't buy compulsively buying games they aren't absolutely certain they want.

Well, thing is, if you have to work hard to break even, then you're not likely to have much time and/or energy to go into "research". So you're going to see what's advertised, and what has the most hype associated.

You have time to play video games but you don't have time to do any research into what you're playing? Not my problem, and not the problem of the video game companies.

 

[Spandexpanda]

People buy cars used to save thousands of dollars.

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

There's a huge difference. They're different products that cost different amounts of money, and one of them is important, and the other is a fucking toy.

You aren't going to get anywhere comparing video games to cars. NOWHERE.

I'm offended by your implication that anyone who buys used is a cheapskate. I'm a student, does that mean that instead of consuming all the media I can for the money I have I should buy just one or two games full price on launch day? No.

Would you call someone who buys a supermarket's own brand bread a cheapskate, just because it costs less? The saving is literally like 5p, but isn't saving money on the little things literally the epitome of saving?

So we should buy anything you class as a "toy" at full price? You've never gotten a hand-me-down toy, bought a classic gameboy game off a friend with your allowance money, or bought anything at a charity shop? Some people don't have that luxury.

Let's say I do have the money to buy new, so what? I can do whatever I like with it. Opportunity costs mean different things to different people. Say I save those ten bucks, and then in a week's time, I need the tenner to buy food. If I'd bought it new, who would be happy? Nobody. I'd still have the same game, but no food. You're entirely free to buy games at whatever price you want, but seriously, no need to be a dick about it.

Here's another point I'd put to you: you ever bought a game after it's launch day? When it's on sale? Cheapskate! Everyone point and laugh. Saving ten bucks here and there on one of the products that most of the people on these forums spend a ridiculous amount of money on is smart. It's not being a cheapskate.

 

[spartan231490]

This is the most short-sighted argument I've seen in months, if not years. The game companies have every incentive to listen to used game buyers. They have every incentive to listen to people who've never even bought a game.

In fact, they have more incentive to listen to them than they have to listen to people who buy new games, because there are more people who don't. Many many more, and if they can convert some of them to buying new games, they make a lot more money than if they work to please the people who are going to buy the games anyway.

Do you feel the same about buying used movies, or renting them?

What about getting books from a library rather than buying them?

The games industry and gamers themselves and the only ones who ever complain about this. Doesn't really happen in other forms of media does it? Yet, whats the difference? Not much.

and your thing about opinions meaning nothing if you buy used? Sorry, that's not very rational. Opinions on something dont lose their value if the experience is exactly the same as everyone else has experienced. Which it is.

I've always wondered why the game industry whines so much about used gaming. Books have been sold used for centuries, and yet publishing companies are still around.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games, quit being so elitist just because you buy all your games new.

 

[Nyaliva]

Okay, this is going to be long but I would like a proper response from OP and if anyone else has any points to make please do! However I hold no responsibility for the time lost reading it!

I watched my first (and last) Jimquisition the other day, it was the one where he makes the argument for the existence of the preowned games market and consisted entirely of Jim stating, repeatedly, that since we are poor and since used games are cheaper, therefore it is a practice that must continue.

Your first mistake is not watching his other videos on pre-owned games. In his last one he revealed that all the money that these game developers are crying about is close to a million dollars. That's like $1 off every employee's pay cheque, more off the executives who can spare the full million (but won't want to).

So, I'd just like to toss this out here, to those of you who find nothing wrong with buying preowned;

If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.

I'm afraid you're confusing "They don't have a right to complain" with "The developers don't have an obligation to listen". If you buy a game used, you don't pay the developers for it. This means they don't "need" to listen to you because you aren't their direct market. However, it would be extremely bad business practice because these people are the developers' indirect market. If the developers don't listen to them, they can never make them their direct market and never see a penny from them. But by listening to these people's arguments, their games are better the next time around, the second-hand buyers who complained will buy these new games (likely still second hand) and find that the developers have made the improvements they wanted. This creates a bond with the customer that will likely push them into the first-hand sales market, or even if not, will encourage them to purchase DLC.

So although the developers lost money from two second hand sales, by listening to the second hand market, they would make tons of money from those people in future, rather than blowing them off in the first place and never seeing any money from them ever.

In the eyes of the game industry, buying used is one step removed from outright theft because it involves the distribution of their hard work and does not involve getting paid for it.
(Moreover, the practices of stores like Gamestop are getting closer and closer to outright theft as it is.)

I actually kind of agree with this, simply by definitions, however by definition you could argue what joe-h2o said: used cars, used books and used houses. The reason used cars aren't seen as theft is because used cars require servicing more than new cars and so people who buy used cars will soon have to buy new parts from the manufacturer. You blew off used housing because it's probably the best argument: someone employs builders to build a house, electricians to wire it and so forth. They then sell it, hopefully for a profit. If the person who buys it then sells it to someone else later, even for a better price than they bought it for (which is possible thanks to the hoousing market), the person who originally commissioned it don't see any more money, whether they originally got a major profit or went bankrupt from it. So how is this legal by your definition?

Used books are a bit different, when someone buys a used book, it's true the writer gets nothing from it (nor do the publisher), however if the book is good, it generates interest in that writer's work. If the book is bad, the person who bought it used has spent less on a bad product and the writer is not encouraged to continue bad writing, in fact if their sales are bad, they will have to improve their writing or stop, but not because they went bankrupt from second-hand sales, because they were genuinely crap at their job. With the internet and everything now, people can even argue the bad points of a book in a way that the writer can see, and improve on.

The reason I left the book analogy till last is because it's the closest representation to the games industry. In actual fact, the games industry is so much bigger than books, including second-hand sales, and developers don't just put out one game a year, they release multiple games a year of different kinds, so they have multiple chances in a smaller time frame to make good impressions on used-game buyers. This year's second-hand buyer could be next year's first-hand supporter.

Hate the games you've bought used?

Take it up with Gamestop.

This is just silly, what would Gamestop do? They can't change the quality of games. You know what they would do? Change the products they sell for the sake of their customers. You know what that means? They stop buying the few first-hand copies the developers sell thanks to Gamestop. Then not only do the developers lose more money, but they can't even generate interest the way second-hand sales do.

I know the world isn't as black and white as this, people who like second hand games won't automatically generate first-hand sales, but then they also don't just take money away from developers, and what ever amount the developers' revenue is reduced is minimal compared to their sales. Furthermore, if they refuse to listen to second-hand gamers, they shoot themselves in the foot by passing up an opportunity to make a good impression and convert some second-hand buyers. I personally like second hand sales because it means I can try a game I'm not sure will be very good at a fraction of the cost. However, there are a number of game series and game developers I always buy first hand which I usually have to wait for in order to afford when I could've bought it second hand a week ago. This is because I know it'll be a good game and well worth my time and money. My house might as well be a fence because I think the second-hand market is fantastic AND I will always fight for developers but until the money lost reaches something significant and the lousy executives start firing the developers instead of reducing their salary from $2 million to $1.5 million, then I will truly stand up and fight. However I won't just yell at people for buying used games, I'll be fighting the executives and finding ways to decrease losses from second-hand games in a practical way.

In closing I'd like to simultaneously apologise if I've made any points you've heard previously and berate you for shooting down Jim Sterling for having but one argument when you haven't watched any more of his work and then opposing it with but one argument of your own, and a poor one at that. However I do have one final question: if I buy a game used and then buy all the DLC, do I have a right to complain about the game at all (because ALL I spend on DLC is going to the developers) or just the DLC (because it's what I'm paying for)?

Waiting your response!

 

[coolkirb]

Simple economics says I should act in my best interest and them in theirs, if companys lose money they go out of buissness. If their is demand for a different kind of game someone will make it if their is a financial incentive. We should not be worrying about the producers we should let capitalism do its job and let the market sort itself out.

AS for gamestop if we a buy a used game we dont like we exchange it and the publisher suffers because it makes us question his product and makes us realize their games are not worth buying new. We should not be bleeding our hearts out for companies who exist for profit.

 

[Naeo]

Actually, if you buy used, the company has every god damn reason to listen to your complaints. You bought one game of theirs used. You may well buy the next one new, because if you like the one you buy used, you'll want that next one badly--probably badly enough to shell out the $60 for the privilege of playing it on the first day.

Though, I suppose that by this argument (assuming you live in the US), you can't complain about any public service. Your taxes, after all, go to the government, not, say, the people paving the roads. So you can't complain about roads, sewage works, and so on. And oh yes, this is very much the same thing--stores don't get copies of games from developers/distributors on goodwill. They do have to pay up front before they can put them on the shelves. Your tax money goes to the government, which in turn goes to the people who do the wonderful things we take for granted like paving roads and running waste-water treatment plants. Buying something that supports a game store gives them more money to buy games with to support developers.

And let's take a look at that argument that "games are expensive" is not a valid reason to buy used. Total bullshit. Ignoring when people are strapped for cash, oftentimes you can go buy a new game for, say, $60 (or $50 or $40 depending how long it's been out, and sometimes $20 if it's ancient) or a used copy for $20 (and decreasing increments in proportion to the sale price of a new copy). Also consider that for all intents and purposes, used and new games are functionally identical. A bit of wear and tear on the box, but almost never any actual damage on the disc itself. So it'll play like a new game, in other words. So you're buying ultimately the same product for much, much less. Yes, it's nice to support developers. Not worth my $40. Being morally high-and-mighty only goes so far as is economically convenient for those who need to carefully manage their money.

 

[icaritos]

I wouldn't care about this argument at all if it wasn't for the hypocritical nature of almost all people on this website.

Call piracy the devil, but defend used games sales, which in the end is basically the same damn thing.

 

[icaritos]

Actually, if you buy used, the company has every god damn reason to listen to your complaints. You bought one game of theirs used. You may well buy the next one new, because if you like the one you buy used, you'll want that next one badly--probably badly enough to shell out the $60 for the privilege of playing it on the first day.

Though, I suppose that by this argument (assuming you live in the US), you can't complain about any public service. Your taxes, after all, go to the government, not, say, the people paving the roads. So you can't complain about roads, sewage works, and so on. And oh yes, this is very much the same thing--stores don't get copies of games from developers/distributors on goodwill. They do have to pay up front before they can put them on the shelves. Your tax money goes to the government, which in turn goes to the people who do the wonderful things we take for granted like paving roads and running waste-water treatment plants. Buying something that supports a game store gives them more money to buy games with to support developers.

And let's take a look at that argument that "games are expensive" is not a valid reason to buy used. Total bullshit. Ignoring when people are strapped for cash, oftentimes you can go buy a new game for, say, $60 (or $50 or $40 depending how long it's been out, and sometimes $20 if it's ancient) or a used copy for $20 (and decreasing increments in proportion to the sale price of a new copy). Also consider that for all intents and purposes, used and new games are functionally identical. A bit of wear and tear on the box, but almost never any actual damage on the disc itself. So it'll play like a new game, in other words. So you're buying ultimately the same product for much, much less. Yes, it's nice to support developers. Not worth my $40. Being morally high-and-mighty only goes so far as is economically convenient for those who need to carefully manage their money.

Your entire argument is applicable to piracy as well. The problem here is that people will defend you if you call it "used games sale" but rail on you if you call it piracy.

 

[Sparcrypt]

I can't tell if you missed the words "A MAJOR SUPPLIER" because you're blind or because you're a troll. Care to tell me which?

Ah, so the fact that there are many many smaller suppliers is completely different to having one larger one when discussing if the product itself it bad? Please explain how it differs to the game publishers/devs etc if a million used games are sold in one place or if a million used games are sold in 1000 different places, then you can tell me why your MAJOR SUPPLIER point that I ignored is so important.

Ah, troll. I see.

Yes, I'm a troll for providing reasoned arguments that you seem unable to dispute with any actual logic or fact.

No, if the only stores that sold used games where stores that only sold used games (Like with every other medium), then there would be no problem. Its the bloated prescence of used games within places where people should be buying new that is the problem.

So, you're saying used games are no problem whatsoever, its just the fact that someone wants to sell them in the same place as new ones? Yeah. I can see how that matters. You know, except the part where it doesn't.

The difference is Gamestop is not producing anything in this relationship, instead simply taking its own survival and killing off the "host". This is the textbook definition of a parasite.

1. Place to come and look at a product before buying it
2. Ability to go and pick up product immediately rather than ship it yourself
3. Staff members to speak with about the pros and cons of various products
4. Buyer protection - if there is a problem with the product you can take it back there and have it exchanged rather than wait weeks to ship it off/have it returned.
5. Extended warranties and other services etc etc

I could go on but basically I'm just listing the advantages you gain when walking into a physical store. Claiming retails stores bring nothing to the table is stupidly narrow minded. Just because YOU personally aren't interested in those services does not mean they don't exist and of value to other people.

By your logic, steam is also a parasite. It does the same thing as a storefront does - provides a place for people to come and buy games. It has advantages and disadvantages when compared to a store but it's the same premise.

So therefore Gamestop has become bloated and needs to scale back its operations til it can survive on the slim margins again and not rsort to being a parasite.

Businesses are there to make money, I'm not even going to respond to an argument that says 'they should stop making money'.

Oh no! If they ever actually made anything that might mean something.

Tell me - how old are you? I'm curious as to if you were buying games back in the day when only way to actually do so was walk in to a store and physically buy it - because if you were then you might not be so fast as to say retail is useless.

You say that retail is pointless and doesn't do anything. Ever heard of logistics? It's the process of moving things from point A to point B. Here is a process almost every product goes though:

1. It gets made
2. The people who made it give it to someone who produces it in large numbers
3. Those people give those items to 'suppliers'
4. Depending on how many things were made, the items filter down through the supply chain. These chains vary in size depending on the product and the demand for it.
5. Eventually, the item ends up with the people who deal with the public on a one on one basis - the retailer.

So calling the retailer useless and not contributing anything to the process is saying the same thing is true for the entire supply chain and everyone involved with it... which is a lot of people doing a LOT of different jobs.

Is that why I saw used retail copies of Portal, Uncharted 2 and Bioshock? That is clearly a fucking stupid argument, as gamestop actively encourages people to trade in their games.

Calling my argument 'fucking stupid' because you fail to see that not everyone agrees with you what a good game is is pretty fucking stupid itself.

As someone who worked in a games store and processed literally tens of thousands of sales/trade ins/everything else I can tell you with first hand knowledge - the better the game the fewer trade ins you see for it and the longer it takes for them to start coming in. Terrible games came in droves. At one point we had about 150 copies of Brute Force for the xbox in stock.. it was that terrible people just wanted to get rid of it.

Yes SOME people will still trade it in a few weeks after they buy it but so what? Every industry has a second hand trade and there is no harm in games having one as well.

As for actively encouraging people to trade - as I pointed out multiple times.. this MAKES THEM MONEY. They are a business and they are more than entitled.

Yes, acting out of spite is always healthy.

Actually that statement was made to draw attention to the fact that those on your side of the fence are being rather idiotic. I'm sorry you were unable to grasp that point, I'll make sure I'm more obvious in future so I don't confuse you.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Here's the difference. One of them is a FUCKING CAR.

I fail to see the difference. BMW don't schedule press conferences to discuss how people buying their cars second hand is causing them to implement a biometric key that only allows the first owner to drive it.

The difference is when a person gets a car, they tend to keep it for a long time. If they do eventually sell it is a used dealer, it will likely be well after the manufacturer has stopped making money on that particular model. Compare that with games which, in a lot of cases, can be seen on the used market less than a week after its release.

Though I will argue that video games is the only industry I can think of that withholds content if you buy the product used. You don't really see book publishers getting the ending removed until you pay an additional fee to them if you buy a book used. Frankly I think publishers/developers have far too much control over their product after it ships. While that can be a good thing (gives them a chance to add content, fix some bugs, etc...) it does allow for some pretty dickish things you don't really see in any other industry.