Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

[Realitycrash]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

"None, and that's why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case" - Sorry, what are you SAYING here? I honestly can't understand you. No insult. Just..Be a bit cleared..What were you responding to?

Everything is subject to entropy, everything deteriorates. But don't get off the point. I want you to answer the question i posed. Stop dodging it and just answer.
Or..What..You saying that they have NO right to refuse us to sell our property, but we own ONLY the "plastic jewel" and not the information gathered on the disk?

If such is the case, you really, really need to look over your EULA, becausyou'd be surprised. We actually own, and have legal rights to dispose of as we please, that information. As long as we don't break other parts of the EULA while doing so.

You own the right to sell the code that locks with your account? then you should take that to court really. Your rights are being infringed upon. Good luck with that.

Did I ever claim I did? I never spoke of an account, I spoke of a game. As far as I know, you don't need an account or a code to play a game you buy, unless it has the "always online DRM". I'm not talking about online passes here, and you know it.

 

[JMeganSnow]

An excellent video, Jim, and very convincing. I think you are correct--selling a game (or giving it away) is no different from letting someone park in the space you paid for or handing over an arcade game while your quarter is still running. Nobody would think to demand that you be required to let the meter run out or terminate your game before handing it off to someone else. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

 

[Realitycrash]

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to ***** and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.


2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product says with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

A product is, per definition, not a service. A service is a service, a product is a product. Keep your terminology straight.

And yes, a producer CAN do that. He can rewrite the EULA so it says "you bloody-well can't sell this on" or even "you can only install this THREE TIMES! HAH!" (Spore, remember?)
But right now, that is NOT in the EULA, and it is doubtful if it would be passed into law.
Noone is saying that you can't make it so that all games are per definition leases, but there would probably be a public uproar.
Games are physical objects that you can touch and feel, and with such objects, people tend to want to feel that they have control over them, that they own them. If you made it a lease, then you no longer actually own anything.
And yes, the EULA already says what you can and can not to with the information on the disk, so in a fashion it's leased from the company, but still, you are the owner, and by right can sell on the product, still making the EULA apply (since the new owner is now the End Used of which the Licence Agreement speaks of).
Can gamecompanies change this? Yes, technically. Would they get away with it? Highly doubtful.
Should they? Eh, I think not.

 

[AlexLoxate]

I really don't see how used games are the devil. The publishers make a lot of money on DLC, even the ridiculously over priced map packs. Used games are the only financial relief we can have. So, yeah, excellent video, Jim.

 

[Realitycrash]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

"None, and that's why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case" - Sorry, what are you SAYING here? I honestly can't understand you. No insult. Just..Be a bit cleared..What were you responding to?

Everything is subject to entropy, everything deteriorates. But don't get off the point. I want you to answer the question i posed. Stop dodging it and just answer.
Or..What..You saying that they have NO right to refuse us to sell our property, but we own ONLY the "plastic jewel" and not the information gathered on the disk?

If such is the case, you really, really need to look over your EULA, becausyou'd be surprised. We actually own, and have legal rights to dispose of as we please, that information. As long as we don't break other parts of the EULA while doing so.

You own the right to sell the code that locks with your account? then you should take that to court really. Your rights are being infringed upon. Good luck with that.

Did I ever claim I did? I never spoke of an account, I spoke of a game. As far as I know, you don't need an account or a code to play a game you buy, unless it has the "always online DRM". I'm not talking about online passes here, and you know it.

So the pass code is not property then?

Then we are on the same page then.

I never gave two cents about the pass-code. If by pass-code you mean a mandatory code you have to put in to get access to online play then no, the code belongs to whoever is running the online server and decides to let you in. A game doesn't HAVE to have online services, afterall.
If by pass-code you mean a simple code you need to put in, in order to actually play the game at all, then yes, you own the code, since the code is nothing but a fancy lock on a property that you own.

 

[DuelLadyS]

Best Jimquistion to date. I buy mostly used games. I have no beef with the developer, I don't mind them wanting to make sure they get paid... but they're doing it wrong. I buy used games to get cheap games, the ones I wouldn't pay $60 for period. So maybe by the time that used game is down to the $20 or less I want to pay, the new one's cheap too... or more likely, it's not around anymore. I certainly don't remember seeing new copies of Kameo out when I got my 360, and rightfully so- it was 5ish years old by then. Not very fair to blame me for not going out of my way to find someone selling a new copy of an old game so I can spend more on it, just so some guy out there can get his 50 cents for a title he's probably forgotten about.

I've thought about my game buying versus my DVD buying, since I buy those almost exclusively new, and it really boils down to one thing... SALES. Games don't get cheaper very fast. If it only takes a few months (or even weeks) for people to move from one title to another, why does it take a year or more for price drops to really kick in? If publishers let their games go on sale more often or drop faster, they might see more people buying new. Not to mention it'd be a kick in the balls to Gamestop to see faster drops, forcing them to match on their used games faster and possibly lose some money (depending on how much they gave at trade-in.) I'd buy more new games if the stuff I played went on sale more, I prefer the better condition anyway.

Last thing- regardless of where you sit on the new/used debate, buying a $55 used game at Gamestop, or a gutted new game, is stupid. Pay the extra $5 if you want it that soon and show the developer you like their stuff. Buy your new games somewhere where you don't have to worry about snot and food getting wiped all over your 'new' copy.

 

[Dogstile]

Agreed with you on all points. Hell, the one thing you should have gone onto is the analogy's. "cars have maintenance costs, etc". Well i'm sorry games industry, but you're working with something that doesn't degrade, that means you don't get the bonuses of working with something that does.

 

[Realitycrash]

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to ***** and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.


2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product says with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

A product is, per definition, not a service. A service is a service, a product is a product. Keep your terminology straight.

And yes, a producer CAN do that. He can rewrite the EULA so it says "you bloody-well can't sell this on" or even "you can only install this THREE TIMES! HAH!" (Spore, remember?)
But right now, that is NOT in the EULA, and it is doubtful if it would be passed into law.
Noone is saying that you can't make it so that all games are per definition leases, but there would probably be a public uproar.
Games are physical objects that you can touch and feel, and with such objects, people tend to want to feel that they have control over them, that they own them. If you made it a lease, then you no longer actually own anything.
And yes, the EULA already says what you can and can not to with the information on the disk, so in a fashion it's leased from the company, but still, you are the owner, and by right can sell on the product, still making the EULA apply (since the new owner is now the End Used of which the Licence Agreement speaks of).
Can gamecompanies change this? Yes, technically. Would they get away with it? Highly doubtful.
Should they? Eh, I think not.

Im sorry about the product and service misunderstanding here. Its a translation error. My bad. It doesn't matter thou because they are interchangeable in the setting here thou.

Yeah you mention spore and the furor it happen. And what happend? a lot of people didn't buy it untill it was changed. Market set it self.

Yet that isn't what what they are doing.

They are changing their games so you cant sell them again. If thats enough for you not to buy it then by all means dont do so. They made a bet that the number of people who will buy new rather than used when is bigger when used is removed as an option is bigger than the number of people who doesn't to buy it because of that removal.

I think they are right

I dont think they are unreasonable

I dont expect them to cater to an audience that doesn't pay them

I can't, of course, say "no, you can't think they are right. You are wrong". Every man is entitled to his own opinion. If you feel that they should change the EULA so that it is less of a product and more of a service (which isn't very far off, now that we got digital downloads and such. I mean, I "bought" a Steam-game yesteday, but I can't sell that game on to anyone else, due to how the EULA is formed with Steam) that's fine. However, with games today, physical objects with copied information on them that go with these objects, it's a bit trickier. If you try to change the EULA for THEM, people will make the "Car/Table/Everything else I own"-analogy, and there will be courtcases, etc, etc, and honestly I think they will lose more than they gain (with "they" I mean the producers).
People still like to think they have control over what they can feel and touch.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Any one else thought that evil cat looked just like Jim?

 

[Raddra]

Great show as usual Jim.

 

[Inkidu]

Terrible terrible argument. "I can waste as much money as I want on crap games, thereby encouraging publisher to keep making even worse games, because I can turn around and resell them to some other sucker who will also hate it. It doesn't matter how bad games get because of the lemming-like churn of money to be made off cycle bad games around the toilet of current gaming."

Show a little self-control and don't give publishers your money for games you hate and you won't need to be able to resell them to to the next poor sod.

But don't cry because you're too stupid to recognize crap after being sold it repeatedly. And don't blame the publishers for thinking that what you really want is more of the same crap you've resold time and time again. They can't hear you over the piles of your money they're busy counting.

One tiny little gaping whole in your logic. What if I just don't like the game? Believe it or not, no one sets out to buy a crap game. No one wakes up in the morning sober and says, "I want to play a bad game today!" Now there are exceptions games have several, "The Room"-like games that people play just to see how bad they are.

However, what If just don't like the game? I thought I would like Borderlands, and it's a good game for what it is? However, I paid way too much and was glad to trade it in when it wore out its welcome? Is that encouraging crappy games? Hell no. Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?

 

[Monsterfurby]

Thank you Jim, for saving me from trying to explain the same thing in another thread. The argument "but you are paying for server time" is not a good one. After all, this has only appeared as an excuse after publishers noticed that there could be money made with that. HOWEVER, as anyone even remotely proficient in economics knows, they have to factor server costs into the original price tag, as they can not predict how long a user will make use of their online services and how many users will. Running a loss on a product is not an option.

Therefore, the crusade against used games and for online passes, which are both inevitably linked, is a measure to increase profit margins, NOT to finance any sort of higher benefit for the user.

Also, you hereby win the official Final Fantasy 9 Fanboy Award for using my favourite video game tune of all time. Nothing beats "You Are Not Alone".

 

[Stevepinto3]

Also, where I'm from, it's an infraction to put money into someone else's parking meter. Big Bro gets more money from tickets than from the meters.

Actually there are other reasons why this is the case. First parking meters are often in high-traffic areas, and the parking spot may have a max amount of time one car can stay there (usually about 2 hours). If a car just sits there for too long it's blocking other people from being able to get a parking space.

Second, people used to scam the system. They would give the change to homeless people in the area who would drop in a quarter if the police happened to come by, and if the police didn't show up the homeless person got to keep the money.

 

[Hitchmeister]

Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?

Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.

 

[BrotherRool]

I agree with this one. Used games aren't piracy and they have a right to exist.

I'm unsure about the multiplayer point, companies (if they're competent) will be valuing and making predictions of the burdens of their product based on the realistically finite life of any multiplayer value.

And I think you're forgetting that one DLC is a brilliant thing for when the developers are free as the game goes through the last steps. It keeps them busy and employed when they wouldn't otherwise have work to do and the revenue from DLC goes towards paying wages and the next game.

And enough developers go bust for me to think they don't have enough money already. I figured this bonus for buying new thing (or as it's becoming, penalty for buying used system) also has the same right to exist and has the benefit that, in all honesty, multiplayer for an old game is usually worthless because no-ones playing it anymore, so it means we get slightly cheaper used games

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Right on Jim.

It's always irked me with these claims that online passes are to stop used games, and used games are the criminal, when the companies doing this sort of shit are EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. The 800lb Gorilla's of gaming. The same retards that constantly claim DRM is for our own good to stop piracy. Bullshit. It's to try and stop your bottom line at the expense of the consumer, who you show nothing but disdain for. It's why all my respect goes to small developers/publishers that put out awesome content with no DRM, knowing that the game will be supported because it's good.

I was enraged when the idiots behind Heavy Rain got up in arms that they theoretically lost 1/3 of their sales to used sales of the game, 'robbing' them of a few million dollars. A game that sold over 2 million copies. I'm sorry, you no longer have the right to whine about used sales when your game breaks a million sales. Especially when far more deserving games aren't getting the attention they deserve, like the massively pirated World of Goo or Bastion. Both of which are immensely superior games to Heavy Rain. Let alone Quantic Dream shouldn't be allowed to whine, when the creator so clearly wants to be in films and not games, and shows nothing but spite toward games.

This. I don't ever see small publishers or devs moaning about how used sales are killing the industry. It is always the triple-A people. The smaller devs are too busy giving customers soundtracks and artbooks with their purchase. So I have no sympathy for their complaints.