Online Pass Is a Success, Says EA

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Ok, for the record this really isnt directed as a personal attack, We are both entitled to opinions which that is all we are really exchanging here. I am breaking this into quotes simply because it makes it easier to read and a lot of the points you make are valid and make for good examples as the views you expressed are certainly shared by others. I do not wish to start a flame war, so I will post my opinions replying to these statements and beyond that I will agree to disagree on any points herein, because this post is entirely too long for my part.
Keava said:
Fan of conspiracy theories? I ask seriously, because you seem to mistake two different things. Over last years the used game market grew to the point where it's not just person A selling a game they got bored with to person B at a lower price. Big retailers came to join the fun and leech the money on products they already sold once without having to pay a single cent to the producers of that product.
No, not really. I am simply looking at the trend that has been blatant over the course of the last decade. I do respect there has been a recent surge in big name corporations getting their hooks into used gaming. In the US.. the only one of note is Wal-mart, which most the other corp used resellers were firmly in existence. Wal-mart seems to be the only new large player in this arena. Question here is. Should the players have to pay for the fact other corporations are screwing the publishers?

And yet there is a whole lot of you that think's creating games is some sort of charity business and companies, especially publishers, should not make money. Sorry to burst your bubble but if EA doesn't make enough money they won't invest it into new titles, which means either there will be less games produced or the quality will drop down. You want that? Keep buying used games and boycott the DLCs/online passes, or just pirate everything. Both cases those evil, sinister companies won't see your money. After all thou art a true rebel against the corporation dominance over the lives of simple mortals.
Not at all. I fully support the notion of people getting paid for the work they do. However, EA, specifically in its sports arena is not a good example of this when all they really do is release one version of a game every console generation, Do a few minor system tweaks, update rosters and dump money into marketing for each years incarnation and call it a day. Fact is EAs sports division is one of the most profitable examples of game development in the industry, specifically because they dont have alot of overhead by simply reselling the same game they released the previous year with no real development, at full price, so No Im not worried about EAs profit margins when those Margins are wide enough to swallow hundreds of small developers that have a legit reason to decry what cuts into their profit margins. I'm Sure EA is doing this for the goodness of the industry as a whole and not to take their already insanely profitable franchises and make them even more profitable without actually doing anything to deserve the extra revenue, and not out of a desire to create monopolies and crush competition.

Game development costs rise up every year and i haven't noticed any major rise in prices lately. Over those 20 years i play i even noticed a drop. Back in 90ties PC game here was usually 150-170PLN (that's about how much i paid for Baldur's Gate i think) which is about 50-60 $, now they are closer to 120-130PLN so ~40$.
Well your mileage may vary there. Part of what your looking at is localization and importation costs that have little to do with the games themselves. Actually this is a good point to bring up because developmental costs have actually decreased over the years. Part of the reason why is because people accepted the notion that 10-15 hours of game content is an acceptable amount of content to warrant a full price tag. With such, Game publishers are now fairly content to release only that much content, which takes dramatically less manhours to produce than a 30-50 hour content limit. This is a perfect example on how when the consumer gives approval to a bad idea with their wallet, the publishers will use that to their advantage.

As for price increases? Actually yes, there have been. Mid 90s in the US a PC title would top end at about 30-40$. PC titles now are topping out at about 40-50$. Same is true of console titles, Generation 6 titles new were topping at 50$ and generation 7 has seen console titles start pushing the 60-70$ mark.


MMOs also proved that if your multiplayer sucks you will go down fast. Most companies that jumped on the MMO bandwagon with unfinished products struggle to keep them running. If EA or any other publisher can prove that their multiplayer will be worth the fee i see no problem. Sign me up. If it will be crap, i'll live without the online world. The market is varied enough to let me choose what i want to pay for and last thing those big 'money milking' companies want is to loose customers fast.
All this is not seeing the forest for the trees. MMOs in the EQ/WoW days justified their costs based on the sheer magnitude of content that was available and how long one would be playing. Any first rate MMO is typically going to take you several months to about half a year to work through the core games content. If you can do it all in 2 months time which is not likely, your coming out ahead. Question is.. are you going to get 6 months daily replay value out of a shooter? a platformer? a puzzle game?


Publishers such as Activision are only looking at this from a statistical economic standpoint. They see a 100 man dev team from blizzard per year generates 1 billion in profit from consumers, and automatically think every 100 man dev team under their umbrella should be generating the same sort of profit ratio, regardless of what they are developing and regardless of the value to the customer. Thats why you see Activision chomping at the bit to justify charging an equal sub fee for the call of duty series as what Warcraft charges. Even though the content value to the players in a shooter is generated not by the developers by writing narrative, creating unique AI sets, creating new technologies, etc, but by the players in head to head competition.

Whats worst about all that is that there is still no new effort added by the publisher from what they are wanting to charge for. They are simply now wanting to charge for what they have been giving away for free for no other reason that they see another company doing it.

Consumers are setting the dangerous precedents here and saying its ok to pay for something we used to get for free when it took next to no extra effort for the company to give it. When you plunk down 1$ to add on that nifty little hat that took a developer an hour to develop and when 10,000 other people did the same thats an insane profit, because it might have cost 100$ to pay for all the costs associated with developing it.

This is a majorly bad precedent to set. Have you noticed, its not Frictional games, Majesco, JoWood, and other minor publishers struggling to stay afloat who actually have reason to worry about proft margins who are out there trying to push the boundaries of how much your going to pay for a game. Its the EA, Activision, Take two, and other well funded, profitable and comfortable corporations that are leading the charge of finding new and profitable ways to maximize how much you will pay them with the least amount of effort on their part. And why do they do it? Only because people willingly bought into their last attempt to sucker people into paying more. Quit accepting a higher price tag for less return because it not only hurts you it hurts all gamers and helps major corporate gaming to crush smaller upstart companies.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
viranimus said:
Publishers think they are entitled to every drop of money they can milk out of you. When people willingly approve of something like this with their wallets it tells the publishers that you think it is acceptable to pay for this, and they will in turn begin to think this is an expected source of income and move on to another way to milk the customer out of money.
Publishers are entitled to every drop of money that they can milk out of people.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy their products. Every penny they get out of you is a penny that you decided it was worth giving them in exchange for a product or service. Just like gamers have the right to buy and sell used games to avoid spending a penny more than they have to. If you buy a used game because it's cheaper, you are acting in every bit as much self-interest as the publishers are.

Meanwhile, Online Pass is one of the few ways I've seen for publishers to make money off of the used market that does not reduce the value of my new copy.

viranimus said:
This is a majorly bad precedent to set. Have you noticed, its not Frictional games, Majesco, JoWood, and other minor publishers struggling to stay afloat who actually have reason to worry about proft margins who are out there trying to push the boundaries of how much your going to pay for a game. Its the EA, Activision, Take two, and other well funded, profitable and comfortable corporations that are leading the charge of finding new and profitable ways to maximize how much you will pay them with the least amount of effort on their part. And why do they do it? Only because people willingly bought into their last attempt to sucker people into paying more. Quit accepting a higher price tag for less return because it not only hurts you it hurts all gamers and helps major corporate gaming to crush smaller upstart companies.
EA is actually only just getting back to profitability after losing tons of money for a few years.
 

Electrogecko

New member
Apr 15, 2010
811
0
0
How do they enforce this? If I buy a game off a friend, bring it home and play online, how could they possibly know that he's not in the room playing with me, or he didn't just loan it to me? Does it only apply to officially re-sold games, and if so, wouldn't the retailer have to provide information about the buyer like a gamertag or even an IP address? Somebody explain!
 

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
No numbers? No third party examination? then its more than likely half+ bullshit.
 

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
Electrogecko said:
How do they enforce this? If I buy a game off a friend, bring it home and play online, how could they possibly know that he's not in the room playing with me, or he didn't just loan it to me? Does it only apply to officially re-sold games, and if so, wouldn't the retailer have to provide information about the buyer like a gamertag or even an IP address? Somebody explain!
Its an attempt at a "one sale, one customer" policy. No trades, no lending, nothing.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Wicky_42 said:
Lol, that is such a bullshit excuse - he could at least have been honest and said he's wanting to get a share of the used games market, and that getting paid more than once for a single unit is always a bonus...
I love how publishers are assholes for doing that, but retailers are altruistic saints for doing the exact same thing.
oranger said:
Its an attempt at a "one sale, one customer" policy. No trades, no lending, nothing.
Well, the used game model already is "one sale, one customer." The problem is one copy is being "one sold" to several "one customers."

If it was just people, there'd be no real issue. But gamestop has the market cornered and is pricing used copies as if they're in competition with new copies... and making money hand over fist doing it.

[sub][sub]I, also, have no fucking clue what "hand over fist" is supposed to mean[/sub][/sub]
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
viranimus said:
Ok, for the record this really isnt directed as a personal attack, We are both entitled to opinions which that is all we are really exchanging here. I am breaking this into quotes simply because it makes it easier to read and a lot of the points you make are valid and make for good examples as the views you expressed are certainly shared by others. I do not wish to start a flame war, so I will post my opinions replying to these statements and beyond that I will agree to disagree on any points herein, because this post is entirely too long for my part.

No, not really. I am simply looking at the trend that has been blatant over the course of the last decade. I do respect there has been a recent surge in big name corporations getting their hooks into used gaming. In the US.. the only one of note is Wal-mart, which most the other corp used resellers were firmly in existence. Wal-mart seems to be the only new large player in this arena. Question here is. Should the players have to pay for the fact other corporations are screwing the publishers?
Fine by me. I never mean anything as personal attack. We are all free people in the end and decide without wallets what we consider acceptable and what not. My biggest problem with the whole second-hand games issue is the fact that's it customers pretending to fight for their rights willingly getting ripped by retailers in the process just because they see those few bucks in price difference a big deal. I have no idea how much a can of soda costs in US, but for me it's like 2-3 packs of ciggs a month less if i'd buy a new game each month, with the amount of games im actually interested in it spans over 4-6 months usually, so yeah, if i 'd save a cent every day i'd probably make up for the used/fresh difference.

Not at all. I fully support the notion of people getting paid for the work they do. However, EA, specifically in its sports arena is not a good example of this when all they really do is release one version of a game every console generation, Do a few minor system tweaks, update rosters and dump money into marketing for each years incarnation and call it a day. Fact is EAs sports division is one of the most profitable examples of game development in the industry, specifically because they dont have alot of overhead by simply reselling the same game they released the previous year with no real development, at full price, so No Im not worried about EAs profit margins when those Margins are wide enough to swallow hundreds of small developers that have a legit reason to decry what cuts into their profit margins. I'm Sure EA is doing this for the goodness of the industry as a whole and not to take their already insanely profitable franchises and make them even more profitable without actually doing anything to deserve the extra revenue, and not out of a desire to create monopolies and crush competition.
Somehow, over all those years however, customers proved they want a new sports title every year, even if the changes are barley noticeable. Don't blame the producer that they make what turns out the best profit. It's customer base that over all those editions supported such model and obviously is willing to carry over with it. They make money on that, they can invest it into projects like SW:TOR for example which as far as i understand swallowed over 150 million dollars so far.

Entertainment is a tricky business, and no one will do it just because they like given type of media. Just like you go to your job for money and not pro publico bono. Every company is a complicated construction that feeds on money to survive. Cut the revenue and everything falls apart. You can't really look at such things through perspective of single product or franchise without looking at the bigger picture.

I work in a public TV station. Which means we are partially funded from public money. Part of it goes on what is called 'mission' but even bigger part goes for purely commercial productions that are supposed to generate even more money. In the end the goal is to profit and not just existence based purely on ideology.

Well your mileage may vary there. Part of what your looking at is localization and importation costs that have little to do with the games themselves. Actually this is a good point to bring up because developmental costs have actually decreased over the years. Part of the reason why is because people accepted the notion that 10-15 hours of game content is an acceptable amount of content to warrant a full price tag. With such, Game publishers are now fairly content to release only that much content, which takes dramatically less manhours to produce than a 30-50 hour content limit. This is a perfect example on how when the consumer gives approval to a bad idea with their wallet, the publishers will use that to their advantage.

As for price increases? Actually yes, there have been. Mid 90s in the US a PC title would top end at about 30-40$. PC titles now are topping out at about 40-50$. Same is true of console titles, Generation 6 titles new were topping at 50$ and generation 7 has seen console titles start pushing the 60-70$ mark.
Im not really sure that development costs went down. Somehow more and more often we hear about titles that consume millions of dollars while in 'ye old times' they more often closed within hundreds of thousands. New technologies, new engines, more detailed visuals, tighter deadlines, crowded market it all results in more investments to stay at relatively same level.

Of course, there is plenty of games that try to sell a 4-6 hours of content at full price, but hey, you buy it means you accept it. When i know that a game won't be exactly worth my money i wait a year for a discount. My local retailer does a great job on that, selling year old titles for 15-20$ and even shares it's goodness with rest of the world (pretty much majority of games published in Poland is through CDProjekt, which is also the company behind Good Old Games and they set a standard for other retailers here and they don't have to resort to second hand sales despite Poland having a quite big scale of piracy).


All this is not seeing the forest for the trees. MMOs in the EQ/WoW days justified their costs based on the sheer magnitude of content that was available and how long one would be playing. Any first rate MMO is typically going to take you several months to about half a year to work through the core games content. If you can do it all in 2 months time which is not likely, your coming out ahead. Question is.. are you going to get 6 months daily replay value out of a shooter? a platformer? a puzzle game?


Publishers such as Activision are only looking at this from a statistical economic standpoint. They see a 100 man dev team from blizzard per year generates 1 billion in profit from consumers, and automatically think every 100 man dev team under their umbrella should be generating the same sort of profit ratio, regardless of what they are developing and regardless of the value to the customer. Thats why you see Activision chomping at the bit to justify charging an equal sub fee for the call of duty series as what Warcraft charges. Even though the content value to the players in a shooter is generated not by the developers by writing narrative, creating unique AI sets, creating new technologies, etc, but by the players in head to head competition.

Whats worst about all that is that there is still no new effort added by the publisher from what they are wanting to charge for. They are simply now wanting to charge for what they have been giving away for free for no other reason that they see another company doing it.

Consumers are setting the dangerous precedents here and saying its ok to pay for something we used to get for free when it took next to no extra effort for the company to give it. When you plunk down 1$ to add on that nifty little hat that took a developer an hour to develop and when 10,000 other people did the same thats an insane profit, because it might have cost 100$ to pay for all the costs associated with developing it.

This is a majorly bad precedent to set. Have you noticed, its not Frictional games, Majesco, JoWood, and other minor publishers struggling to stay afloat who actually have reason to worry about proft margins who are out there trying to push the boundaries of how much your going to pay for a game. Its the EA, Activision, Take two, and other well funded, profitable and comfortable corporations that are leading the charge of finding new and profitable ways to maximize how much you will pay them with the least amount of effort on their part. And why do they do it? Only because people willingly bought into their last attempt to sucker people into paying more. Quit accepting a higher price tag for less return because it not only hurts you it hurts all gamers and helps major corporate gaming to crush smaller upstart companies.
In the end tho, you miss one point however. You look at it all from a perspective of someone who plays games quite often and quite extensively while a big part of the market is composed from more casual users. MMOs like WoW and EQ didn't get the popularity because of the time it took to finish the content. Majority of players never even reached the level cap not to mention taking part in end-game.
Back when i played it i often checked various statistics regarding the completion of raid instances. Only about 5-6% of guilds were active in top tier ~20% at lower tiers and over 60% either didn't bother at all or just occasionally fiddled with entry level content.

It's same with most of those games you finish after dinner before bed time. Imagine there is a whole, large group of people that will play through it over a week or two. I finished Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 several times since release while there are people who barely got around doing it once. For plenty of people games that last for ~10 hours are perfect because they seem manageable within reasonable time if you play 5-6 hours a week just to blow some steam off.
I remember back in the days of first Playstation my flatmate had, i barley had time to play games due to work , education and parties filling my daily schedules but whenever i got those 30-40 minutes to just relax and slack away i could re play same game over and over for months, not because it was a great game but because the gameplay allowed me to just hop in for those few moments without worry of never finishing it.

And really, would 10 more levels of any shooter make it better? Would another few seasons in a sports game made the experience so much different? Is there really any point in extending the content just for sake of it? Those games relay on sort of a multiplayer, be it with your friends at the couch and several gamepads or over the internet. You don't buy them for their single player depth.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Electrogecko said:
How do they enforce this? If I buy a game off a friend, bring it home and play online, how could they possibly know that he's not in the room playing with me, or he didn't just loan it to me? Does it only apply to officially re-sold games, and if so, wouldn't the retailer have to provide information about the buyer like a gamertag or even an IP address? Somebody explain!
When you buy the game, you recieve a code with it. You sign into Xbox live and redeem that code. You may now play the game online using your profile.

Basically, the multiplayer is DLC that you can get for free with that one-time use code.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
viranimus said:
I really worry about how people want to screw themselves and their kind, simply by buying the bullshit fed to them instead of standing up and saying HELL NO!
Well, to start, I buy my games new anyway. And Online Pass doesn't piss me off because again, I don't buy used games so I don't care if they would have charged me to play that used game online. So what should I do? Stop buying new games? No thanks, they haven't changed the service to people buying new games so I see no reason to stop.

Now when they change what you get when you buy your game new towards something I don't like, then I'll stop buying. Like I stopped buying EA's PC games because of their love for various flavors of crappy DRM.

But for now, EA has given me nothing to stand up and say "HELL NO!" about in the console games market.
 

I_am_acting

New member
Sep 11, 2010
44
0
0
and this is why i don't own any EA sports games, hell the only games that i have with an EA logo on them are Mass effect and a few C&C games in addition to BF2
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
Wicky_42 said:
Lol, that is such a bullshit excuse - he could at least have been honest and said he's wanting to get a share of the used games market, and that getting paid more than once for a single unit is always a bonus...
I love how publishers are assholes for doing that, but retailers are altruistic saints for doing the exact same thing.
No one's saying retailers are altruistic saints. They at least don't make up bullshit excuses, they just do business - when was the last time you heard Gamestop saying 'We buy games dirt cheap and resell them only a few bucks off full price because it's to pay for all the infrastructure and resources used maintaining the best quality used games service' or some such shit? There's an honesty in straight forward buying cheap, selling high, no matter how much it pisses people off that they're not in on the money. There's no honesty in EA's announcement.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Wicky_42 said:
Cynical skeptic said:
Wicky_42 said:
Lol, that is such a bullshit excuse - he could at least have been honest and said he's wanting to get a share of the used games market, and that getting paid more than once for a single unit is always a bonus...
I love how publishers are assholes for doing that, but retailers are altruistic saints for doing the exact same thing.
No one's saying retailers are altruistic saints. They at least don't make up bullshit excuses, they just do business - when was the last time you heard Gamestop saying 'We buy games dirt cheap and resell them only a few bucks off full price because it's to pay for all the infrastructure and resources used maintaining the best quality used games service' or some such shit? There's an honesty in straight forward buying cheap, selling high, no matter how much it pisses people off that they're not in on the money. There's no honesty in EA's announcement.
You know why theres no honesty in EA's announcement? Because, the truth, "We're charging you for online access because retailers, gamestop in particular, are cutting us out of around 50% of each games proceeds," would be met with slander lawsuits... as gamestop currently is bigger than any publisher, thanks to their used game scams.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
Wicky_42 said:
Cynical skeptic said:
Wicky_42 said:
Lol, that is such a bullshit excuse - he could at least have been honest and said he's wanting to get a share of the used games market, and that getting paid more than once for a single unit is always a bonus...
I love how publishers are assholes for doing that, but retailers are altruistic saints for doing the exact same thing.
No one's saying retailers are altruistic saints. They at least don't make up bullshit excuses, they just do business - when was the last time you heard Gamestop saying 'We buy games dirt cheap and resell them only a few bucks off full price because it's to pay for all the infrastructure and resources used maintaining the best quality used games service' or some such shit? There's an honesty in straight forward buying cheap, selling high, no matter how much it pisses people off that they're not in on the money. There's no honesty in EA's announcement.
You know why theres no honesty in EA's announcement? Because, the truth, "We're charging you for online access because retailers, gamestop in particular, are cutting us out of around 50% of each games proceeds," would be met with slander lawsuits... as gamestop currently is bigger than any publisher, thanks to their used game scams.
Not disagreeing there.
 

Electrogecko

New member
Apr 15, 2010
811
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
Electrogecko said:
How do they enforce this? If I buy a game off a friend, bring it home and play online, how could they possibly know that he's not in the room playing with me, or he didn't just loan it to me? Does it only apply to officially re-sold games, and if so, wouldn't the retailer have to provide information about the buyer like a gamertag or even an IP address? Somebody explain!
When you buy the game, you recieve a code with it. You sign into Xbox live and redeem that code. You may now play the game online using your profile.

Basically, the multiplayer is DLC that you can get for free with that one-time use code.
I see...When do/did these codes start appearing? I'm sure there wasn't one in Madden10. And I share my 360 with 3 other brothers. Are 3 of us screwed? (not that I care personally I'm not a fan of sports games)
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Electrogecko said:
I see...When do/did these codes start appearing? I'm sure there wasn't one in Madden10. And I share my 360 with 3 other brothers. Are 3 of us screwed? (not that I care personally I'm not a fan of sports games)
Not sure when they appeared; I don't buy many EA games.

If you're sharing an Xbox, you'll all just have to use the same profile for the game while playing online.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
You know what covers the bandwidth costs? THE SIXTY DOLLAR GAME!

This is SUCH bullshit
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
Wicky_42 said:
Lol, that is such a bullshit excuse - he could at least have been honest and said he's wanting to get a share of the used games market, and that getting paid more than once for a single unit is always a bonus...
I love how publishers are assholes for doing that, but retailers are altruistic saints for doing the exact same thing.
oranger said:
Its an attempt at a "one sale, one customer" policy. No trades, no lending, nothing.
Well, the used game model already is "one sale, one customer." The problem is one copy is being "one sold" to several "one customers."

If it was just people, there'd be no real issue. But gamestop has the market cornered and is pricing used copies as if they're in competition with new copies... and making money hand over fist doing it.

[sub][sub]I, also, have no fucking clue what "hand over fist" is supposed to mean[/sub][/sub]
Retailers are altruistic saints? Make a thread with a poll called "Do you like Gamestop"

See what happens, the majority of the Escapist community certainly do NOT consider them saints.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
danpascooch said:
Retailers are altruistic saints? Make a thread with a poll called "Do you like Gamestop"

See what happens, the majority of the Escapist community certainly do NOT consider them saints.
Defending used games and first sale doctrine in any capacity is defending gamestop.

Because, in reality, law cannot regulate the interactions between people. Making the sale of used games illegal would shut down gamestop, but people would continue to sell their games via ebay, craigslist, and direct interactions. It'd be as effective as making sodomy (any sexual act not exclusively intended for procreation) illegal... which it is in most states.

Law is a large, blunt, clumsy weapon that works only against large entities or large crimes. You are not a large entity and selling a used game would never be a large crime.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Cynical skeptic said:
danpascooch said:
Retailers are altruistic saints? Make a thread with a poll called "Do you like Gamestop"

See what happens, the majority of the Escapist community certainly do NOT consider them saints.
Defending used games and first sale doctrine in any capacity is defending gamestop.

Because, in reality, law cannot regulate the interactions between people. Making the sale of used games illegal would shut down gamestop, but people would continue to sell their games via ebay, craigslist, and direct interactions. It'd be as effective as making sodomy (any sexual act not exclusively intended for procreation) illegal... which it is in most states.

Law is a large, blunt, clumsy weapon that works only against large entities or large crimes. You are not a large entity and selling a used game would never be a large crime.
Liking used game sales is liking Gamestop? That's a load of crap if I ever heard one.

People don't like Gamestop because they overcharge, thus they are not considered "saints", people would prefer fair used game prices, which you can often find on ebay.

Nonsensical argument is nonsensical.