Used games

[Entitled]

That still makes zero sense.

A video game is also an "object"

A DVD and a CD is information arranged in a certain way to show a movie or play a song. Zero difference between that and a game. Music and movies can be copied just as easily as a game can, if not easier.

You can buy a Metallica CD new at Target, used through Amazon, or get it digitally from iTunes. You can buy The Avengers at Wal-Mart, buy it used off Craigslist, or buy it digitally through MovieSource. You can buy Bioshock at K-Mart, used through GameStop, or digitally through Steam. So why is the game the only one that a used market is destroying?

Oh, I see where we are misunderstanding each other.

When you said "CDs and DVDs vs. video games,", I assumed that you first meant video games on physical media, opposed to "just video games", that is, digitally downloaded games without any such connection.

Apparently, by "CDs and DVDs" you meant different entertainment mediums, music and films, regardless of whether they are digital or physical.

In that case, you are simply demonstratably wrong:

iTunes EULA: "You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Licensed Application." [http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/]

Used E-book for sale? Not so fast! [http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-used-ebooks-for-sale-not-so-fast-20130506,0,4877808.story]

Other digital sellers are closing in on used sales just as much as the gaming industry.

I'm not saying that games are special compared to other media, I'm saying that all digital media is different compared to objects. Games are an abstract concept, but so are songs and movies, once you remove the vessel and start selling access to raw information itself, directly.

 

[Cyfu]

They are undercutting new game sales, for a matter of $1-$2. So instead of selling 2 or 3 games, they are selling 1 game to 2-3 people for that $1-$2 the customer saves, the publisher loses $8-$10. That adds up over thousands of sales. It is not economically helpful to anyone. Game develop lose money on projects and things that would be beneficial to players. Games would be cheaper. If you clearly don't see this, then there is something wrong.

But The publishers will not lower their prizes.... Why should they when they can get away with selling games for 60dollars? Don't come here and say that the publishers are some good guys that are looking after us. They are out to make money, they will make the most money if they sell their games for 60 dollars so they will keep selling games for 60 dollars

The publishers can't lower their prices. The retailers will undercut any sales price with a used copy. That point becomes economically beneficial at that point to keep the higher price. The reason the games stay at $60 is exactly because of the used games. Used games don't allow new games to depreciate in value.

Sorry, been away for a while.

1. How do you know that games cost $60 because of used games? It might be true but I won't believe it until I see the proof.
2. And this is just speculation. If publishers got rid of used games all together I don't think they'll lower the prices. Why should they? everyone has gotten used to games costing $60 so why bother?