WHY are used video games bad?

[TiefBlau]

You want ignorance?

When the publishers/RIAA/MPAA openly attacks public libraries because every person that checks out a book is "stealing from the publishers" I assume you feel the same way, correct?

"Libraries are theft."

Say it.

Well, yes and no.

I have no problems with taking books from dead blokes because I think that kind of stuff should be public domain in the first place. Copyright should not be able to extend decades after your death, Walt Disney.

But almost all the books I actually buy are newly published. And it all works out, when you think about it. Those aren't the kinds of books you could find in a library.

In short, yes, libraries ARE comparable to piracy, but it's in so small a scale and affects so few that no one, even the authors themselves, don't care. And the benefit is that people actually read books.

Interesting thing though, is that people are buying more and more e-books, and devices like the Nook and the iPad make the entire process so convenient that people might start buying books regularly again.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I mean, sure, if one guy buys a game for 60 dollars and gets tired of it and sells it, another guy might be able to buy his copy at a store for, let's say, 50 dollars. But they're still buying the game!
Piracy is when someone buys an illegal, unauthorized copy of a game.

Ahaha! No.

Let's explain this one more time:
1. the price of a new game is the publisher trying to recoup development costs and retail taking a big cut
2. the game and the disc it's printed on is worth cent
3. thus any copy of game, legal or otherwise, is almost worthless, not worth $50 used
4. the game can always be had for free, if the gamer chooses so.

Conclusion:
People who buy the game new are a minority of useful fools who carry the who game industry on their backs. They pay for the development of new games, for everyone to enjoy.

Pirates and people who buy used, are both cheap and contribute nothing, but the pirates are atleast being sensible about it.

Trading games for games with other gamers is a perfect legal alternative. No money needs to change hands.
Same as with piracy, the publishers don't gain here, but atleast no money gets flushed down the toilet (gamer budget been spent on supporting a developer they like).

From best to worst:
buying new >> trading 1:1 > piracy >> buying used at a store

 

[Xhoyl]

Okay, here's my spiel on it. If it came out in the last 6 months, buy the damn game new. It's seriously not more than 5-10 bucks cheaper at that point, and if devs don't make any money because half of their games are bought used, it's unlikely they're going to make another game in that franchise again. Or another game at all. So if you really want another, say, Portal, you need to buy it new folks. Otherwise your just a leech, I'm sorry, but it's true. After 6 months, the devs have usually made as much as their going to on the game anyway (save DLC), at which point I say, do what you want. If the game is still available new, and the used version still isn't much less, then buying new is still nice. But if used has gotten a good deal cheaper, or you find a good deal, then go for it. And of course, buying used is always okay if the game isn't being sold new anymore, then it's just a no brainer. Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The objections to used game sales have been pretty well covered so there's little reason to go into that, but what I do find funny is how so many posters seem to holding up used game sales as ways to save money.

I'm really not sure where they're buying their used games, but my local used game stores only sell used copies of games for about $5 less than new copies. I'm sorry but no matter what your budget for entertainment is, if you can spend $55 for a game then you can just as easily spend $60. There is no real savings in buying a game used unless it's really the only way you can find the game at all.

It really depends on where you buy from and how old the game is. For example, I recently picked up five games for less than $20 total, three of them at a thrift shop, and the other two at the record store across the street. Even Gamestop puts their older games at a pretty big discount; for example, a lot of their PS2 games sell for $5 or less. Also, the discounts were much steeper before Gamestop bought out EB games, because back then, there was competition. Not only were EB and Gamestop duking it out, but there were smaller businesses like Hollywood Video and Software Etc. involved. Today, the options for used games are Gamestop (or Game, EB, or whatever the local monopoly is called), a mom and pop store, or an internet retailer like amazon.com. Gamestop isn't really in direct competition with either of the latter options, and they can set the prices to whatever they want as a result.

Edit: Here's an awesome image that gives an idea of just how much Gamestop's virtual monopoly has inflated the price of used games. It's a Funcoland flyer from the early 90's:

Keep in mind that the price of a new game at this point started at about $45 and went up from there, depending on various factors like how big the cartridge was, how popular the game was, and whether it had any extra features like a save battery or a SuperFX chip. If I remember correctly, Mortal Kombat II originally retailed for $75(in the US), and Phantasy Star IV retailed for more than $90.

 

[Beautiful End]

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I mean, sure, if one guy buys a game for 60 dollars and gets tired of it and sells it, another guy might be able to buy his copy at a store for, let's say, 50 dollars. But they're still buying the game!
Piracy is when someone buys an illegal, unauthorized copy of a game.

Ahaha! No.

Let's explain this one more time:
1. the price of a new game is the publisher trying to recoup development costs and retail taking a big cut
2. the game and the disc it's printed on is worth cent
3. thus any copy of game, legal or otherwise, is almost worthless, not worth $50 used
4. the game can always be had for free, if the gamer chooses so.

Conclusion:
People who buy the game new are a minority of useful fools who carry the who game industry on their backs. They pay for the development of new games, for everyone to enjoy.

Pirates and people who buy used, are both cheap and contribute nothing, but the pirates are atleast being sensible about it.

Trading games for games with other gamers is a perfect legal alternative. No money needs to change hands.
Same as with piracy, the publishers don't gain here, but atleast no money gets flushed down the toilet (gamer budget been spent on supporting a developer they like).

From best to worst:
buying new >> trading 1:1 > piracy >> buying used at a store

Well, simply put, piracy is illegal. If buying used games was illegal, stores wouldn't do that. Do you think big retail stores would remain open for years and years if this was illegal? Even the government isn't that oblivious about this. And above all, the developers would do something about it. Right now, they're complaining but they can't do anything legal because, well, there are no laws being broken. Simple as that.

Also, if I sell my friend a game I don't want anymore for 5 dollars, is that also piracy and illegal? Because, well, we all need to be handcuffed now.

Too funny.
Nowhere am I talking about legality. This is about positive results.

Thanks. So then we are on the same page.

 

[Olrod]

Games publishers who moan about second-hand games must be forever banned from buying a used car or living in a building where they aren't the very first occupant.

 

[TiefBlau]

You want ignorance?

When the publishers/RIAA/MPAA openly attacks public libraries because every person that checks out a book is "stealing from the publishers" I assume you feel the same way, correct?

"Libraries are theft."

Say it.

Well, yes and no.

But almost all the books I actually buy are newly published. And it all works out, when you think about it. Those aren't the kinds of books you could find in a library.

What ghetto-ass libraries do you have near you that don't have new releases?
I've been to volunteer libraries in the goddamn boonies, in villages with 3-digit populations and they had a section for new releases.

Do you live in a damn cave? How do you even have internet?

Holy shit, did your parents never hug you? What the hell made you so fucking angry?

When I wanted to get the latest Harry Potter, or I Am America (And So Can You) or pretty much anything else soon after its release, chances are, it's not available at the library. If you can't figure out why, I can't help you.

In short, yes, libraries ARE comparable to piracy, but it's in so small a scale and affects so few that no one, even the authors themselves, don't care.

Our county system alone loans out over a million titles a year.
That's a million books, movies, and video games that DIDN'T get purchased.
We're only in a 100k population county. Some of the bigger systems in the "real cities" circ just *one building* loans out over 1.5 million titles a year annually.

That's a million-and-a-half books, movies, and games that didn't get purchased in one BUILDING alone, from a city with multiple libraries. The ALA reports over 122,000 public libraries in the US.

Small scale? Try again.

I can only imagine your smugness was so thick it permeated into the air in an opaque fog such that you didn't see the "dead blokes" comment.

So why don't you explain it to the class one more time, so we can get a real good understanding of the corporate shills we're being trolled by:

In short, yes, libraries ARE comparable to piracy...

Priceless.

Congratulations. Your check from your corporate overlords will be in the mail shortly.

Quoted the wrong one, buddy.

You must be a hit at parties. "Care for some punch?" "Nah, why don't you take the Kool-Aid man's cock out of your ass and stop being a consumer whore?"

No, if I got checks from corporations for explaining simple economics, I wouldn't need an education past the high school level.

As it stands, I don't think I can possibly explain it any more clearly: Authors get their profit from publishers.
Publishers make money by selling books.
If a book can be read without being bought, there's not nearly as much demand for buying it.

In this regard, used games are like piracy.
In short, your argument is full of shit.

Now there is a key difference between used games/libraries and piracy, and it's addressed by someone who, much unlike yourself, isn't a belligerent asshole:

Games publishers who moan about second-hand games must be forever banned from buying a used car or living in a building where they aren't the very first occupant.

This is a very interesting and perfectly reasonable argument.

The reason that no one sees anything wrong with buying a used car or living in a previously owned home is that while it's true that once it's sold, the original owner derives no profit, there's just so much advantage to buying it new that the demand for a new car or home is still pretty high. Furthermore, this isn't like piracy where there can be infinitely many copies in circulation. The copy being exchanged is purely physical, meaning the scale of impact should be much, much smaller in theory.

However, I do have some problems with this point of view. First off, there aren't that many advantages to owning a physical copy of a game. Much less with DRM (one of the dumbest moves by game developers, IMO). In fact, the value of a game is almost completely in the intellectual property. It's not something purely physical like a car or a house. This means that if you know you can get a game for a cheaper price with no disadvantage, there's definitely not as much incentive to get it at retail price. This isn't like a used car where the quality is definitely not as good. Also, games aren't generally status symbols, but I digress.

So this is why used video games are in such a gray area. On one hand, they're intellectual property, so being able to get them used has a much larger impact on the industry than with cars or houses. But on the other hand, the fact that there's always going to be the same number of games in circulation means that the impact should be much smaller than with piracy. So I don't know.

 

[Torrasque]

Bioware has been hard at work with these codes already, having a one time use code for some content for both Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2. I think that they need to just get over it, or drop the original price of the game so that people aren't waiting for a used copy.

Pretty much that as much as what alot of other people have said. I love buying used games, because I don't feel like buying every single fucking game that ever comes out, that catches my eye, for $50-$80 a pop. I like going to the used game bin, and buying a bunch of games that I would have bought earlier, but can buy now for 1/10 the cost.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You want ignorance?

When the publishers/RIAA/MPAA openly attacks public libraries because every person that checks out a book is "stealing from the publishers" I assume you feel the same way, correct?

"Libraries are theft."

Say it.

Well, yes and no.

But almost all the books I actually buy are newly published. And it all works out, when you think about it. Those aren't the kinds of books you could find in a library.

What ghetto-ass libraries do you have near you that don't have new releases?
I've been to volunteer libraries in the goddamn boonies, in villages with 3-digit populations and they had a section for new releases.

Do you live in a damn cave? How do you even have internet?

Holy shit, did your parents never hug you? What the hell made you so fucking angry?

When I wanted to get the latest Harry Potter, or I Am America (And So Can You) or pretty much anything else soon after its release, chances are, it's not available at the library. If you can't figure out why, I can't help you.

In short, yes, libraries ARE comparable to piracy, but it's in so small a scale and affects so few that no one, even the authors themselves, don't care.

Our county system alone loans out over a million titles a year.
That's a million books, movies, and video games that DIDN'T get purchased.
We're only in a 100k population county. Some of the bigger systems in the "real cities" circ just *one building* loans out over 1.5 million titles a year annually.

That's a million-and-a-half books, movies, and games that didn't get purchased in one BUILDING alone, from a city with multiple libraries. The ALA reports over 122,000 public libraries in the US.

Small scale? Try again.

I can only imagine your smugness was so thick it permeated into the air in an opaque fog such that you didn't see the "dead blokes" comment.

So why don't you explain it to the class one more time, so we can get a real good understanding of the corporate shills we're being trolled by:

In short, yes, libraries ARE comparable to piracy...

Priceless.

Congratulations. Your check from your corporate overlords will be in the mail shortly.

Quoted the wrong one, buddy.

You must be a hit at parties. "Care for some punch?" "Nah, why don't you take the Kool-Aid man's cock out of your ass and stop being a consumer whore?"

No, if I got checks from corporations for explaining simple economics, I wouldn't need an education past the high school level.

As it stands, I don't think I can possibly explain it any more clearly: Authors get their profit from publishers.
Publishers make money by selling books.
If a book can be read without being bought, there's not nearly as much demand for buying it.

In this regard, used games are like piracy.
In short, your argument is full of shit.

Now there is a key difference between used games/libraries and piracy, and it's addressed by someone who, much unlike yourself, isn't a belligerent asshole:

Games publishers who moan about second-hand games must be forever banned from buying a used car or living in a building where they aren't the very first occupant.

This is a very interesting and perfectly reasonable argument.

The reason that no one sees anything wrong with buying a used car or living in a previously owned home is that while it's true that once it's sold, the original owner derives no profit, there's just so much advantage to buying it new that the demand for a new car or home is still pretty high. Furthermore, this isn't like piracy where there can be infinitely many copies in circulation. The copy being exchanged is purely physical, meaning the scale of impact should be much, much smaller in theory.

However, I do have some problems with this point of view. First off, there aren't that many advantages to owning a physical copy of a game. Much less with DRM (one of the dumbest moves by game developers, IMO). In fact, the value of a game is almost completely in the intellectual property. It's not something purely physical like a car or a house. This means that if you know you can get a game for a cheaper price with no disadvantage, there's definitely not as much incentive to get it at retail price. This isn't like a used car where the quality is definitely not as good. Also, games aren't generally status symbols, but I digress.

So this is why used video games are in such a gray area. On one hand, they're intellectual property, so being able to get them used has a much larger impact on the industry than with cars or houses. But on the other hand, the fact that there's always going to be the same number of games in circulation means that the impact should be much smaller than with piracy. So I don't know.

What I really love about the "used games are just as bad as piracy" argument is that, assuming it's true, the reverse must also be true; piracy is no worse than used games. Since a healthy used market is a sign of a healthy industry, and since the first sale doctrine is such a cherished consumer right, the industry is effectively condoning piracy here.

 

[thejboy88]

The reason is that when people buy used video games, the developers get none of the money from that purshale like they would do for when the game is bought brand new.

I personally have no issue with used game. Some ofhe best games I've ever played (like Silent Hill 2) were bought used.

 

[RadiusXd]

wish there was a way to navigate around retail and publishers, and just pay the developer and take my game.

oh wait, steam. right.

 

[TiefBlau]

What I really love about the "used games are just as bad as piracy" argument is that, assuming it's true, the reverse must also be true; piracy is no worse than used games. Since a healthy used market is a sign of a healthy industry, and since the first sale doctrine is such a cherished consumer right, the industry is effectively condoning piracy here.

Protip: When you quote a gigantic wall of text and don't specifically address any of the points, you're pretty much saying "I skimmed/didn't read this; I just need a strawman to which I can raise an argument I thought was pretty clever."

Because I don't think video games are necessarily as bad as piracy, in some regards. Their effect on the industry is more or less the same, but the scale of the impact makes it a gray area. The concept of used games means that there's always a fixed number of video games in circulation instead of the potentially infinite that piracy does. Its very existence is still harmful to the industry, but it's in amounts that the industry can control.

 

[standokan]

They aren´t bad, it´s just that the industry doesn´t want to go make less money.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

What I really love about the "used games are just as bad as piracy" argument is that, assuming it's true, the reverse must also be true; piracy is no worse than used games. Since a healthy used market is a sign of a healthy industry, and since the first sale doctrine is such a cherished consumer right, the industry is effectively condoning piracy here.

Protip: When you quote a gigantic wall of text and don't specifically address any of the points, you're pretty much saying "I skimmed/didn't read this; I just need a strawman to which I can raise an argument I thought was pretty clever."

Because I don't think video games are necessarily as bad as piracy, in some regards. Their effect on the industry is more or less the same, but the scale of the impact makes it a gray area. The concept of used games means that there's always a fixed number of video games in circulation instead of the potentially infinite that piracy does. Its very existence is still harmful to the industry, but it's in amounts that the industry can control.

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked. The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today. Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced. The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games, at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

 

[Seraj]

HELL, the last time I bought a new game was ( ' _ ' ) 3 years ago?

If the Dev's want my money, they'll have to dance for it.

As its been stated over and over in this thread, no other industry whines about it, man up, or get dancing.


You make millions in profit yet you want to wring every last penny out of us cash strapped commoners?

And then you complain that piracy is getting more popular, can't you make the connection?!

/rant

 

[TiefBlau]

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked.

Oh, not this shit again.

Well, at least you admit you don't read my posts. That's a start.

The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today.

Precisely why I don't think used games are necessarily as bad as piracy. You know, the kind of thing I've been saying over and over again.

Is this thing on?

Your keyboard isn't a fleshlight. Stop beating off into it and expecting some fantasy strawman to get offended.

As I said before, the number of games in circulation is, at worst, the equal to the total number of games that were already sold by retailers. This means the used game industry will never eclipse the publisher's success unless people start getting really, really patient for their games.

Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced.

If anything's upsetting the supply and demand of games, it's piracy and the used games industry, for better or for worse. Granted, the publishers' response to this has been pretty messy and stupid (DRM). But that doesn't change the fact that without used games and piracy, there'd be no reason the industry wouldn't charge as much as we're willing to pay. And if that's "unfair" then I guess that's how it is with capitalism.

Is it too expensive? Well, that's completely subjective, isn't it? Perhaps to you it is. I certainly don't buy more than two new games a year. Steam seems to be helping that. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to argue subjective details and give you your own opinion. You can't seem to grasp this. You keep humping my leg, begging me to be the anti-piracy, anti-used games corporate public relations rep you need to hound and become a hero of the consumer voice or some shit like that. But that's not going to change the laws of economics, and it's certainly not going to turn me into your sick fantasies.

The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

When I sell my car away, I lose something. I lose the ability to drive a car. When I sell my house, I can't live there anymore, so I still need a house if I want to live under a roof.

When I sell a game, chances are, I've already played it through. The value that game will hold should I hold onto it is negligible. I don't lose anything by selling that game. That game has no value to me.

The only way the industry can make a product "permanent" enough such that the used market will have no effect on them is to make every game multiplayer.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

Oh hamburgers. I think I broke him.

"Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls." "Oh, well people have gotten past pregnancy perfectly fine, and the ability to have kids is a sign of a healthy individual, so I guess your statement justifies being kicked in the balls more than it condemns pregnancy. Just leave the Nobel Prize on my desk, I'll be out of town this week."

They're both pretty painful harmful to the industry.

Also, "morality" has nothing to do with it. You might think that the industry is too big, and could afford to be harmed a little, in the same way you might think Walmart is too big, and could afford a good boycott. That's fine. For the third time, I'm not arguing that. But facts are facts; the used games industry, along with piracy, mean developers, regardless of size, won't earn as much money. Whether you think they deserve that money is a can of worms I'm not going to let you force-feed me.

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

i buy used games but mostly because the game is no longer produced
does that make me a bad customer because they wont make new copies of old games anymore?

i would rather get my hands on brand new copies of games that are old titles rather
than used but most copies of the game that exist in this state are owned by collectors

i still try to buy new when i can but i will sure as hell make sure i save money when i do
i no longer buy a game at its release price i will wait for that price to drop because i dont aggree with that pricing and DLC costs

my further justifcation for this is buying new hardware is not cheap
and that the money you save by not buying at realese can go to your future hardware fund or towards the DLC for that game


playing games on the release date with the recomended hardware and all the DLC is only for the rich and spoilt

game publishers and devlopers need to recognise that pumping out title after title at the current pricing will only have their titles ignored by a large portian of gamers and at best ignored for a few months or years or that people will only buy used or download pirate

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked.

Oh, not this shit again.

Well, at least you admit you don't read my posts. That's a start.

The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today.

Precisely why I don't think used games are necessarily as bad as piracy. You know, the kind of thing I've been saying over and over again.

Is this thing on?

Your keyboard isn't a fleshlight. Stop beating off into it and expecting some fantasy strawman to get offended.

As I said before, the number of games in circulation is, at worst, the equal to the total number of games that were already sold by retailers. This means the used game industry will never eclipse the publisher's success unless people start getting really, really patient for their games.

Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced.

If anything's upsetting the supply and demand of games, it's piracy and the used games industry, for better or for worse. Granted, the publishers' response to this has been pretty messy and stupid (DRM).

Is it too expensive? Well, that's completely subjective, isn't it? Perhaps to you it is. I certainly don't buy more than two new games a year. Steam seems to be helping that. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to argue subjective details and give you your own opinion. You can't seem to grasp this. You keep humping my leg, begging me to be the anti-piracy, anti-used games corporate public relations rep you need to hound and become a hero of the consumer voice or some shit like that. But that's not going to change the laws of economics, and it's certainly not going to turn me into your sick fantasies.

The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

When I sell my car away, I lose something. I lose the ability to drive a car. When I sell my house, I can't live there anymore, so I still need a house if I want to live under a roof.

When I sell a game, chances are, I've already played it through. The value that game will hold should I hold onto it is negligible. I don't lose anything by selling that game. That game has no value to me.

The only way the industry can make a product "permanent" enough such that the used market will have no effect on them is to make every game multiplayer.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

Oh hamburgers. I think I broke him.

"Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls." "Oh, well people have gotten past pregnancy perfectly fine, and the ability to have kids is a sign of a healthy individual, so I guess your statement justifies being kicked in the balls more than it condemns pregnancy. Just leave the Nobel Prize on my desk, I'll be out of town this week."

They're both pretty painful harmful to the industry.

Also, "morality" has nothing to do with it. You might think that the industry is too big, and could afford to be harmed a little, in the same way you might think Walmart is too big, and could afford a good boycott. That's fine. For the third time, I'm not arguing that. But facts are facts; the used games industry, along with piracy, mean developers, regardless of size, won't earn as much money. Whether you think they deserve that money is a can of worms I'm not going to let you force-feed me.

Here's the thing; I'm not the one ignoring market factors. The industry is. The price is too high because a large portion of consumers are going to their competition, in this case pirated and used games. Rather than try to compete -- and yes, you can compete with free if you get the price low enough and incentivise the sales properly, let alone with merely "cheap" -- they ignore the market factors telling them they have too high of a price point, and instead try to fix prices -- something that goes against the spirit of the anti-trust laws, if not the letter of them.

As for the piracy thing, piracy has always been more of a scapegoat than a real problem. The real problem is that games are priced higher than the market will bear, but the publishers don't want to hear that, so they seek out scape goats. As for your analogy, it's just wrong. A better way of putting it would be if someone started arguing that a massage was worse for the body than a kick in the balls. Since a massage is actually pretty good for the body, the only logical conclusion is that a kick in the balls is really good for the body. If that doesn't make sense, it's because the initial claim was BS, not because the logical conclusion was bad.

*edit*To use your analogy, "Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls," the answer wouldn't be that getting kicked in the balls is a good thing, it would be that they're both equally painful -- pregnancy is a good thing, but labor can be excruciatingly painful. The pain isn't a good thing in itself, and is the main reason we have things like, you know, epidurals. Formal logic fail. It would only be an equivalent analogy if you said "pregnancy is no better for society than getting kicked in the balls," in which case the logical conclusion would be that either getting kicked in the balls is a really good thing, or the person who made the initial statement was off their rocker.*/edit*

And no, I'm not arguing a straw man. Maybe I quoted the wrong person, but the argument, as stated by Cliffy B, Penny Arcade, and numerous other industry figures, is that used games are as bad as or worse than pirated games. I highly doubt I quoted the wrong person, though, because you're still arguing that used games are bad for the industry. It's not -- every other industry has to deal with it, and it actually has a positive effect on most other industries. The games industry just likes to whine because $60 isn't a competitive price, and they like their overly inflated profit margin. As people have said throughout this thread, they can deal -- and if they can't, they deserve whatever industry crash they get for ignoring the basic principles of capitalism.