Why is there debate about used games?

[DeltaEdge]

Escapists, please help me understand something: why are people arguing that used games are bad? like any other product, you pay money for them, then they are yours, and you can do what you want with them.

By what jump in space-logic does anyone think there is justification for trying to stop you from exercising your ownership of a game?

I understand the companies, at least: they are just fishing for bigger profits. But why do people accept this blatant thievery on the part of publishers? Why are people so accepting of getting ripped off? it just does not make sense to me.

Companies still maintain some sort of hold on a product that they made even when you buy it from them like DRMs. If you own a CD, it's yours to use, but the people who made it have already given their say in how it's used like not allowing you to send the files to other people for free and such. Might not be the best comparison though.
If you buy a game new, then they get money from it. If you buy it used, then they don't get money from it. Since they want money, the games already come with limits when you buy it. It's not like they just magically implemented limits on the game after you bought it, they included them before hand. You simply never had as much ownership of the game as you thought. You bought a game that came, pre-modified, to stifle used sales. The company didn't break into your house and devalue the game by taking away content after the purchase.
I honestly think that both the buyers and the creators are acting a bit too entitled. We act like we bought full ownership over a game and all of it's functions like we are entitled to control every aspect of the game's functionality, while the companies try to demonize us for not paying the extra 5 dollars to buy a new game from them like we are evil. They are completely within their rights in stifling used sales by these means, and I think it's pointless to bicker about how they are acting like a business using common business sense. Just because they are within their rights to do it though, it doesn't mean that they aren't dicks for doing it though. They obviously make plenty of money, and there are only so many used copies of a game available, but they just want a bigger pile of cash to bathe in, so they strive to increase their profits by hurting the competition. Arguing against a company about how it is morally wrong to try to make more money is just silly. (IMO- Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on some of these points)

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

It costs money to run the servers, and in theory, they are actually losing money supporting the online play of someone who bought the game second hand.

Of course, that argument doesn't really hold up well now that you need DLC to even play online after a few months. I support the developers right to make a profit, I see both sides of the argument.

If it was me though, I'd avoid the bad press of actually going after used sales and just keep churning out the DLC additions. "Online Passes" are a slap in the face, IMHO, and really pisses off the base more than necessary.

 

[Something Amyss]

The video game industry needs to have a biiiiiiig conference with Game Stop.
Game Stop does just as much damage to the industry as piracy does, and it could be rectified even easier. Too bad they'll never make any compromises for the better of us all.

{citation needed]

Sorry, I have this thing against spurious claims. Accusation of damages are one such instance.

Look, I know you probably buy it, but even as the game industry is railing against used games, they are pandering to Gamestop. They don't need or want to have a biiiiig conference with Gamestop, since they're already in bed with them. Despite doing "just as much damage as piracy" they actively provided exclusive incentives to Gamestop.

Seriously, dude. Occam's Razor.

 

[Something Amyss]

Companies still maintain some sort of hold on a product that they made even when you buy it from them like DRMs. If you own a CD, it's yours to use, but the people who made it have already given their say in how it's used like not allowing you to send the files to other people for free and such. Might not be the best comparison though.

Especially since the CD can still be sold, in completion, completely legally. You cannot take over the role of distributor, but you can sell your own copy.

 

[Kargathia]

If you can argue that this is their right (and you can, I won't dispute that), you must also accept that it's the publisher's right to do what they can (again, legally) to recapture some of those lost profits.

By the same logic customers are also perfectly entitled to complain about any drop in quality, service, or accessibility they encounter. Just as the publisher has no obligation towards the store (and vice-versa), has the customer no obligation towards either of them, and does not have to roll over and mutely accept anything that directly impedes their convenience playing the game (DRM).

In the real world the relative power of publisher / store versus consumer is of course hugely imbalanced - but that does not mean that whenever the customer can do anything to legally benefit himself at the expense of either corporation he should not do so.

 

[Wargamer]

The problem with the used game market can be placed firmly at the feet of companeis like GameStop.

For those who claim there is NO used issue, let's create an example:

Big news! The latest patch for Call of Duty Modern Warfare is out, and just like the last two patches it comes on a whole new disk with a great big $60 price tag!

Of that, let's say... for the sake of easy math, that for every $60 game sold, the Publisher earns $10 of that as pure profit, GameStop earns another $10 as pure profit, and the remaining $40 cover expenses.

One day, Jimmy walks into store an announces "Durr... I was stupid enough to buy Modern 4fare on release day, but it's gay and I want to go back to Black Ops! Pay monies for this!"

So GameStop pays monies. $30 of Monies, in fact. Jubilant, Jimmy runs away to become the only person in the world still playing Black Ops. Meanwhile, Gamestop put their 'used' copy of MW4 for sale for $55 "like new!".

They flog this game, because $5 saved is $5 earned, right? Well, GameStop earned more than $5 on that sale! They earned around $20 in fact! Twice what they'd normally earn!


Now for the critical bit - all of you bitching about how you 'wouldn't buy new anyway!' answer me this; would you really have said "fuck that!" for the sake of $5? New is $60, used is $55... how many of you would honestly not have bought the game for the sake of a margin like that? None of you. Unless you physically did not have that extra $5, you'd have bought new.

But people WILL try to save that little bit more. That little saving gives more money to people like GameStop, and NOTHING to the Publisher. This is why they are now fucking over Used Sales with Online Passes and so forth; so that people who buy used to 'save' two quid still have to cough up a tenner when they get home if they ever want to play Multiplayer; because used sales are fucking THEM over for that $10 profit hundred and thousands of times every time there's a new release.

We are NOT talking about you buying used from the 2 for $20 bargin bin. Nobody gives a shit about those titles. They aren't the issue. The issue is people whose entire business model consists of NOT PAYING PUBLISHERS for publishing games, and then making money by selling those games.

 

[Saxnot]

Edited by me:

Companies still maintain some sort of hold on a product that they made even when you buy it from them like DRMs.

Since they want money, the games already come with limits when you buy it. It's not like they just magically implemented limits on the game after you bought it, they included them before hand. You simply never had as much ownership of the game as you thought. You bought a game that came, pre-modified, to stifle used sales. The company didn't break into your house and devalue the game by taking away content after the purchase.
I honestly think that both the buyers and the creators are acting a bit too entitled. We act like we bought full ownership over a game and all of it's functions like we are entitled to control every aspect of the game's functionality, while the companies try to demonize us for not paying the extra 5 dollars to buy a new game from them like we are evil. They are completely within their rights in stifling used sales by these means, and I think it's pointless to bicker about how they are acting like a business using common business sense. Just because they are within their rights to do it though, it doesn't mean that they aren't dicks for doing it though. They obviously make plenty of money, and there are only so many used copies of a game available, but they just want a bigger pile of cash to bathe in, so they strive to increase their profits by hurting the competition. Arguing against a company about how it is morally wrong to try to make more money is just silly. (IMO- Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on some of these points)

the problem is those limitations weren't in games 5 years ago. We had full ownership of the entire game, but companies are now restricting content until we pay them extra, end trying to pass it off as them trying to fight back against people who are treating them unfairly. which is nonsense.

How am i being entitled when I point out companies are trying to con me into paying extra for content that used to be free? i'm not saying i have the right to this content, i'm saying they're being deceptive in their argumentation, and that we should not support this attempt at disguising naked greed as justice. that's not being entitled, that's trying to stop companies from taking advantage of me and others.

A few generic rebuttals:

"I bought the game, so it's mine now! I'm free to do whatever I want with it!"

- Absolutely true. You are indeed free to do whatever you want with the game you purchased. And the company that made that game is free to do whatever they want to attempt to induce you to buy it new. From the relatively benign Day 1 DLC, to the rather obnoxious online pass, these fall within the same rough concept as, say, a non-transferable warranty on a new item purchase, which is hardly uncommon.

And likewise i'm free to call these attempts at making me pay extra for what used to be free a con and a greedy attempt at trying to guilt me. i'm also free to try and convince people we shouldn't buy into this, because it is not to our advantage and something we should fight

"The games industry is just greedy! They have to learn to adapt!"

- They're no greedier than any other industry, in truth. And they areadapting; the adaptations are what you're complaining about.

The game industry finds itself in a bit of a pickle, all things considered. Development costs go up as the hardware become increasingly sophisticated, so games either have to sell more copies, or cost more money.

Now, there are people who lay the claim that if the games were better and/or cheaper, they'd sell more copies new.

These people are idiots.

These are the same people who say that games would not be pirated if they were just better/cheaper/whatever. Which is equally idiotic.

If I offer you the choice between an ounce of gold for $2000 new, $1900 from Bob over here which is pretty much as good as new, or free but illegal from Steve over there on the corner, you're going to rapidly divide people into three categories; people who like to buy things new, people who like to save a little money, and people who don't think they'll get caught for breaking the law.

It doesn't really matter what the price of the original object in question is; various indie developers have long since proven that even if you put something on sale for a penny, people will still pirate the shit out of it. The same holds true for used game sales, and are particularly true for games that are actually, y'know, good.

i feel the industry should find some way of resolving its development woes and inducing people to buy new that does not involve trying to decieve me and restricting parts of games that were previously free. the 'problems' of the gaming industry (stilling turning millions of dollars in profit) are not my responsibility, and i don't feel i should be the victim of their inability to make a game i want to keep.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Companies still maintain some sort of hold on a product that they made even when you buy it from them like DRMs. If you own a CD, it's yours to use, but the people who made it have already given their say in how it's used like not allowing you to send the files to other people for free and such. Might not be the best comparison though.

Especially since the CD can still be sold, in completion, completely legally. You cannot take over the role of distributor, but you can sell your own copy.

That would definitely be a better way of putting it. But yeah, so when you buy a CD or movie, there are restrictions placed on it. Laws against things like copyright infringement and other illegal use of the product. We bought a product that we have limited control over, not complete control. We can only use it freely within the rights which we were given when we bought it. You can sell it because that is within your rights, but if the CD had a verification code that only works once and cuts part of the content when you utilize it without the code, then you can't say that they are infringing on your ownership and have no right to do this because they do have the right to do this. They sold you a product that devalues when you sell it, not a product that maintains all of it's utility upon secondary sales.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now for the critical bit - all of you bitching about how you 'wouldn't buy new anyway!' answer me this; would you really have said "fuck that!" for the sake of $5? New is $60, used is $55... how many of you would honestly not have bought the game for the sake of a margin like that? None of you. Unless you physically did not have that extra $5, you'd have bought new.

If I got the same quality of product at both prices...I'm going to take the cheaper one every. single. time.

Because I'm a rational being and all that.

Same reason when I was booking a trans-Atlantic flight that I didn't just take the first offer I came across, but researched prices from different companies around the day of desired departure. Same thing. I want to keep my expenses low. Does that make me a cheapskate? Well, I'd say it makes my expenses more efficient.

PS: I don't really buy used games, I do prefer digital distribution. Less plastics to litter our planet that way.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

As a now a primarily PC gamer, this argument is a bit lost on me.

However, I feel compelled to suggest something. Hey, Developers? If you're so worried about this, how about you set up a system where (if the gamer does not like your product or thinks it's too expensive), he can ship it back to you for a few dollars off one of your newer products? That way, you can go and sell that old product and get the revenue if you want to sell it again, and you're moving the newer product. In fact, that would be a winfall for you.

Example. Say Gears of Blowing Up was 60 dollars when Timmy bought it. He played it. Doesn't matter if he liked it or not, but he kept it because he liked your company and trusts you are coming out with better stuff. In a year, you indeed came out with Saint's Effect 3. He wants it. but he can't afford it right now. Because of your Chegg's-like system, he can send it to you for, let's say at max, 20 dollars off. Now, you can get 40 dollars you might not have gotten before and in turn sell that Original Gears of Blowing up for say a used price of 40 dollars. These are just numbers I'm making up. But the most important part is the intention of the gamer. It's Game Theory.

The theory part is the gamer's (and indeed, everyone's) need for a better deal. If you keep both game as they are, and the person isn't willing to spend 120 on two games, you are left with him buying one or the other. That's a winfall of 60 dollars. Not too stellar for you gamers.

Now, go this other route I'm suggesting. You get 60 dollars for GoBU. You sell Saint's for 20 dollars off, but you still get 40 dollars. And you can in turn sell GoBU for 40 dollars. Say if you didn't even re-sell GoBU, you still made 100 dollars. 20 dollars less than your original desired outcome of 120, but 40 dollars more than if Timmy had to pick and choose which game.

And if you don't resell GoBU right away, wait a few months for your new big release. Offer a bundle of your new Game with GoBU for 20-30 bucks more. No stupid last minute dlc which makes gamers feel like you're screwing us out of in-game content for more money... and the best part you really don't have to do anything. This game was already printed and you literally just have to attach it to the new game and get your extra cash. Worried about if the new game is going to sell well? Make those bundles Limited Editions. People will buy it out in seconds to make sure they get 'more of a deal'.

There. The Worst Plague of Gaming Solved. With a return service that you probably already have the foundation set up for with your defective game returns department.

Spoiler: Another Point

This is a tangent point that I'm spoiling because really, if people saw this wall of text it would be tl;dr.

You remember when you played Mass Effect 2. And you couldn't want to get that new gun? Yeah, you could taste it. And it would be all nice and shiny. And you finally got to the Gun shop and you were ready to take that bad boy home... but the person who didn't even need to be there told you that the Kiosk only sells designs. You had to build it yourself. You felt a bit cheated, didn't you?

Now, say that the guy told you 'Be warned, these designs come with a company safe guard. The way you operate this gun is now under the judristriction of the company and it has the ultimate say on whether you may continue to use this gun. Failure to comply with result in the hidden gun's function to be set off, which renders the gun inert without compensation of the plan's cost'

You would throw down the controller/keyboard and go to the net to flame this obviously stupid design in the game. What idiot thought that would make for compelling game play? Who would play a game with that in it?

Well. Us. We are doing it now. With Origin, with 'code of conduct'. One thing that these game designers forget is that we play these games because they are fun to us. Or at the very least, it allows an expression of fun.

My excitement loading in Star Wars the Old Republic was literally cut in half when I saw there was no play to install the game without installing Origin. While gaming with my friend, I lost my shit when I called one of the first bosses a 'Bastard' in the game's chat. It was a party chat, but none the less I was afraid that I would be banned.

I am afraid to play the game I've been waiting for during most of my life] because I do not own it and it can be taken away from me at any time.

Yeah, there are a few people who'll say it's an MMO so you should expect that. Should you expect that for Bf3? Any game with a single player that a company decides your money doesn't earn you the product, but allows you tenuously to pursue the product as long as you respect their wishes? Nowadays, from Steam to regular games, I feel like I'm in a hotel rather than my home. A Hotel can kick you out at any time, and you know, that's fair. You're not living there forever. You didn't BUY anything, you're renting.

So, if I bought a physical copy of something... how can that be renting?

 

[DeltaEdge]

Edited by me:

Companies still maintain some sort of hold on a product that they made even when you buy it from them like DRMs.

Since they want money, the games already come with limits when you buy it. It's not like they just magically implemented limits on the game after you bought it, they included them before hand. You simply never had as much ownership of the game as you thought. You bought a game that came, pre-modified, to stifle used sales. The company didn't break into your house and devalue the game by taking away content after the purchase.
I honestly think that both the buyers and the creators are acting a bit too entitled. We act like we bought full ownership over a game and all of it's functions like we are entitled to control every aspect of the game's functionality, while the companies try to demonize us for not paying the extra 5 dollars to buy a new game from them like we are evil. They are completely within their rights in stifling used sales by these means, and I think it's pointless to bicker about how they are acting like a business using common business sense. Just because they are within their rights to do it though, it doesn't mean that they aren't dicks for doing it though. They obviously make plenty of money, and there are only so many used copies of a game available, but they just want a bigger pile of cash to bathe in, so they strive to increase their profits by hurting the competition. Arguing against a company about how it is morally wrong to try to make more money is just silly. (IMO- Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on some of these points)

the problem is those limitations weren't in games 5 years ago. We had full ownership of the entire game, but companies are now restricting content until we pay them extra, end trying to pass it off as them trying to fight back against people who are treating them unfairly. which is nonsense.

How am i being entitled when I point out companies are trying to con me into paying extra for content that used to be free? i'm not saying i have the right to this content, i'm saying they're being deceptive in their argumentation, and that we should not support this attempt at disguising naked greed as justice. that's not being entitled, that's trying to stop companies from taking advantage of me and others.

A few generic rebuttals:

"I bought the game, so it's mine now! I'm free to do whatever I want with it!"

- Absolutely true. You are indeed free to do whatever you want with the game you purchased. And the company that made that game is free to do whatever they want to attempt to induce you to buy it new. From the relatively benign Day 1 DLC, to the rather obnoxious online pass, these fall within the same rough concept as, say, a non-transferable warranty on a new item purchase, which is hardly uncommon.

And likewise i'm free to call these attempts at making me pay extra for what used to be free a con and a greedy attempt at trying to guilt me. i'm also free to try and convince people we shouldn't buy into this, because it is not to our advantage and something we should fight

"The games industry is just greedy! They have to learn to adapt!"

- They're no greedier than any other industry, in truth. And they areadapting; the adaptations are what you're complaining about.

The game industry finds itself in a bit of a pickle, all things considered. Development costs go up as the hardware become increasingly sophisticated, so games either have to sell more copies, or cost more money.

Now, there are people who lay the claim that if the games were better and/or cheaper, they'd sell more copies new.

These people are idiots.

These are the same people who say that games would not be pirated if they were just better/cheaper/whatever. Which is equally idiotic.

If I offer you the choice between an ounce of gold for $2000 new, $1900 from Bob over here which is pretty much as good as new, or free but illegal from Steve over there on the corner, you're going to rapidly divide people into three categories; people who like to buy things new, people who like to save a little money, and people who don't think they'll get caught for breaking the law.

It doesn't really matter what the price of the original object in question is; various indie developers have long since proven that even if you put something on sale for a penny, people will still pirate the shit out of it. The same holds true for used game sales, and are particularly true for games that are actually, y'know, good.

i feel the industry should find some way of resolving its development woes and inducing people to buy new that does not involve trying to decieve me and restricting parts of games that were previously free. the 'problems' of the gaming industry (stilling turning millions of dollars in profit) are not my responsibility, and i don't feel i should be the victim of their inability to make a game i want to keep.

I see what you mean. Personally, I think that the only reason that they didn't have these kinds of restrictions placed on games earlier is because they either had yet to think of it, or were unable to do so, or wanted to make sure that their market would be secure before they make their dick-move. I just think it's a bit strange to assume that a limited product that you bought should not implement the limits that it came with when you sell it to another person. They aren't trying to make you pay extra, they're trying to make you buy their game from them for it's regular price. They don't care that you got the game for less, they care that their game was sold to you, a new buyer, who they hoped would buy it new so they could get money, are playing their game without giving them any money and have no intention of paying them for the product that you legally purchased. Yes, they are deceptive, and they are greedy, but a corporation's greed knows no bounds. They are justified in selling merchandise that devalues when it is sold second hand, but they are assholes for doing it and they are assholes for trying to act like they are the ones that are being maliciously deprived of big fat stacks of cash.

 

[Kal-Adam]

If there were no used game sales, more people would have paid that money directly to the developer to play the game. Instead, the opportunity to play a game comes cheaper, so that option is chosen and the profits from a used game go to a corporation (Gamestop, Best Buy, Gamefly Used Games, etc.), not the developer/publisher.

Sure, you can give a jacket to a thrift shop and they can sell it, but video games are a completely different product. The quantity of games sold is massive, so this is a large chunk of business that is lost.

Yes, but I've never seen a major publisher fail and blame it on used games. Also, I probably would be more sympathetic if the publisher didn't make millions of dollars anyways...

 

[Smooth Operator]

really? just 'people are stupid'?

one would think that when companies are clearly trying to con you into paying extra for something that used to be free, people would try and stand up to that. Just out of self-interest, if nothing else.

No not the people, the masses are stupid.
Herd mentality, they do not think they only accept the general ideas, so when a message is being droned on for long enough by enough people it will simply be accepted without second thought.

I remember the first articles how devs cried "killing game industry" and everyone from the news writers to the news readers was calling out BS, but then ever so slowly the call out's stooped and soon after that it was just accepted as the well known truth.
And when the used games sales tax is added to games... surprise surprise only a handful could still smell the bullshit, now the majority is out to defend it.

 

[boradis]

In a word: Gamestop. Unlike other mediums or industries a single company has a lock on the used product market. It's like ... imagine if all used book stores were owned by one corporation. Or if all used homes were sold by one real estate agent. It would be a virtual monopoly. And since they are also the primary brick & mortar outlet for new games as well they have a ridiculous amount of influence.

So basically it's a fight between giants over who owns the most yachts, and frankly I don't care about it.

This "used games are bad" campaign is just the publishers trying to undermine Gamestop's dominance by appealing to consumers' sense of guilt, or something.

 

[Erttheking]

People seem to have this screwed up notion that unless you pay money for a game, you're not allowed to complain about it, even if you got it as a gift, which I can't even begin to fathom. So what, I'm not allowed to complain about a game I got for my birthday but I'm allowed to complain if I payees $60 for it? Apparently paying $30 isn't enough either, because the company doesn't see any profits...I don't think that these people have ever heard of capitalism before. This isn't piracy, people aren't stealing copies of the game, they're buying them off of people and then selling them for discounted rates. It's like a pizza shop moving into the same block as your pizza shop, you'll be pissed if they steal your customers, but on the other hand it's perfectly legal.

Also this argument is pretty weak

Why should I buy this game new for $60 and not used for $40?

It goes to a good cause.

What cause?

A multi million dollar company that has already made millions off of this game on its first day alone and wants more money. Also you're not allowed to give it to your friends as a gift either, because then the company wouldn't make money.

....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-no.

 

[isometry]

Over the last decade, publishers have essentially eliminated the used market for PC games, by using internet-access-required DRM. The writing is on the wall, the next generation consoles will shift towards digital distribution and require online registration of physical copies.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I buy used games all the time. For it to be used, someone had to buy it new, right? To make a generalized, biased statement on what developers are saying "You're buying a game that we already got paid for without paying for it again!? YOU SICK MONSTER!!!"
Besides, with used games retailers, I can find a lot of older games that I wouldn't be able to find new.
Also, out of all the industries that could complain about not getting enough money, the games industry doesn't even come close.
Within 24 hours of it's release, CoD:MW3 made 400 million dollars, and that's not even counting however much it made after that. I would say that Activision has no right to complain about not getting money for used copies, but then I remember that they're Activision.

 

[brownie212]

i take the same view as Notch here that the issue isnt the people buying used games or even pirating games, the issue is how the publishers view the practice and deal with it, as notch said what they need to do is stop complaining and find a way turning these people into customers who they actually make money from. A part of the issue in my view is this standard price that ALL games a released at.

A new game that looks interesting but im not sure about or one from a series that i know and like at the exact same price, which one am i really going to choose to buy? im sorry but im not goin to spend £40-£50 on a game that i'm not sure about, if i pick it up later pre-owned for £15-20 and enjoy it i'll pick up the next one in the series new or a similar game from that developer.

The developers need to change their outlook, instead of moaning that the pre-owned market or piracy is hurting their sales they should start A making games good enough to persuade piraters and 2nd hand gamers to buy it new. And to understand what everyone whos done GCSE business studies understands, supply and demand and how this relates to the price you should sell your product at, but then the video games industry like all majjour industries has hit the poingt where its decided to go with the "but thats how we've always done it. why should WE change to suit the market when we can complain about the market and throw money and lawyers at it to try and make it change back" point

 

[everythingbeeps]

If you can argue that this is their right (and you can, I won't dispute that), you must also accept that it's the publisher's right to do what they can (again, legally) to recapture some of those lost profits.

By the same logic customers are also perfectly entitled to complain about any drop in quality, service, or accessibility they encounter. Just as the publisher has no obligation towards the store (and vice-versa), has the customer no obligation towards either of them, and does not have to roll over and mutely accept anything that directly impedes their convenience playing the game (DRM).

In the real world the relative power of publisher / store versus consumer is of course hugely imbalanced - but that does not mean that whenever the customer can do anything to legally benefit himself at the expense of either corporation he should not do so.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "customer".

Someone who buys used is not a customer of the publisher. If they want to ***** and whine, they can really only ***** and whine to Gamestop, who of course can't do anything about it anyway.

 

[Kilo24]

It's arguing over the nature of the license that purchasing a retail (or digital) copy of the game has. Few people would argue that you, a consumer, have ownership of the code for the game to distribute as you wish, just like you can't legally retype a book and pass it off as your own work. Instead, you have the license to use it for personal use.

What precisely the limits are for the phrase "personal use" are difficult to define and enforce. Somewhat akin to the internet changing piracy from a thorn in developers/publishers sides to a much larger issue is Gamestop's retail model being completely focused on used games. When it was friends swapping games or people selling systems over eBay, that was one thing, but a corporate retail chain exploiting that market so heavily turned it into a much bigger problem.

The fact is that this relationship between consumer and producer was never defined clearly. EULAs are of debatable value, and occur after the person has bought the software. You do not have complete rights to the data on the disk, but neither do you have no rights whatsoever. The question is where the line is drawn - specifically whether or not the right of resale is included - and that involves a lot of legal wrangling between consumers, developers, publishers, and retailers who all think that the way that gets them more money is the right one.

Anyone who considers it clear and obvious which way is legally correct, please point to the contract that you signed when you purchased a game. No, an implied contract is never clear when it gets examined in court.

Sure, the EULAs may work as an effective contract, and may specify whether the purchaser has the right of resale given to the consumer, but that only applies to that purchase of that game and not as a model for the whole business.