The anti-used game fallacy

**OmegaBob** · 02-13-2012, 05:16 PM

The anti-used video games arguments are all wrong.

Why aren’t there complaints when used cars, used houses, used furniture, used books, etc etc etc are sold. What the video game publishers need to realize is that they already made their money on the sale of the new copy.

The equivalent of what they are trying to do would be like if I purchased a used car from a private seller then being forced to go to Chevy to get a new set of keys before I can drive it. Say I was into antiques and wanted to purchase an antique RCA Theremin from the 1920’s? Do I have to pay RCA a fee before I can use it?

All of their arguments make the publishers sound like spoiled brats –they already made the sale but want us to double dip. Utter BS.

note: I don’t have a pony in this race as, generally, I purchase 99% of my game titles new - just like my women, I like my toys to be virgins –there’s no smell like it… opening the packaging and taking a sniff of that new freshness inside!

**Gameray** · 02-13-2012, 05:47 PM

Well, I KNOW that game companies lose money on me, because I purchase 90% of my games used. I am lucky in that I live near the largest used video game store in the world (GameDude in the San Fernando Valley). They have brutally exacting standards so I can buy used games with confidence. I also buy used games from Amazon.

If game companies could stop this process, I WOULD purchase games new, they would arguably make more money.

The only two games I have paid retail for in the last year are Skyrim and SWTOR. But I've played used copies of Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time, Darksiders, Enslaved, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Bioshock 2, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.