That makes no sense legally.
It is incredible alarming how little people know about their everyday dealings and instead of educating themselves are clinging to abstract and false thought patterns.

Media is not a product like a hammer or car is. It does not depreciate, the sale cost is to recoup development not manufacturing and it is easy to discard once used once for a brief period, because it only lasts an hour/2 hours/10 hours etc.

Only because it is sold on a disc, which it won't be for much longer.

I didn't say "in value." The point was 20 people can play the same copy of Bioshock and get the same EXACT experience but only the first one contributed to development. Getting the game for cheaper by waiting months or years to play it is common sense, but 20 people playing a game for every 1 that pays the developers to make it is crazy.

With a car or other physical products the person getting it used is getting a worse product than the person who got it new, adding incentive to buy new. No such thing exists with media.

People have been saying that for the last 10 years. The internet infrastructure of the United States isn't to the point, or even close, to be able to support digital distribution only. Especially with ISPs wanting to impose bandwidth caps.

People do, and most likely always will, want a physical product in their hands, unless the price is commensurate with the lack of resale. Moving the goal posts. "Depreciate" is primarily used in reference to value of the item. It can be used in reference to material quality, but without that qualification, value is what is going to be determined to it referencing.

It's only "crazy" to the people not spending money on the product. And something else you are failing to recognize...those Used products can only exist when the initial purchaser doesn't think the product is worth keeping around. That is not the problem of the buyers, it is the problem of the developers to make a product worth keeping. But it's much, much easier to cry crocodile tears about the bad, bad gamers *sniff* selling and buying used games than to make a game experience that lasts more than 8 hours.

The exact same experience? Provided the disc and everything accompanying it is in pristine shape. However, if that disc is scratched, or the manual is missing, or the case artwork is torn/faded/missing, they are not getting the exact experience. Should that disc be banged up enough, then there's a good chance they can't even play the game to begin with. At some point, the disc will have to be replaced with a new copy.

"might be about to"?
It hasnt even gotten to the supreme court yet right? It could be years before we see a decision on this.

Also, this whole thing seems quite moot. I dont see a right leaning supreme court restricting individuals ability to re-sell their property. Whats next? You cant sell your used furniture because it takes away from what furniture companies would be selling? Or how about used cars? you can put all kinds of intellectual property and technology inside of a car and then say "we will always own the concept of this car, you may never resell it".
If the industry really wants to squash used sales then they'll have to take the burden upon themselves and make all games come with an account-binding activation. Of course they dont want to look like the bad guy, but too bad.

If this does actually happen someday, they'll be giving pirates a battle cry, a reason to exist.

10 years ago it was stupid, today it is not. Look at PC game sales figures sometime, won't you?

Insert massive disagreement here. I don't think you're paying very close attention to market trends.

Pretty sure I know what I intended to say, thanks anyway.

The whole "well adapt fuckers" attitude it what leads to free-to-play, multiplayer being shoved in and DLC, which tries to keep discs in houses or depreciate used copies. I do not like these trends.

The vast majority do not give a shit about packaging.

Still stupid. Once again, look at the fact that ISPs are trying to impose bandwidth caps along with the lack of infrastructure in a good portion of the country coupled with lack of competition in most markets. I have the choice of satellite internet (slow & capped) or getting the lowest tier of broadband available for around $50 per month, due to where I live. It took me about a day to download Still Life 2 and that was only 9.5 gigs. Now, imagine doing that for everything I want to see or play. Won't happen. And I don't think you are paying attention to reality. Sure, there will be techno-adopters and those who are guilted into going along with it, but when it comes down to it, the physical industry won't die. It may get smaller, but never die. And given the choice between sitting down with an actual book or a e-reader, I would like to think most would choose the book.

If it's the choice between a $5 paperback and a $10 digital edition, I'm choosing the $5 paperback every time. Doesn't matter what you "intended to say". All that matters is what you did say. And it still looks like moving the goal posts to me. Like it or not, that's a valid tactic to keep the discs in hand. Rather than going the uber-douche route with locking games to an account, including an online pass, or banning second hand sales. [citation needed]

I just don't see this opinion bearing out. Netflix, Steam, Amazon Prime, Pandora, Kindle, iOS apps, etc.... the market is embracing and moving more toward an all-digital future every day. Any tech reporter or market strategist will tell you it is only a matter of time.

I agree retail will hang on for a long time to come, but the emphasis will be more and more on digital every day that goes by. Threats of super high bandwith caps that still have not come to fruition are not going to change that.

As someone who never sells games because A) I think it's shitty and B) I am a PC gamer and we accepted loss of resale years ago I would CERTAINLY rather do away with those shitty trends than keep Gamestop's pawn shop money going.

Anyway, I'm not arguing opinions here, I am arguing what I see as facts. My own personal opinion is if you sell something in a box then it should be a product and not turn into a service when you get home. I dislike MMOs and Steamworks titles for this reason, and since the next console cycle might do a Steam style activation system I will dislike that too.

None of that changes what I said though, or the reality of the situation. The more we shift to digital the less this is relevant.

Tech reporters and market strategists have been saying for a long time that all-digital is just around the corner and inevitable. It is not.

The ones you mention, i.e. Netflix, some things on Steam, etc., have the benefit of being decently priced. $8 a month for all you can watch? Games for a dollar? Those are a FAR cry from the $40+ Games on Demand on XBL or new releases on Steam being the same as the boxed product in the store. If you are stupid enough to buy a GoD game when the physical product is half that cost, then you deserve to be parted from your money. You must not be Canadian. Last year, the ISPs there attempted to get caps as low as 25GB. You must've also missed the fact that pretty much every major mobile provider in the United States has instituted bandwidth caps.

Bandwidth caps (starting relatively generous then reducing as people get "used" to them) are much more likely to happen than your pie-in-the-sky belief of all-digital. Everyone harps on Gamestop. They have a valid business model and are perfectly legal in their efforts. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. If you do away with them, and allow them to be done away with, then the next target will be eBay and Amazon's third-party sellers.

I may not use their business model, as I would rather get more than a pittance for the games I do sell and get more money to the sellers, but I do use them when they have a good pre-order bonus.

As to your "shitty" argument, selling a game is no different than me selling my car. If you are willing to sell ANYTHING you own, then selling a game should be no different. Unless you are willing to do away with ALL secondhand sales, because every time those are sold the maker doesn't see a dime, then it's a bit hypocritical to single out video games. I will agree with you on Steamworks shit. I don't use their DRM and advertising platform.

We haven't been capitalist nor democratic for some time now (though most of the fools living here think those are the same thing and that we still have it/them both).

Why do people mention cars when books are a far better comparison to games? Books can last a pretty long time and are generally the same experience no matter how many people read the book.. I probably have better chance of having a dvd scratched or something then having a book being destroyed. Books can be treated pretty poorly and still be read but if a dvd has even a scratch the game can be unplayable The actual pages and cover of the books aren't what matters but the info on its pages just like how the disc doesn't matter but the data on the disc matters for games. Books aren't only sold used but people can borrow them from public libraries! There is kindle and other ways books can be read digitally but used book sales still exist. So, why should video games be treated any different than novels as entertainment products?
\

Trust me, if libraries were a new concept today you'd be shouted down as a communist for even proposing the idea.

Ben Franklin was a commie! (joking)

Potentially.

For sure he'd be considered a terrorist and eligible for a free trip to Gitmo.