> the "cost" this guy attributes to used games has nothing to do with used games, and everything to do with a culture so controlled by money that making games fun isn't the point - making money is.
Unfortunately making good games is a full-time job, and people who don't make money don't eat. Your viewpoint seems too simplistic.
There's "making money" as in making a decent living on a respectable game, and there's "making money" like pulling down $500M in sales in the first month.
Too many game studios are looking for one thing and one thing only: Blockbusters. They don't care about things that are merely profitable.
This criticism of the used game overlooks a lot of other factors. One is that games have a vanishingly short shelf-life because the producers want to clear the deck for another title. If the studios don't value the games three months out, why should the consumers? It's stale. Either sell it or throw it out, that's what they're telegraphing here.
No one is stopping them from making money. They want to sell goods that are _artificially_ prevented from being resold. I can resell DVDs but Hollywood staggers on.
If the games industry switches to DRMed electronic delivery (as per the App store) then we'll probably end unable to resell, but I won't be like you're selling me a physical object specifically sabotaged to prevent being passed on.
this is very true - and it's a completely absurd relic of a time when only a tiny fraction of a civilization's resources could be used for anything other than agriculture.
most of our economic systems were developed to deal with scarcity that no longer exists - to insist that people must work if they are to be allowed to eat is just as silly as insisting that people must work if they are to be allowed to breathe.
Unfortunately making good games is a full-time job, and people who don't make money don't eat. Your viewpoint seems too simplistic.