TheKurichan

Own the WiiU

But to be honest I can feel a migration away from games for a while for me, so if I am back and have the cash I will grab the PS4.

My interest was always low for the XBOX1, and they only made my interest lower, so...

That presupposes that the game would have been bought new if the used version wasn't available.  While it's likely you can't say that with any certainty.
 
 
It can just as easily (and just as incorrectly) be said "a used sale doesn't affect the publisher because the person buying used never would have bought it if it was new."  

Unprovable either way.  It's all hypothetical.

I was referring to a transaction taking place and money changing hands. With piracy money does not change hands (generally), with second hand sales it does. Regardless of whether the sale is second hand or new money changes hands in both cases but only one case sees the developer getting a cut.

My preposition supposes that any sale, be it new or second hand, is equivelant to a sale of the other, therefore if we theorise that a sale can be made where each item is of the same cost to the consumer that the consumer would care little about the items handedness, be it second or first.

You are supposing that there is an inherent difference between second hand and first hand sales, I disagree.

Wow, that, wow.

I hear this reasoning all the time, but it's bullshit.
 
The developers got paid when the game was sold to its original owner. It counted as a sale. I'm now buying his copy which has nothing to do with the developer because guess what- the developers were already paid. By the very difinition they should no longer have any say because they are now an irrilivent party. Charging extra for essentially a license to play the game's advertised content is like a car manufactuer adding a fingerprint scanner to only ever allow one owner to drive their car and then charging extra if you bought it used and expect to be able to drive it.
 
If I buy a game used, 99% of the time it's because the price is one third or less the cost of a "new" copy and at full price, I wouldn't buy the game to begin with. I've bought several games this generation for $4 used or less that I would NOT have bought for $60. 
.

You miss the point, I am not saying it's right or wrong. All I am saying is that it is lost income, that cannot be argued against, it is what it is. The only person to get money from a second hand sale is the seller. I sell games all the time and can confirm I have never given any of the money I made to the developer.

Since I barely play any modern games at all, this is kinda here nor there, but I don't like the idea that if I buy a game used, I need to pay the developers something to get the full experience.
To me, used games don't represent "lost reviniue" unless that used game was stolen to begin with. The company did get paid - when someone else originally bought it. I'm simply buying it from him. The arguement that companies need to charge extra because used games cut into their profits is such bullshit.

Slightly off topic, but second hand game sales are lost revenue. They are by definition a sale that has 0 revenue for the developer.

Unlike piracy where it is arguable whether the pirate would have purchased the software if they couldn't get it for free.