Or you could go with another option: Wait until the price comes down and still buy it new. I spend less money and still get all the things that used purchasers miss out on. 

Granted, this is going to affect the used game market heavily, but look at PC gaming. You can't really trade your games there, either, aside from some Steam wizardry.

I don't like the idea of locking out pre-owned games at the source (which is something that's been rumored), but neither do I see a problem with a company creating incentive and/or disincentive for buying used over new.

This assumes we're talking about the relatively minor sanctions that currently exist.

A new game at Amazon is 60 bucks without tax and usually comes with a 10 dollar gift card for a future purchase. A used game at Gamestop is 55 bucks, plus tax. When Amazon sells their copy money goes to the publisher and content goes, without complaint, to the consumer.

When you buy a used game you aren't actually supporting the publisher, so you've already "hit them where it hurts."

You've rewarded a reseller over an artist all to save the cost of a Venti Mocha at Starbucks. I'm not sure the big drum "consumers" always beat in this war is valid. The sanctions imposed on used sales basically funnel money back into production and keep studios from being shut down and new ideas from being killed. Gamestop doesn't care about that because they'll always have Madden, Call of Duty or whatever else they need to stay in business between the next resale.

However, the complete PC style revolt against used games entirely--well that's something that irks me.

But, I'm also irked by people paying Gamestop for a product and then asking EA, Activision or whoever else why they aren't backing up their customers. They are--the paying ones--not the ones who scavenged to save five bucks.

I've always been torn on this one.  While I can completely understand a company wanting to stop used resellers from making money that publishers/developers don't get, I also believe in an individual's right to choose how to buy a game.  I still come down on the consumer's side in the end, though.

As for all the Xbox used game rumors, it won't happen.  It can't happen, at least not yet.  The only way to do something like that is require an Internet connection to check the game for new or used status.  There are still quite a few people without it and they would have no way to service those people.

Steven - In the UK the games I buy pre-owned are usually quite significantly different in price from the new version, or I'd simply buy new. What I dislike is the claims that buying used games hurts the industry. I don't think it does at all, aside from the example I've used there have been games I've bought pre-owned that I would simply never have paid £45 for, so my buying it pre-owned hasn't hurt a developer/publisher from whom I would not have bought the game in the first place.

I also like the car analogy when it comes to the pre-owned argument. I have never bought a brand new car, and buying from a local dealer puts no money whatsoever in BMW's pocket - in fact my buying second hand probably frees up the previous owner to buy his/her shiney new car from the company, just a guess though - but I wouldn't expect the car company withhold the steering wheel because I didn't buy it from them.

When I trade in a game at my local retailer to go toward the purchase of a brand new game then my use of a pre-owned market has benefitted the developer/publisher in that sale. I believe in free commerce and video games should be no different to cars, houses, DVDs, books or any other item that isn't a service, and thats where pay-to-play may well rear its head.

I sincerely doubt that Microsoft will actually implement any anti used game functionality. It would hurt Gamestop, kill Gamefly (no used games means no rentals either), and more importantly, make people not want to buy it. If they do use an anti used game function, then all Sony has to do is release the PS4 without it, and Sony wins the next generation.

I don't take anything Kotaku claims seriously, and neither should others. That said, if true, it would be a bad move. If Microsoft really wants to go that route, make everything a digital download.

Even then, Steam allows some form of game trading...

If this rumour is true, all i see it as is a move to PC centric system, one they (the PC gamers) have been dealing with for years. They have also been dealing with cheaper titles for the most part, and frequent sales, digitally, and in retail. I also think this would be in line with the fact that by 2013/14, digital distribution will probably be a bigger part of the consoles life.

Titles would be tied to your account and not the console, so you could use your profile on someone elses console and play the game. Thats how i hope it'd be implemented anyway.

The stark truth laid bare in this article is that gamers, and users of software in general, have let their own definition of "owning" a piece of content be eroded by End User Licensing Agreements, online passes, and subscription-based models.  But the economic crisis has had a secondary effect besides the reduction in money available to spend, it has begun to make people more aware of how disposable their purchases have become, and how meaningless their purchases are if they can be taken away with a bit of legal and contractual trickery.  Your article as well as other rumblings across the interwebs stands in evidence of this, yet sadly also must face the vast ocean of glassy-eyed apathy that nearly any voice decrying an injustice must surmount.

Funny this article went up today, I just wrote a similar one, postulating a parallel world wherein consumers did push back against the Double-Dip, motivating Sony to continue to support backwards compatibility in both PS3 and Vita:  http://bitmob.com/articles/sony-2012-the-road-not-taken

After all, the possible harm from used games sales is really no longer relevant to a publisher once a title is no longer available new, in its release window.  Your categorical proof is really just empirical.  I can name plenty of examples of kids off the street who would have bought a $60 title new but were instead talked into a $55 pre-owned version of it with an adiitional 10% discount.  And yet we as consumers are finding even older titles commoditized into digital purchases that we must rebuy, even if we bought the original release new and never sold it back to Gamestop. 

Publishers need to stand up to their true enemy, another large corporate entity, and start enforcing sanctions that reduce or eliminate the new inventory sold to Gamestop unless they agree on a release-window embargo for used sales of certain titles.  All of these other tactics are introducing chicanery and inconvenience to their customers instead, and will only hurt them in the long-term.

I can't tell you how many times I've traded in used games for a new game hitting the market. I just did that for the upcoming Mass Effect 3 and I doubt you'll hear any developer at Bioware complaining that I'm doing such a thing. They still make their money from the new game, which is a POV I don't think a lot of developers take in to consideration.

People trade games for new games too. Sometimes they trade them for points to purchase DLC. The used game market helps keep new games afloat. The game industry better be prepared for a world of hurt when nobody pays 59.99 USD for a game that isn't a AAA title.

I don't believe that used games will die out that way. There are too many businesses (Redbox, Blockbuster, Gamestop) that fuel the game industry with fans of the video game genre. Until internet access is at it's prime, I have serious doubts about disabling used games on a console.

I've always had a hard time when big corporations tell me how and where I can use something I bought.  I paid good, hard and sultry cash for their game or whatever, and I want to use it the way I want to use it.

On the other hand I understand why companies do this. They want money. They like it. It's good for them and frankly it's good for us to give it to them, if they make a game we like. When we buy a title used the developers don't get the money they feel they deserve, meaning this effects their bottom line which effects the budget for future projects.

I know this sounds like trickle down economics and all that voodoo but it's a very different animal. When we buy something new the developers see a sizeable chunk of cash go directly into their coffers. They either don't get the money from a used purchase or they can't really track it. If they can't track it, it might as well not exist as far as profit is concerned. From where they stand, used games make no money. They don't care if you buy the sequel new.

On a third hand, I hate the petty solutions they have. I abhor that they omitted pieces of  Arkham City's story if it was rented or bought used. This feels childish and despite how awesome that game looks, and how much I want to play it, I won't. 

The game developers have so many better solutions and it's only a matter of time before all games are simply downloaded. If I buy a game new, I download it. It's been years since I've bought a console game new. 

I can't really decide how I feel about this. Can you tell?

By the way folks, if you're looking for clues as to whatever method might be employed to accomplish the rumored Microsoft plan to prevent used game sales, just look up the method that was devised for the failed DVD-competitor format Divx:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

Some exerpts from the Wikipedia:

"...a customer would buy a DIVX disc (similar to a DVD) for approximately US$4, which was watchable for up to 48 hours from its initial viewing. After this period, the disc could be viewed by paying a continuation fee to play it for two more days. Viewers who wanted to watch a disc an unlimited amount of times could convert the disc to a "DIVX silver" disc for an additional fee.^[1] "DIVX gold" discs that could be played an unlimited number of times on any DIVX player were announced at the time of DIVX's introduction, but no DIVX gold titles were ever released.

Each DIVX disc was marked with a unique barcode in the Burst cutting area that could be read by the player, and used to track the discs. The status of the discs were monitored through an account over a phone line. DIVX player owners had to set up an account with DIVX to which additional viewing fees could be charged. The player would call an account server over the phone line to charge for viewing fees similar to the way DirecTV and Dish Network satellite systems handle pay-per-view."

"Many people in various technology and entertainment communities were afraid that there would be DIVX exclusive releases, and that the then-fledgling DVD format would suffer as a result. Dreamworks, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures, for instance, initially released their films exclusively on the DIVX format."

Buying used doesn't support the developers.  So what?  Have you ever borrowed a DVD or game from a friend?  You didn't support the developers.  Unless, of course, you then went out and bought said product because it was so good you just had to own a copy yourself.  However, guess what?  You're not the majority of people.  For most people, and yes, even gamers, watching a movie or playing through a game is a one-time thing.  Once it's been watched or beaten, it's discarded or lent to a friend or traded in at a retail store.  THIS WILL NEVER STOP.  And it shouldn't.  We all understand it's important to support the creators of the products we love and cherish, but should we be trying to destroy the gentlemen's borrowing system just because these major companies feel like they deserve a little extra cash?  Which, let's be honest, the extra revenue they pull in is the equivalent to the used-game purchaser saving enough for a "Venti Mocha at Starbucks".  

Besides, the "extra cash" most publishers have been raking in (let's not kid ourselves, most of that moola is going to them, not the developers, as it's them who push for it) has been completely offset by the fed up customers who boycott any and all forms of DRM or day-one DLC bullshit.  Pardon my French.

I've written about this many times, but it bears repeating again: The game industry assaults the secondary market at their own peril.

Used games add value to new games in that a used game helps the new game retain its value over a longer period of time. If I know that I can recoup $25 from a $60 purchase, them I'm more likely to spend the $60. Even after being repeatedly burned by poor games, I don't feel so bad because I got some of my money back.

But if I know that my $60 purchase becomes a coaster the moment I open it, I'm less likely to keep spending $60 on new games. Over time, I'm less likely to buy new games at all.

I spoke with Simon Rothman (who founded eBay Motors), and he explained this exact concept to me regarding used-car markets. Because people saw the resale value in their car purchases (and he explained how eBay Motors was able to nationalize used-car prices, and thus, make new-car purchases more attractive because they retained a higher resale value for longer), they were more likely to spend more on a car. Why? Because the secondary market puts money back into the hands of consumers, and research (according to Rothman) shows that people are likely to go out and buy new.

GameStop's own numbers support this: They sell more new software and hardware (in raw numbers), but they earn more profit from used sales. That means more locations in more places that sell more new content -- hell, there's a GameStop in every stripmall in America for a reason. Undercut used sales and you'll be undercutting new sales, too.

I've been screaming this for years. Nobody listens though. Most people just don't understand that we as consumers have the power the make and break these companies. We are in charge, not them. We make the rules, not them. If you don't like the fact that Call of Duty's campaign can be beaten in 3 hours. Stop buying it. If you don't like the anti-consumer Online Pass scheme and terrible DRM, don't buy the games.

It is a very simple concept, but the main reason why it won't succeed is because the large, large majority of gamers aren't in the know. They don't read gaming websites. They aren't in the forums. They hear about a game from a commercial or from a buddy and just buy it. If that particualr game is being torn apart by gamers like us for something clearly anti-consumer, these people wouldn't know about it.

Until gaming is more widely accpeted, and until the damning news that publishers keep away from the main news outlets starts appearing on more traditional news, these people won't know what's happening. As it is right now, the only thing that makes the news regarding video games is when someone doesn't like the violence, or sex scene.