Home
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."
&nbs;"
Dragging this car analagy kicking and screaming back to the forefront, there's a world of difference between support for a car radio, which is an accessory, and say, access to multiplayer in Battlefield 3, arguably the only reason people buy that particular game. But that's not really the point. The reason behind my writing this article lies in my perception that the future of multiplayer games like BF3, MW3 etc will be pay-to-play, something I personally would detest, and that the argument against pre-owned sales seems to me to be being used as the justification for it (as discussed in the Michael Pachter link).
I do agree with what you say about retailers paying a percentage to the developers, it looks like a good solution that would placate developers and keep the used market viable so those people who can't afford to buy every game at full price can still get the games they want."