Although I just got a job recently (last six months) so that buying new is really a possibility for me, I still will always buy used if it's cheaper/more convenient. If I'm going to order a game online, for example, and a new copy is $40 w/ free shipping while a used copy is about $25 w/ $5 shipping, it's simply a smart consumer decision to go used and save that $10. When I was younger, buying used was all I really had. Without the used games market, as a kid, I would have always missed out. Post-N64, near every game I ever got was a used copy, which I was totally okay with. At that point, referring to the original question, it's important to note that I would sell games periodically when I was younger to fund towards getting other games. If selling one game meant getting two or three more used, it was totally okay because that was how I got new games to play.
At this point, I don't sell my games because I only buy games I want to permanently own. I don't just buy games on a whim. I buy games I absolutely know I'll want to keep. My pre-order of the new Animal Crossing game on the 3DS? I know for sure that it will be a game I'll enjoy for a long time based on my past experience (I still own the Gamecube game). If it ever comes down to selling games or not getting a payment in on something I have to, which is unfortunately a very real possibility as things are going for me, that is the only time I will sell. I like that I can simply sell for cash though in a smooth process easily with a private seller and get all of the money I feel I'm entitled to as well. I don't like the idea of selling through a system that will take a cut for the publisher in addition to what they were originally paid. If I bought new, the publisher already got the percentage of my money they deserved. They don't have the right to make the selling process more difficult, and to steal away some of the maybe 50% I'll get back if I'm lucky on the physical object I purchased. If I bought a used copy that was already twice used, what right does the developer have to continue to take my money?
All things considered, the used games market is important. It allows for those from the lower end of the economic class spectrum to enjoy games as well as those who can afford new. It gives the opportunity to practice in the economic system of buying and selling that much of the world has chosen called capitalism. Most importantly, it actually gives the buyer a sense of ownership, rather than feeling that they're just leasing until they get bored and lease out the game to another. I really don't like feeling like I don't actually own what I just sunk $30+ of my rather few dollars I have to spare into.
I can sell a DVD without having to make it more difficult. I can sell clothes without the original distributor or designer demanding more money. I can sell all other types of electronics with no issue of the company wanting more of my money. Why are video games suddenly becoming so special? Why fight what has been a standard for home consoles since, well, since video games in general?
Re: PC game argument I keep hearing all over the place (on this forum and elsewhere) -
Console gaming is not PC gaming. It's older, and was established on a system of physical ownership that has maintained for decades without any issue. I don't want my home consoles to act like my PC in any respect. That includes restrictive DRM and a more difficult to utilize used games market due to the nature of digital distribution. Quit acting like the couple of gripes a person could genuinely have where PC gaming is involved are okay to impose on other game playing mediums.
