[VG]Reagle wrote on Feb 4, 2012, 14:35:

Publishers are just making a stink about it now because they think, erroneously, that it cuts into their bottom line. Except it doesn't, AT ALL. (Much like piracy to an extent)

So you don't think piracy cuts into the bottom line. I agree lets not worry about things like facts when we can just say whatever garbaage spouts out of our asses.

Jerykk wrote on Feb 4, 2012, 23:42:

People who are going to buy used games will always buy used games and those who prefer to buy new will continue to buy new. It's as simple as that.

Except I don't think it actually is that simple. The people who buy used games from GameStop typically only save $5-10 on average. If used copies were not available, would they be just as likely to pay an extra $5-10 for a new copy? I'd say yes. This isn't like piracy, where pirated copies cost nothing and there's no risk or investment required. If someone is willing to pay $55 for a used game, chances are pretty good that they'd pay $60 for a new copy of that same game.

Personally, I don't support used sales because I want to give my money to the developers, not the seller of the used copy. I think it's safe to assume that someone who buys used games is far more likely to buy new games than someone who pirates games, so the potential impact of used sales is far greater than the potential impact of piracy.