An Econo-Political Thesis On The Ethics of the Used Video Game Market
The opinion is widespread in the culture of gamers that the video game industry is hurt by the sale and purchase of used games. While there are many different approaches to both sides of this issue, few arguments stay on point. Some claim that major game retailers profit too much from margins on used games, but the value of the service they provide is irrelevant. Some liken used games to piracy, but the argument of legality is a non-issue. The main point is ethics. Is the used game market ethical?
The act of comparing aspects of video games to other entertainment media does a disservice to everyone. Video games are unique and should be treated as such. So many differences exist between video games, books, music, and movies, that one cannot create an analog that will accurately predict what methods that work in one industry will work in another. The one thing all industries all have in common is money.
A capitalistic society is very similar to a representative democracy, where votes actually take the form of money. To use a widget example, let's examine Consumer A. Consumer A likes Bob's widgets better than Ralph's widgets, so when (s)he gives Bob money for his product, (s)he is supporting his business and making it more likely that he will continue producing high-quality widgets that Consumer A likes. Bob is now the widget representative for Consumer A; Consumer A gives Bob some votes, and Bob, in return, will have that consumer's interests in mind while making new widgets. In the same way, paying game developers for their work is the best way to encourage them to make more good games.
The undo button, Ctrl+Z or Command-Z, has been one of the best friends of the digital era. Anyone with regrets wishes they had a real-life undo button. Selling an item you bought is similar to canceling your monetary contribution. Selling that item is an undo button for the vote you cast for its producer, provided that it ends up in the hands of someone who would have purchased it new. Recycling the economic vote of the original purchaser maintains the tally of purchased and retained games. By purchasing someone else's game, you can be their undo button.*
So why would anyone want to rescind their vote for a game developer? Maybe the game fell below expectations. Maybe they got bored. In any case, it's clear by the action of selling the game that they don't want it anymore. The game developer has failed to deliver a product that will compel that person to cherish it for as long as it lasts.** Someone who makes an undesirable product is not worthy of consumer support. The creator of a game that people want to keep deserves the monetary support of its consumers. It is this support that will prune the video game industry to suit consumers' tastes. Naturally, through cash flow, sub-par developers will be penalized, and above average developers will be rewarded, which will strengthen the industry. A democratic system where all gamers contribute produces happy consumers.
Whether through an intermediary dealer or directly with your fellow consumer, buying and selling used games will strengthen the foundations of the video game industry and the video game market. Creators of great games will be endlessly rewarded. Those who bring about abominations of technology will be discouraged from attempting another sub-par game. If your desire is for a richer, more rewarding gaming world, used games are about as ethical as you are going to get in a capitalistic society.
* Games that come with content exclusively when they're purchased new are a different story, deserving a discussion of their own.
**Discussion on what a game developer can do to deliver a product that will compel you to cherish it for as long as it lasts should follow
