@pottedPlant7p We're already allowed to resell console games from the very beginning, it hasn't deterred any companies from making games. Also your assumption that those 19 users would have otherwise paid full price seems flawed to me.

An idea would be for Valve(and Publishers) to regulate used sales through Steam and charge a fee. There's already a system in plays that allows people to gift other users games in their inventory. Seems like "relatively" small expansion on an already existing system.

@godofratz Why should we not be allowed to resell our purchases? The used market has been there long before the game industry. If it's hurting them so much, then maybe the better question should be "Where does our business plan go wrong?".

Also the "courts ignoring license agreement" seems like a backwards statement. Maybe the companies should have better taken existing consumer laws into account when writing their EULA's?

Simply accepting companies as having consumers best interest at hart seems crazy to me.

@d12dotcom @Pro-Aktivity @fanirama Unthinkable is not impossible. It's not like steam doesn't already allow me to gift people gift-able games I have on my account As we move away from physical media to digital distribution, it would be truly unthinkable NOT to pursue the possibilities of this avenue.

@d12dotcom @fanirama From a customers perspective your statement seems illogical to me. I would assume most customers would happily accept more freedom to do what they want with their purchases. What benefits them should be of no consequence to you. Rather the question should be "Do they infringe on the pro consumer laws set by my country?".

@leviathanwing @CincoToes While extreme, he does make a fair point. It 's rarely smart or advantageous for a consumer to unquestionably accept whatever rules a company imposes.

@everyday182 Thankfully a country's consumer laws trumps EULA's. I'm far more interested in a courts ruling on these cases, than blindly accepting everything a company throws in their EULA's.

@implement13 @pal_080 I'm not an expert on the constitution either, but it clearly mentioned something along the lines of a militia Which made sense at the time, since there wasn't a standing army. It wasn't until a couple of years back that the supreme court ruled, that the second amendment also covered the individuals right to bear arms.

Besides the argument of governmental tyranny would make sense back in the day, when everyone used muskets and the likes. But what could a militia possibly do in this day and age against the advanced weaponry the U.S. army has access to? For this argument to work, everyone should have access to RPG's, Drones,Tanks, etc.. So the 2nd amendment is outdated, since it obviously didn't take into account the progress of tech.

@implement13 I think most people would agree with you. Generally the argument isn't banning weapons, but limiting access to AR type weapons. Sure mental health is the main reason, but that's a much harder issue to tackle. However what we can do(while researching metal health) is improve on gun regulation.

As mentioned by other posters, there are several countries with much stricter rules. To the point that even most criminals can't get their hands on a gun or simply forego guns as option, because it's too much of hassle. Now imagine your mall example, but this time the perpetrator doesn't have access to a gun.

@PixelAddict I liked it too, I really want some closure to that story.

@tinglep Ironically ancient Roman sculptures where a lot more "explicit" than this statue and are widely accepted as great pieces of art. So I guess we shouldn't be looking to the future........but the past?