The concept here is very simple: The path of a game from inception to the hands of consumers goes something like this. 1.Developer sends idea to publisher. 2. Publisher analyzes idea and predicts sales. 3. Game is approved base on analyzing of markets. 4. Content is created and sent to publisher. 5. Original disc is sent overseas to be mass produced in Malaysia or Hong Kong. 6. Disc is sent back to publisher, who then ships it to 3rd party sellers, where it gains its price tag. 7. Disc is sold to consumer. The falsity of "used games hurting publishers" falls apart between steps five, six, and seven. The cost of shipping a game to be mass produced by workers is not an expensive process considering you can buy several hundred blank CDs for around ten dollars nowadays. Thus, when a game returns from being produced it has perhaps 3$ in actual production and shipping cost, and an additional 10$ lets say for developer duties. Now then, this is the important part. Do you honestly believe that a big company like Microsoft or Activision would then give millions of copies of games to third party companies like Gamestop or Best Buy, and expect the seller to simply give them back a portion of the 60$ price tag? Absolutely not! Not only would this put Microsoft MILLIONS of dollars in the hole due to them giving away their inventory, because no game shipment would ever sell 100% to customers, but there would be no way to trust smaller companies with giving away the exact 20% amount or whatever that Microsoft would be negotiated to receive. No, Microsoft SELLS its shipments to companies like Gamestop and Best Buy so that they can resell it, then the final 60$ price reflects the costs that the re-seller pays to Microsoft, plus a hefty margin so they can make a profit. However, playing devils advocate, even if Microsoft did make money on Gamestop or Best Buy's sales, then it would be highly illegal, at least in the EU, as the producer of a product loses copyright and use control after first sale. So, you might be saying now that used games still affect publishers because they take the place of new ones. Wrong. They do not. Lets say I make a game called "Macgyver" and Microsoft publishes 100 copies (the supply) and give them to Gamestop to sell. All 100 sell, but 10 of them are returned to the store. (the demand) Then, new people come in and buy them used. However, because those 10 sell as well, and are in homes that keep them, there are no "Macgyver" games on the market. Thus, supply equals demand, and marginal cost equals marginal revenue for selling the games for both Gamestop and Microsoft. Seeing that there is still a demand for the game, Gamestop orders 150 Macgyver games, increasing the supply, demand will then buy all of them over time, and gradually return to resell them. If used game sales are up, then Gamestop will eventually order more new games from Microsoft. Used games are an indicator for how many new games Gamestop will buy, so Microsoft still makes a profit, perhaps even a bigger one than if used games can't be sold. They are an indicator of the health of a game. Moreover, only a small percentage of new games even come back into the store to be resold in the first place. Do you really think that 100 used games will affect Microsoft's profit margins when they are selling literally millions of copies of a game? I doubt it. So seriously people, wake up and realize the lies about the industry they make us believe.