What do you mean 'where do you draw the line'? No, the retailer should get money from the sale because they're enabling it, just like they should from all sales, but I don't think it's fair for developers and publishers to receive no cut whatsoever. So many of you seem to think that's acceptable, though.
How does me saying sideways comparisons are defunct stop me from outlining my specific argument?
Used car sales are completely different. Games are disposable entertainment. If you go into a shop and see a used game for a few quid cheaper than a new one you're just going to buy that, because ultimately it doesn't matter. That logic doesn't translate to the car industry because cars aren't disposable purchases that are bought for a few hours of fun. The draw for a used sale isn't as large, and used sales aren't crippling car manufacturers like they are in the games industry.
It's wrong because it affects the games publishers are willing to make.
If games don't make much money any more then publishers aren't going to take risks. If the industry was healthier they might, and thus this policy would make the industry healthier (that's a fact).
So go and draw up some hypothetical argument about a future where the industry's healthier whilst preserving used game sales and the borrowing of games. Great, I'd sign up to that, too. But as it stands that doesn't exist and this is the next best option.
