Depends if updates are advertised on the product packaging.

The answer to the first question depends on how "new" and "hot" the game is. In the case of someone like myself, who always sells early in a game's life cycle because if I like a game I keep it, usually in the ball park of 75%. PC game values drop faster than those of any other game types, and after a few years you're usually looking at 10% of initial value or so. I'm not sure what most people would pay for support, but I'm guessing very little. $5, perhaps, but that'd come straight out of the resale value of the game. Let's face it, for most games (Stardock obviously excluded) the support provided isn't worth much.

That's the thought, yeah. I know it's true of me, whether it's true of enough people to make the whole thing work for the publisher I'm not certain, but I think it'd be interesting to find out.

Expenditure is a zero sum game, more money wont fall from the sky.  That lack of a used market will directly translate to a drop in discretionary spending that matches the income going towards used goods.  It may not be a 1/1 ratio on pc game sales, but it's close enough that you're going to take a hit if you kill it off.

Any or all of you feel free to open a Google search for "define: greed"

kthxbye

Not by definition no, but there comes a point, would you not agree, where the line certainly blurs? Can you _have_ greed without profit?

I would never, ever, use Google as a dictionary. I usually use dictionary.com because it always includes definitions from real, respected dictionaries such as Webster's, Random House, or the American Heritage dictionary.

Sure you can. Greed is a desire for more than you deserve. It's a desire, an emotion.

You can be poor and be very greedy, or you can be rich and not be greedy at all. Greed is not a measure of how much you have; it's a measure of how much you desire.

No, there shouldn't be a secondary market for software.

I strongly disagree. If the software costs a lot of money, the secondary market or the possibility to transfer the licence can be usefull. Hovewer if the price of the license does not exceeed let's say $50, it does not make any sense.

People buying games more because they know they can easily dump them early on results in a wash for the devs, at best. Bear in mind that the closer to retail value you're reselling a used copy for, the more likely the buyer would have bought a new copy were the used one not available. As a result, the increased sales to people who don't want to keep the game are likely entirely offset (or more) by the loss of sales to those people's copies when sold off shortly after release.

Personally, this is one of the biggest gripes I have against specialty stores that rely on used sales. Selling older or hard to find used games is not such a big deal; given the low prices or lack of retail availability, there's probably little loss there.

But when someone comes into the store and makes up their mind to buy a game new, then the clerk bribes them $5 off to give the store massive profits and the devs squat--that's the kind of behavior that pisses me off; the store is basically stealing that sale entirely for themselves.

There's not a lot you can do about people being suckers.  Used game stores are like used car dealers, they're going to make the money off the transaction.  When the buyer is the one benefiting from the trade, you're losing very little, if anything.

Do people really go for that? I know if I were only getting 5 bucks off, I'd just tell them "No, I'll pay the extra 5 bucks for the new unopened game, thanks".