Go **** yourself THQ

OK then. Should car companies get a cut of the sale if someone sells their car second hand? If a guy builds a house and then sells it, should the new owner give the original owner a percentage if he decides to sell it on himself? Or should people have to hold on to their cars and houses forever, even if they buy new ones because selling them second hand would cost contractors and car manufacturers? See when you make it about something else, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Games are no different. The argument that Gamestop screws developers over by buying used games on the cheap and selling them for almost as much as a new release holds no water whatsoever. The developer has already made their money on that particular disc. Gamestop aren't screwing the developers. They're screwing the customers with their high prices for used games but that's a different argument entirely.

FIAT get their money from the FIAT Punto bought new. Not on the one bought second hand. If you change the rules for games, surely you have to change the rules for everything else. Do FIAT and Ford and BMW complain that they are losing money for every car used car sold? No. In fact many car companies have taken advantage of the used car market by going into business with second hand dealerships. If publishers want to get money from used games, instead of complaining about lost revenues, they should be partnering with Gamestop or Game or doing something themselves if the retail stores won't participate. Maybe they should offer trade in deals. Trade in Modern Warfare 3 at Activision and get credit towards Black Ops 2 (you know it's coming). If someone wants to pick up a cheap copy of MW3 they can go to the Activision site and pick up a used copy.

If Activision doesn't want to do that, then...tough. The housing market is based on a system of buy low, sell high. If I buy a house for €500,000 and sell it for €1,000,000, do I give the guy I bought the house from initially a share of the profit? No. Of course not.

Our economic system, as messed up as it is, is still based on the basic principle of trade and barter. We use money these days instead of goats and grain but the concept is pretty much the same. You want something, you buy it and you then have ownership of it. If you wish to sell it on, that's your right.

The NeXtbox having some form of anti-used game software is a bit pointless, even putting aside the arguments. The fact is that only half of 360 owners are actually on XBL in some form. Half. Any system Microsoft would employ would rely on connectivity and I'd wager that a significant portion of used-game buyers are people who don't go online. We could be talking relatively poor households or even kids who simply aren't allowed online and buy games used with their pocket money. Until we have 90% of consoles going online, such measures will be irrelevant and utterly pointless.

We have this idea that software is exempt from free trade rights. It isn't. If someone buys a game used, it means that someone already bought that game new. That particular disc has already been paid for. Publishers have no right to demand more.

Does that mean I'm against game codes? No. If you buy a game used and keep it offline, you won't need a code. If you want to take it online you are availing of a service that needs to be paid for. So I have no issue with game codes for online play although I suppose you could argue that paying for XBL Gold in the 360's case should allow you to access those services regardless. I do take issue with PC games that require online activation or even worse, requires an internet connection to actually play the game, even if it's not an online game.