Um, the publisher has already got the money from the original sale. Why do you think they should be entitled to more? They _sold_ the game, it isn't theirs any more once they sell it.
Do you also think, incidentally, that all the other people who sold the game manufacturer raw materials or their labor that went in to the game should _also_ get paid again whenever the resulting product changes hands?
If not, why not?
(Also, people will factor in the possible resale price of a game when deciding how much they are prepared to pay for it in the first place, ergo the company has already received payment for the resale in the form of that excess)
That wasn't the original argument.
S/He argued that since s/he paid for the used game, system, and internet he should be allowed to play online. I said this logic is wrong because none of this money went to the publisher so from the view of the publisher, it doesn't matter who else is being paid.
In any case, the game maker sold the physical media and a license to play the game and a non-transferrable right to play online to the original buyer. They can deny access to online play to subsequent buyers if it's stated on the box. Same thing happens with warranties, unless otherwise stated, it only covers the original buyer.
Game makers probably don't make the disc themselves. They probably contract that out to someone else. Anyway that argument doesn't work, the raw material seller sells the materials with the understanding that the disc maker will use those materials to make a disc and sell it w/o further payment later on. In this case, the game maker is explicitly saying you cannot transfer online play.
Facebook
Twitter