As a console grows older, there are two questions that inevitably come to mind. First: When is the next generation console releasing? And second: What will make it better than its predecessor? Unfortunately, what makes a system better is in the eyes of the beholder. In the case of using the console to eliminate the used games market, the eyes of the developers and consumers couldn’t be any more different.

The reason I mention eliminating the used games market is this: it is rumored that the next generation Xbox will use a type of anti-used games technology. This would perhaps tie the game to your Xbox Live account to prevent it from being playable to a second user on a separate Xbox.

This same idea was discussed for PlayStation 3 implementation, but ended up falling through. However, the fact that the same idea is brought up again with the next-generation Xbox, even though it might be hypothetical, is concerning.

So why does the gaming industry keep trying to slit the throat of the used games market?

In order to bring to light most developers’ points of view, Jameson Durall, a design director at Volition, Inc., delineated his thoughts in a blog post titled “I Feel Used.”

First and foremost is the idea of lost revenue, “I think what most consumers don’t realize is that every time they buy a used game, there is ZERO money making it back to the game developers. All of those profits are going directly to the re-seller and making it more and more difficult for us to continue making higher quality products.”

Steadily, developers have been trying to figure out ways to make up for this lost income. Downloadable content has been introduced as an incentive to keep a game longer, as well as tying DLC purchases to a single account (that’s a no-no for sharing). Also recently implemented are codes that unlock multiplayer or other features of the game (think “Battlefield 3” and having to pay $10 to play online on a console that the game wasn’t originally registered with). The PlayStation Vita is allowing games to be purchased digitally at a lower price, which guarantees the game won’t be placed on the used game market when the purchaser is tired of it. However, to Durall, these methods are simply “a Band-Aid on a large wound.”

With Durall’s thinking, it is possible that if you simply want to borrow a game from a friend, you will have to pay a “rental fee” that would go back to developers. Either that or the rights would be transferred (no telling how lengthy or troublesome the process would be) to your system so your friend couldn’t even play the game they purchased that they were so kindly lending to you.

If Durall is the voice of most developers, I’d like to be the voice of most consumers. And we are not okay with eliminating the used games market.

It’s absolutely true when you buy a game used, no money goes back to developers. If I buy a used toaster at a garage sale, no money is going back to the makers either. In both of these situations, the original purchaser paid full price and the money went back to those who made it. Once. No other industry complains they aren’t getting extra revenue each time a good switches hands. Developers are entitled to the profits of the initial sale and nothing more.

Further, game developing, like any other job, has a salary or hourly rate. All the hours spent producing games are well compensated for. When the game sells, you get all the first-hand profits as bonuses for producing such an amazing game. Why should developers be compensated if the original purchaser refuses to keep it? Developers aren’t losing money when a game is resold because they already made their initial profits off the original purchaser.

I see another flaw with the idea of eliminating used games. Within the past year, “The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim” debuted. Maybe this is your first game of the series, and you really, really like it. You want to purchase the preceding entries, but no one is selling them new anymore. Sometimes the only version of the game you can find is used. Developers need to address this gaping hole unless they would rather consumers be unable to purchase older games.

If games can only be purchased new, you might see a decline in your profits instead of the increase you are looking for. Some people simply cannot afford to purchase the game at $60, so their only option would be to lower the amount of purchases they make. Developers would have to be comfortable with pricing their new games fairly instead of the typical $60 price. Not every game is worth $60, which is why most wait for a price drop or instead purchase it used. In fact, more people might simply pirate games to combat for the unfair monopoly of prices.

There’s a reason Sony dropped the idea of anti-used games technology in the PS3. If you can’t play used games on the PS3, but you can on the Xbox 360, then which brand do you think consumers are going to flock to?

The real danger would come when all systems incorporate anti-used game technology. Make your voice heard.