@Aoyagi Aichou
"Second hand cannot directly benefit the game industry, it has nothing to do with it except taking the money that should have been poured into said industry."
Remind me again how many PRE-owned games never had at least one original owner? By definition pre-owned games must have had one owner to begin with. Therefore the publisher already made money off the sale. What you are suggesting is that game publishers keep getting money no matter how many times a the physical media is sold. In the US of A (where I live), such a proposal actually violates the first-sale doctrine. Once the product is sold to the consumer, the producer no longer has any right to determine what is done with the legally obtained copy. Furthermore, pre-owned is, by definition, not pirated because some already legally bought the product.
"What it encourages are two things: no morals towards the developer and further purchasing of pre-owned games. Again, kids need to be taught patience and not wanting everything right now, especially if they can't afford it. Especially the kids in the US."
Huh? Again, since the publisher already made money on the sale, how is it teaching kids not to have morals? The way I see it, charging people to sell a product that you already made money on is immoral. And where I live, waiting until someone sells a game so you can buy it used teaches patience. Since when did this turn into bizarro world where up is down and black is white?
"I haven't heard of any case of "I sell games to be able to afford new games""
Well, here is your first one then. I did at several times. When I was younger and poorer, I sold games I no longer wanted to play to pay for new games and didn't like enough to keep. The store would pay me more if I turned around and bought another game with my trade-in. I did it several times. And if the store gave more value for purchasing new games, others must have done it too.
"I'm basing my thoughts on this on many discussions on the subject and various inputs from the game journalism and alike"
Yeah, like they won't be neutral and unbiased ... (rolls eyes).
How would you feel if Microsoft and Apple required a person to pay a fee every time a computer was sold to someone else? Paying a fee to publisher to buy a game is the same concept really. In both instances the original creator already made money. Since they already made money on the product, why should they entitled to make more money every time the same product is resold?