Forgive me while I talk about a real life game for a bit, rather than video games.

"The NCAA was founded in 1906 to protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices of the time.

The rugged nature of early-day football, typified by mass formations and gang tackling, resulted in numerous injuries and deaths and prompted many college and universities to discontinue the sport. In many places, college football was run by student groups that often hired players and allowed them to compete as non-students. Common sentiment among the public was that college football should be reformed or abolished.

President Theodore Roosevelt summoned college athletics leaders to two White House conferences to encourage reforms. In early December 1905, Chancellor Henry M. MacCracken of New York University convened a meeting of 13 institutions to initiate changes in football playing rules. At a subsequent meeting December 28 in New York City, 62 colleges and universities became charter members of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS)."

The above is from the official history of the NCAA as posted on their Web site[1].

A little over 100 years ago, American football was so dangerous, the President of the United States stepped in and made those in charge adopt new rules to protect player safety. In the wake of the New Orleans Saints Bounty Scandal[2], many talking-head ex-football players keep telling us non-football-playing folks we "just don't get it." This is the culture of the NFL, they say. Defensive players are coached to take out the other team's star players. Adding a little money to sweeten the pot may sound thuggish, but it isn't really needed. Defensive players are all just head-hunters anyway and we should accept it as a part of football.

Well, let's read between the lines, shall we?

With the release of Kingdoms of Amalur, many comparisons are being drawn between that game and Skyrim. These comparisons are inherently unfair to both games. While both are large, expansive RPGs, they are extraordinarily different.

Skyrim is the latest in a long line of open world, sandbox, first-person RPGs from Bethesda. You can go through the game without touching the main quest. You can level up doing nothing but crafting. You can even play the game without killing anything.

Kingdoms of Amalur is a prototypical, linear Action-RPG. It is, in fact, what Dungeon Siege III should have been. (Are you paying attention, Obsidian?) It's a gorgeous game, but it isn't trying to be the realistic window into an alternate universe that Skyrim attempts (and mostly succeeds).

The biggest comment I'm continually seeing, in reviews, in opinion pieces, and in forum threads, is that Amalur's combat is "better" than Skyrim's. I disagree. Wholeheartedly.

I'm a pirate. No, not the kind that sails the seven seas or posts games on the Internet. No, I buy used games. And, for that, I'm considered no better than a pirate by game publishers and industry pundits alike (1). A great many analogies are bandied about during these discussions (including the well-worn and never-fitting car analogies), but no one seems to focus on the one market that is most like games: DVDs. Like games, DVDs can be resold and retain their intrinsic value (a used DVD is no different in quality from a new DVD), yet the used DVD market is almost non-existent. Why?

Price.

The used game market is large because new games cost way too much. I can buy three new games for $60 each for a total cost of $180. Or, I can buy the same three games used for $55 each, less a 10% discount for having a Gamestop Rewards card and during a Buy 2 Get 1 Free sale and spend a total of $100 for the three games. That's a BIG difference in price.

Price, inevitably, is what drives almost every game purchase I make. I don't buy new or used based on preference, only on price. When Gamestop marked down Batman: Arkham Asylum to $20, I bought a brand new copy. During Target's after-Thanksgiving sale, I grabbed shrink-wrapped new copies of Final Fantasy XIII & Killzone 2 for less than $20 each. From Amazon.com in the week after Thanksgiving, I purchased heavily marked-down copies of NFS Hot Pursuit and Uncharted 2 GotY. The "problem" I have with buying new games is not their newness, but their price.

When I do plunk down the $50 or $60 for a new game hot off the presses, I usually finance it by trading in games I no longer play (2). This is an oft-overlooked dynamic, the used game market not only provides a method of buying games for less money, it also offers consumers the ability to decrease the cost of buying new games. The used game niche, then, is an integral part of the overall gaming market.

The used game market also offers security. New games cannot be returned. Buy a $60 game and you don't like it? Tough. You can't get your money back, but you can get at least some money back by trading it in. Cut out the used game market and fewer people will feel comfortable purchasing an expensive product that cannot be returned if it does not meet expectations.

I can understand why publishers don't like the used game market. I don't think the existence of used games drives up prices on new games; to the contrary, I think if used games didn't exist to provide price pressure, new games would become even more expensive. If publishers really want to move more new games, there are three solutions (and a good strategy would be to employ all three methods)...