There have been a few games recently that have included a code for unlockable content that can only be used once, which means that anyone buying a pre-owned copy is unable to get the content or to need pay extra for it because its been used by the previous owner.

This is without a shadow of a doubt the publishers/developers way of putting people off pre-owned games because they make no money from the re-sale of games. For example, in Mass Effect 2 there is a code for unlockable content, if you buy a pre-owned copy where the original code has been used, you have the option of buying the content for 1200MSP, making it just as expensive as buying pre-owned.

Do you think this is fair for gamers? Do you think the developers have good reason to try and hamper used game sales? Do you think this is a under handed tactic where the gamer is being punished instead of the used game retailers?

I never bother downloading shit like that, especially not for a shit game like Mass Effect so they can go ahead and do it all they like.
It's not like I'd buy it if there wasn't originally a code. DLC is crap.

In the case of Dragon-Age and ME2 it stopped me buying the game in the 1st place on day one. I knew that as soon as I used the code the trade in value would plummet. It may stop people trading it in, but it also stops people buying it in the first place.

In terms of buying a used copy, Gears 2 came with a map pack code and look how quickly it was being sold used for £20.
The used game retailers are not stupid, they will drop the used price to compensate.

As long the DLC isn't for any important shit, like the end level of the game or whatever (I heard some shiz somewhere that EA was thinking of it!) then I don't care much.

DLC for shiny guns/armour/vehicles etc. doesn't really bother me I'd still buy pre-owned.

I absolutely welcome it.

As much as I abhor crap DLC and seeing pay for DLC on day of release, I abhor the second hand market as well.
It is because of the short sightedness and quick buck greed of high street chains that we are hurtling towards a download only future. If there had been a way for publishers and developers to get a cut of the second hand market things may have gone a different way. But games stores have shot themselves in the back in foot and face over this.

I totally understand why they are doing it and I applaud. I will never applaud bad DLC, but I do think this is a good idea and good for the games industry, I wish they had thought of it sooner.

I appreciate what your saying Ugly. But what you say is good for the gaming industry, I and many others see as fucking over the consumer.

Its like buying a car and not being able to sell it on. Or having to keep the wheels.
They are turning owning a game into a glorified lifetime rental.

The second hand games industry is screwing us over a lot more than the publishers are.

You see second hand games in the chains like GAME going for silly prices and being sold over and over and again for the same price. All profit for the shop, sweet f/a in the way of cashback or trade in for the consumer. Whilst the second hand car market is a sound analogy (of course any form of second hand market is sound) I just 'get' publishers frustration at at the market.

I agree with you, but but that the market and that's the way it's going. I firmly believe that if shops had used a bit of foresight years ago, cut a deal to give a small percentage of second hand sales bask, the future would be very different.

As said above, as long as it wasn't necessary DLC. I think Bioware really got it right. They were decent add ons, but in no way affected the game if you chose not to. The price could be better for those that choose to pay though.

Lets not forget the real villains of DLC. Today I saw on the Marketplace, a download for Dantes Inferno to buy 5000 souls so you can upgrade armour, now that really stinks.

The consumer will eventually buy the game if they want it. The publshers / developers did the hard work getting the game to us so they should get the financial benefits of the sales.

The publisher will not see it as the consumer getting ripped off, more like the consumer will pay a price for which it was intended and they will avoid being ripped off themselves.

This will become a bigger problem wen truly shit games which people trade quickly carry no trade value because of used unlock codes. Then it can be said that we where ripped off in the initial sale by a publisher that knows their product is poor.

So long as it's clearly stated on the box, so you know what you getting/not getting, I don't see why people should have much of a problem with it.

I think its not a bad way of rewarding the first time adopter of the game, however if it was something critical to the game that impacted drastically on the story, and were saying if you dont buy it new you dont get the full experience of the game, then id maybe have a problem!

The real problem is as said above, the pointless cashins of pretty much doing away with the old school up down left right abc together, and having to "pay" essentially for 'cheat codes'