Have you ever bought a used car? Do you frequent those loveliest of places, second-hand bookstores? Will you be wearing, at some point soon, a cherished article of clothing purchased from a sweet lady at a thrift store?

If you have engaged in any of these practices, welcome friend, to the bustling reality of trade, an element of society that goes back to the Stone Age.But hark, the thundering hooves of evil approach. Microsoft and its busy little pals in games publishing want to put an end to the trade in used games, or at the very least, make it so difficult that it's not worth the effort.If recent reports are to be believed, they want to kill the trade in used games by adding technology to new consoles, like the Xbox 720, that lock-out games that were originally bought by someone else. As

Kotaku

points out, the details of Microsoft's plan – if it even exists – are sketchy. But there is no doubt that games companies are hell-bent on destroying used games.This is just the latest move in the game industry's war against second-hand games, which are an absolute staple of many gamers and of the retailers that act as middle-men between consumers and producers.

Loading

Now, let's be clear. There is an ethical issue at the heart of the used games business that's well worth contemplation. When you buy a used game, none of the money goes to the people who actually made that product. You are, in that solitary transaction, depriving a game developer of royalties, wages, investment bucks that he would have gained had you bought the game brand new.Secondly, there is a discomfort in the specifics of almost all these transactions. Retailers take a disgracefully large margin from used games. Anyone who has tried to buy a used game, say, a few weeks after its initial launch must have experienced that gasp of incredulity at the sheer chutzpah of a retailer that tries to screw $5 less than the full price. And then, straight-faced, they will offer a handful of peanut shells for your used game that you bought last week, on launch day, and happened to finish very quickly.But none of this stands against publishers actually blocking a fundamental human right to trade in the goods that they own and have paid for.Here we do get into a technical discussion about the nature of a product. We do not buy copies of Microsoft Office second hand. How is this different from a game? But equally, we do buy used DVDs. How is that different from games. Clearly, it's okay to sell your vinyl collection, but not ok to sell your iTunes music.These are arguments best left to lawyers The fact is that we have been buying, selling, trading, swapping, lending and gifting used boxed games for over 30 years and used physical entertainment for centuries. At this point, yeah, we think it's our right.There is, obviously, an inconsistency in the world that downloadable content is not trade-able, but it does not undo the tradition of trading physical product.There are other arguments. Trade outlet MCV, which represents the interests of retailers, has a good Op-Ed today on how used games keep the games business ticking. In these ferociously difficult economic climes, the ability to trade games is the thing that allows us to buy new games. Many consumers make this same argument based on their own realities. If those gamers stopped buying new games, the policy of war against used games would look Pyrrhic.The argument that used games deprive creative workers from income is a good one. But let's get real here. Most of the creative little people who profit directly from the things they create are making their dough from downloadable games and mobile apps.It is more realistic to imagine that any extra profits drawn from an end to the used game markets winding up in the pockets of fat-cats, rather than the wage-packets of hard-working games developers.This is bad for consumers, bad for gaming and bad for the very people who have embarked on this crazy war.

Colin Campbell is head of News & Features at IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.