It doesn't matter what Nintendo would appreciate, they aren't law makers. And they never should be. When you start writing laws to appease corporations, you are effectively dooming your economy.
And neither should it be huritng Nintendo's loyal customers. Nintendo did not give the item to resellers... they gave the item to a distribution network and established a price. What individuals choose to do with Nintendo's items does not in any way reflect on Nintendo as a business. If somebody is going to judge Nintendo based on the actions of an unaffiliated third-party... that person is a fool. And again, it does not matter what Nintendo wants people to do with their items. That is a moot point in conversation of legality. As is whether you would personally want to buy something from an individual seller. That is your prerogative, not a court's.
Nintendo doesn't need profits from second-hand sales--they made their projected profits on the initial sale. As far as Nintendo is concerned, their product sold out and they recovered their funds.
Is it really a bad thing to purchase items you know will give you an edge later on? After all, you can use the money from that game to buy more games. It fits within the established arena of the white market and is a victimless action (You legally purchased the item, you legally sold the item, you did not beat people with a cane to get the item, you did not hold a gun to their head to make them buy the item). As far as I can see, it takes one sale which profits the manufacturers and retailers, creates another sale which profits the reseller who then uses that money to purchase more items from other resellers, retailers and manufacturers. I see one item generating a reveue stream and keeping money circulating. That's usually a good thing.
And neither should it be huritng Nintendo's loyal customers. Nintendo did not give the item to resellers... they gave the item to a distribution network and established a price. What individuals choose to do with Nintendo's items does not in any way reflect on Nintendo as a business. If somebody is going to judge Nintendo based on the actions of an unaffiliated third-party... that person is a fool. And again, it does not matter what Nintendo wants people to do with their items. That is a moot point in conversation of legality. As is whether you would personally want to buy something from an individual seller. That is your prerogative, not a court's.
Nintendo doesn't need profits from second-hand sales--they made their projected profits on the initial sale. As far as Nintendo is concerned, their product sold out and they recovered their funds.
Is it really a bad thing to purchase items you know will give you an edge later on? After all, you can use the money from that game to buy more games. It fits within the established arena of the white market and is a victimless action (You legally purchased the item, you legally sold the item, you did not beat people with a cane to get the item, you did not hold a gun to their head to make them buy the item). As far as I can see, it takes one sale which profits the manufacturers and retailers, creates another sale which profits the reseller who then uses that money to purchase more items from other resellers, retailers and manufacturers. I see one item generating a reveue stream and keeping money circulating. That's usually a good thing.