So, used games are bad (edited)...
Okay, so we know that digital content isn't like physical property, and this allows for exceptional abuse in the producer/consumer relationship. Consumers have the ability to copy the product without permission and trade it without the publisher getting money for those additional copies.
So we have copyright to protect against this. Why should this be tolerated and respected? Because it puts developers and publishers on the same level and terms as those who produce physical products, and that is fair. They now get to operate in the same overall fashion as other businesses.
But now they think they have the right to be treated differently? Now they insult our intelligence by characterizing this as "cheating" them when they are, in fact, trying to "cheat" us into giving them special treatment? Now they want to exploit the unique nature of digital products in their favor. Why should this position be respected?
Does anyone actually have a good answer for that question, because I see nothing so special about the game industry that it should be entitled to special treatment.
(No, I don't buy server costs for the online features as a valid argument. That's affected mostly by bandwidth, and that's affected more by total playtime than by number of players. A person who really likes a game and plays it heavily will likely cost as much as a string of players who buy a particular copy of a game used. In both cases, the publisher received the same amount and will likely endure similar costs.)
Besides, game industry, you've crashed before and have come back. If you decide it's right not to care about some of your fans because they have purchased used games, why should they care about you? No doubt you'll rise again, and maybe next time, you'll give a damn.
I just had the misfortune of reading many of the comments to this article made by questionmark1987. His views actually remind of the goblins in Harry Potter.
I really don't think this guy has considered the implications of the fundamental change in the ideas of ownership that he's advocating. What would happen to recycling under that notion? What would happen to most ordinary transactions under this concept of ownership? How much would just the record-keeping cost (and how many people would have to be occupied by it [Ooh, look solution for high unemployment (but only by putting a lead weight on the general standard of living)])? His idea may be fine in theory, but it's just completely impractical and unworkable. We hardly need to be bogging down our economy with this kind of crap.