I still cannot understand this logic. Suppose I would be willing to pay $35 to play a particular game. Its retail price is $50. I will not buy it. If, however, I could resell it when I'm done for $20, then my total willingness to pay is now $35+$20=$55. I choose to buy the game, with a net gain to me (a "consumer surplus") of $5. Every dollar I lose from inability to resell is a $1 reduction in my willingness to pay for the product in the first place.
It is true that the existence of used games means that some people who would have paid $50 end up paying $20, and that the producer of the game does not get any of this $20. This is not unique to video games, however. This is, in fact, true of all goods and services that can be resold. If you buy a painting for $1,000, and later resell it for $1,200, the painter does not get any of the $1200. Suppose there were a law prohibiting resale of the painting. Then the original buyer would be less willing to buy it in the first place. The painter would make money on resales, but he would make less money on the original sale.
The same holds true for video games. If I know that I cannot resell my game after buying it, I am less willing to buy--my willingness to pay is lower. Do video game publishers and developers really think they will make a great deal more money selling all games for, say, $30, and prohibiting resale? I don't see how.
So, then, what is the reason why publishers and developers take this position? Are they simply mistaken? They should know what is in their interest better than I do, but companies do sometimes ignore good opportunities and use flawed reasoning. Is there some other reasoning I missing? Maybe the companies pushing this position feel that reducing used game sales would somehow give them a competitive advantage against other companies, rather than helping all game companies.