I think we're using different senses of the word 'wrong'. I wouldn't say there's any *moral* wrong in resales, but it's destructive and shortsighted..
Please show evidence that its destructive. I've given a real example how a used game actually helped; I somehow doubt I'm an anomaly, although I couldn't tell you how often similar situations happen, I'm certain they do.
Also, essentially no developer agrees with you that it helps sales... and I'd imagine they'd know.
LOL, they don't. It's a simple economics problem, which is that we really don't understand people's decisions not to buy something. At best they have educated guesses, but that's about it. If the only way to buy a game is "new" there are going to be people that simply stop gaming (I'm ignoring the casual market, as its likely a large number never were willing to pay for a computer / console for gaming + the $60 of new games). Some that would buy the game would wait for the price to drop anyway, so yes the company would then get paid for that copy, but nowhere near the amount as when the game is $60.
Actually that's one of my problems with not having a used market; what is the incentive for the developers to ever lower the price if there's no used market?
These companies have MASSIVE amounts of information at their fingertips that we don't see, all kinds of data collection and analytics. They know what games sell, and they probably have a fair idea of how many people playing are resales (from comparing unique IDs to sales, etc). And again, business. If resales helped them they'd be all over it, but in fact at Trade shows they actively make fun of the position you're taking and go out of their way to mock Gamestop specifically (bitter mockery, I'd add).
Like I said, they don't really know. All they know is someone bought their game used and it pisses them off they didn't get what they believe they are entitled to. Its the same as the tv / movie people that hate that you and your friends can rent one copy of a movie and it will be seen by say eight people.
Content companies have done this before; they said the VCR would destroy TV / movies, but how did that turn out?
They have nothing to lose either way, except sales... so why are they so adamantly against something you claim actually helps them?
They need something that's not their fault to blame if they are losing sales. Remember we're talking about AAA games here, not the industry as a whole. If the devs can blame used games, they become a victim and their stockholders won't hold them accountable for it. But if they're losing sales to causal games (people's time is limited; time I spend playing angry birds is time I can't play the newest $60 AAA title), or simply making bad games, well that is something that they can control / adapt to, but it means they need to change, and some people are very resistant to change.
