Great idea, and won't be one thats too hard to implement. But that would cause another problem, this would mean that every console would "require" some sort of daily online authentication. Say you pair a physical game to your console (so its basically a digital game), then decide to sell that game. The only way to make it possible for the new owners console to know if that game is tied to another console is to go online, crosscheck the games ID with whats on their database and then restrict the game from being played if its still tied to another console. At the end of the day, too much hassle, unless you are ready to do exactly what MS was trying to do with DRM. 

Just so happens to be though that MS took it a little too far and also showed exactly how DRM like that could be abused by the platform holder.

I say they should keep physical games as they are now, but just give us more options with the digital stuff.

I agree 100%.  I have a steady job and have no reason to sell my games back.  I have $60 at disposal all the time so I have gone all digital this gen because I can play my game at midnight (with PS4 preload) and not have to camp out to play it at 3am (disc download).  And I don't have to switch disc.

However if you are a gamer on a budget, I hate it for you because i forsee and all digital future.

Has your iTunes music library from a decade ago disappeared? Well same exact thing will be true for digital games purchases.

Of course, in the instance of a company completely failing in their gaming sector and basically going out of business without selling the division beforehand, you may lose all your digital purchases. Likewise, for both Sony and MS, if your account is banned for some reason, they will disallow you from redownloading your own games, which is a completely archiac move on their part, and unless more people call them out on this, they will most like not change that rule.

That's not the case with Steam though; your games are yours forever to redownload regardless of anything that may happen to your account.

how do you resell them?

They don't have to go door to door to do that kind of enforcement with digital content to begin with. It's simply a matter of deciding when and how you can access it and play it, which can be done entirely on the platform holder's end. And your ownership of those games is by no means permanent, as they're not going to keep the networks up forever to allow you to redownload content that you delete, or that is lost to hardware failure. Physical copy mitigates both of those issues.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there.

I wasn't anywhere near as apprehensive about, say, online multiplayer, or the move from cartridges to discs, or the introduction of anlog sticks for 3-d games. In all of those cases, the benefits far outweighed the potential downsides. Streaming services don't sound anywhere near as beneficial; the potential for lag and network downtime locking me out even in single player titles doesn't sound very enticing at any price, assuming that the pricing and offerings for such a service would be good in the first place. Even with digital downloads, I'm far more price conscious than I would be for phyiscal copy because of the inability to resell games I don't like and recoup the investment.

Some changes are just better than others.

Your last point is precisely why game companies are trying to push for digital and streaming services. To put it simply, the whole reselling and renting of games make the current business environment very unsustainable for the game developers. You can try and bring up analogies to make your point why this may not be the case, but gaming business is unique because there are not many revenue generating sources like there are with movies, music, etc.

Reality is, something like PSNow can potentially be way better than the current service in a few years, and it could act as an added revenue generator for game makers, but the initial negativity of such service by consumers is perplexing and it shows again that gamers, in contrast what most would say, are reluctant to anything they are not familiar with.

Yes, both PSNow and internet infrastructure, plus the pricings all need to sorted out first, but even then, there will be a backlash because the current status quo are more familiar with most consumers. But just like how for $5-10 bucks per month you can get unlimited music and it's a way better value than anything before it, $10-20 for all released games is fantastic deal, regardless of simplistic issues such as lack of physical ownership.

if we can trade digital games, im going all digital.

Considering all the problems that the industry is having making money, I have a hard time believing that shifting entirely to a Netflix-style service will help matters much. The movie industry has ticket sales, DVDs and Blurays to supplement streaming income; services like Spotify hasn't stopped the music industry from selling CDs or putting albums on iTunes. Streaming makes far more sense as a supplemental service alongside physical and digital copy than as a means of replacing consoles outright.

But frankly, I'm under no obligation to support industry practices because they make more money for the companies in question. That has nothing to do with whatever issues their business tactics force me to deal with as an end user. I don't own stock in these companies or work for them.

I purchase each game on a separate account, then sell the account...