I maintain that there is no sane argument which can justify punishing those who buy used games. The used game has already generated a sale for the company to begin with, and the maximum number of hands a used game can pass through are heavily limited. Attempts to reduce the value of a used game where no good technical reason exists is arguably a violation of the spirit of the first-sale doctrine, and should be treated as an affront to the paying customer's right to do whatever the hell he or she pleases with the game after the first sale.
I've read time and again, that such moves are about control - content creators increasingly wish to use technical means to restrict where, when and how their works can be used by the consumer. See Assassin's Creed 2 and Rise of Flight, for example, where a constant internet connection is required to play the game, even though there is no technical justification to do so. Expanding on what mike_intellivision has pointed out, the entertainment industry at large (the video game, movie, and music industries alike) see themselves as selling to us not their works, but a non-transferable license to use their works. A license subject to their terms of control, which can be revoked as they please. Why should we, the legitimate customers, allow the industries to treat us with such contempt on the pretext of reining in the bogeyman of the software pirate?
Super World Cup Fighter II: Championship 2010 Edition
