Anti-used gaming policy is good for gamers.

[Mummelmann]

No, it's publisher and developer friendly, not consumer friendly. There really is no argument for how this benefits consumers in any possible way.
Imagine if a car manufacturer were to go the same route and state that people who purchased their new vehicles would only be allowed to resell them through the means of the original company which would get paid again for the same product, even if it's a smaller part than the first one, with the plea being that without this arrangement they could go out of business.
I don't think many people would consider that fair to the customer at all, only when we're talking about video games is this even feasible since it's not taken seriously as a product on the same level as many other things.

If you run a business that could topple entirely because someone sells your products second-hand after they've owned it themselves for a while, you're quite simply shit at running a business and need a new gameplan.
Developers and publishers need to start putting the budget where it matters and stop with platform exclusives, or even timed exclusives, now there are two things that are hurting the industry.

Defending DRM and/or anti used games policies as "consumer friendly" shows a real lack of ability to reason and a lack of understanding of what the term "consumer friendly" implies. Anything that strips consumers of freedom of choice, control over their own owned property and the resale of said property or any form of strict restriction, be it digital or otherwise, anything mandatory showed down ones throat simply for owning a product or subscribing to a service is NOT consumer friendly. It's not that hard to see.