1. You have no rights to content not given to you. Its pretty clear really, you buy what they offer and if they choose to make part of their offer an online redeption theres nothing impinging upon your rights and they are within their rights as a seller. They can make a game and cut it into three parts for $60 each and they are still within their rights. They can make a game with almost no content on the disc and they are still within their rights. Your rights extend only to the point where you can accept their offer or decline their offer based upon what they are giving you.

2. As a seller they have no responsibilities at all to anyone buying their games 2nd hand. No warranty is implied and no assurances are given that the content for the 2nd, 3rd, 10th buyer has to be identical to the content provided by the first. Just as no warranty is given to 2nd hand purchasers, no service plans for cars etc this also applies to games. Again like above you can factor this into your decision as to whether or not you want to buy the game used or new. The responsibility here falls upon the buyer and buyer beware is the order of the day in the second hand market.

3. People who tend to buy games and trade them will also tend to buy them used from Gamestop. Its $50 with the loyalty card and another $5 on the trade back. So this means that a typical used game may go through 5 or 6 hands before someone finally keeps it. In terms of the economics of the situation, any money made by Gamestop is at least mostly money not made by publishers. Even in a perfect scenario where someone who buys a game and then sells it used and that copy is bought used but never traded still nets less money for publishers and more money for Gamestop. The money returned to the ecosystem is less than the margin Gamestop makes.

I do agree that somehow the household or family members should be able to use the same content.

But for right now, I just let me wife use my gamertag then.

These are all technically correct statements, but they don't address whether or not this is a smart idea.

I buy Uber-duber Movie 3 on Blu-ray and bring it home.  I plug it in to my Blu-ray player and it says, "to view some of the special features you'll have to go online and enter this code".  Crap.  Why am I being asked to take this extra step to reach the content I just paid for?

A month later I take Uber-duber Movie 3 and try to resell it, but the used movie store only pays me half the usual price because the movie was designed to be more expensive for used buyers and that's driving away customers for used copies of Uber-duber Movie 3.  Crap.

Jim sees my copy of Uber-duber Movie 3 and picks it up.  He gets it home and discovers that the only way for him to see any of the special features is to buy them for an extra $10 and wait for them to download.  Crap.

Sure Studio X saves some money on second-hand sales of Uber-duber Movie 3 but they pissed off customers in the process.  How long will Studio X get away with that?

Thats all covered by "You can take that into account when buying new or used". Besides this it will never happen with movies because the used market isn't significant for titles costing $10-20 and Blu Ray piracy using standalone players is very difficult. With games extra content is pretty much a given and its been a part of the industry for over 15 years.

A signifcant amount of people ALREADY pay 5 dollars more.  Those $55 dollar sales aren't really common.

As stated... by Kyliedog who actually disagrees with me on this... stores that do this just order preorders and then nothing else.

In such few cases where the 55 dollar sale is made... people don't have the choice to buy new anyway.  Unless they preorder... which most people aren't going to do anyway.

People pay the 5 dollars more for new because it's 5 dollars to avoid a LOT of hassles caused by buying used.  If 20=12, 55 clearly = 60.  Which should of already been apparent had you read my posts.

Except you know... it's infringing on consumer rights and what they expect out of a product.   The correct answer is... not long.

Also, extra game content is a given that's been part of the industry for over 15 years?  Since when?  This didn't start until late PS2.

Expansion packs for the PC. They have been around for ages, probably almost 25 years as im thinking something like the old shareware model and episodic games.

How exactly is it infringing on consumer rights? The consumer who buys new gets access to all the content provided. The consumer buying used has no warranty and no obligation of customer service from the publisher. The consumer who cannot go online cannot take advantage of the offer but is in no way infringed upon.

Expansion packs are large ass things that are practically entire games.  It's not remotely similiar.

As for how it's infringing on consumer rights?  As has already been stated... dozens of times it's devaluing the NEW buyers purchase by hurting it's resell value for no good reason.

It'd be as if Ford made it so their car had a computer which only let your car go 55 and under unless you were the new buyer.

It'd be more like if Ford made it so the fancy key ring with the cool door unlocker only worked with the fingerprints of the first buyer. Thats a closer analogy.

Its increasing the value of the new purchase for everyone who buys the game and it only decreases the value on resale for those who intend to sell the game back because a part of the value of the item is 'used up'. Which actually brings the game market in line with other markets where the value of the product declines with use and its utility is lower as a 2nd hand good. 

And still you know... WRONG>

It doesn't increase the value of a new purchase.  It's taken value away from a used purchase... because this is something that was previously given away to all in previous versions of the franchise.

It's not EXTRA.

Besides, your next point is just completly wrong anwyay.

There are TONS of used markets that don't have product decline that support the new market... ones already mentioned here... another one?   Art.  You think if it was illegal to sell pieces of art if your not the creator... people would buy nearly as much art? 

Used market supports the new.  By hurting the used market you hurt the new market.