So, let's see if I get this straight: It is better than software breed like rabbits and spread all over, with no restriction on the amount of copies out there, and dumping games be used to get money to buy more stuff.  It would be better I keep games I don't want, and then make a copy for someone else that wants it, and they do the same, then the game leaving my possession? 

What the used market does is enable people to eventually be able to get new games, by getting ride of games they no longer want.  And let's say for example that cars were created like software, and that they function the same whether new or 20,000 miles on them?  Would we then have to look towards having it so that people would have to damage their cars somehow?

People in an industry which have business models that don't generate sufficient profits, end up complaining about the nature of the market.  The videogame industry has set itself on a path to try to be like the movie industry, WITHOUT there being an outlet like theaters, which allow them to recover their production costs.  They are doing this, while also seeing costs to make a AAA going up, because not only do they have to be concerned about shooting a movie, but also adding gameplay, and they have products with very little replayability to them (story driven games).  The end result is that they are on razor-thin margins, because they believe that the world has to go along with their schemes on how to make a game, and pay for it.  And they complain over and over.  First, it was piracy.  Now that piracy isn't an issue for consoles, they complain about used game market.  Stop that, they will then target game rentals.  Because the produce disposable products with production costs that are getting larger than films, without the added revenue of box office, they are at a place where they do this whining.

I will add here that, while I take issue with the whining about used game sales, I do NOT have issue with the industry offering free DLC for people who buy new, or work on other things to encourage buying new in a positive way.  I also believe it is a good idea to keep providing more content for people to download, that they can pay for (see Borderlands), as the price of the product drops on the shelves.  A perfect feature here would be that the people who bought and pre-ordered the game first, get all the content during the life for free.  As the price of the game drops, and more used shows up, that content is paid for by those who buy it used.  What the industry needs to do is figure out how to keep products out of the used area for as long as possible.  Add value, don't whine and pressure and bully.

I think they do understand this which is the real problem. Games are getting more expensive, gamers expect more for their money ( for example a lot console game in the past could be complete in less than 5-6 hours  but now gamers complain about a game only lasting 6-10 hours) yet it harder to find those who are willing to paid the full price for the game. Like you just pointed out most find ways not paying $60 for a new game by trading a used game. This is good for the new game sales until of course you turn around and trade in that now used game.

Its better for the publishers in the measure that the pirate will NOT buy the game anyway, but the gamer that goes to the store is SURE TO BUY THE GAME. They see it as WORSE, because they are losing that sale of a real POTENTIAL customer, willing to pay for the game.

Its the same problem that we have saw before, a PIRATED copy is NOT equal to a sale (I think everybody agrees with this). The studies and data tell us that its around 100 illegal copies will generated a 1 legal sale (no I don't have a link right now), but a USED copy will likely mean that the person was ready to pay a good amount of money for the game, and if they choose a USED copy because its 5-10 dollars cheaper (and the store shove it down your throat), the only one that its winning its the store, not the publisher.

The idea its that the used copy ONLY 5-10 dollars cheaper will not be as temptive to the PAYING customer as a new one, because you will have to pay 10 dollars extra to get the same content as a new one. So the options are YOU BUY A NEW ONE better (this is what the publisher wants) or the store offers the used one CHEAPER and this will take down the used market profits helping SLOW THE PROMOTION of the used copies (that its also good for the Publisher).

The people will not lose the chance to sell their used games, only that they will get less money for the games as they NOW worth less as when you buy it. The trick is (looking at your car example) that the used market its not costing as much money to other industries, because there its a natural wear down of the products, and its also not as promoted by the same sellers of the new cars.

That's not really trying to do anything about it.  That's like spanking a customer who bought a used game and saying 'don't do it again!'.  They need to do other things, such as better incentives to buying a new game, actively fighting companies who sell used games or better yet...why don't they seek to find a profit sharing system for used games?  Steam did it?  If they're not going to fight these companies anymore and just complain, why don't all these companies band together to generate profit off of secondary sales from major retailers like GameStop, Steam, etc.  Something like $5 for every game sold for $30.  $ for every game sold used for $20.  Etc down the line. 

Not only would it generate more money for the companies if they were getting a few bucks from each used game exchange, but it might put pressure on these used game stores to start focusing on more new titles as less used ones.

The length of a game isn't a problem, it's about the overall value. I could beat old games like Mega Man, Streets of Rage, or Mario in under an hour, but we were still fine paying $50-60 for these titles. Since buying these games, I couldn't even say how many hours I dumped into them, since I beat them so many times.

Basically, the older games never get boring, which is why they're worth buying, and more importantly, keeping. The same can't be said about most games today, as they're more focused on shock value (graphics), storylines, or other things that get old after a while. When a game is disposable after you have already played it once, it deserves to get torn up by the used games market. It's that or offer some other cheaper way to play the game, because people aren't going to pay full price for it, and they shouldn't expect as much.

I have no problem in principle with EA's $10 fee for online if you buy a used game. Online is an ongoing service cost, and everyone who uses it should pay their way. Be it XBL fees, a proportion of the price of a new game, or a one off fee for people who have bought used games. I am totally fine with paying $10 in this situation if I know about it before choosing to buy a used game.

The fact I rarely play online means I'm not likely to have to fork out. But for games like Demon's Souls, LBP, LBP2 and MNR I would pay such a fee gladly. Of course I like those 4 games well enough that I'm going to buy them new, but there will still be planty of others who want to buy those games used. And I may buy the odd used game that I end up wanting to do a bit of online play (I'm only really interested in online coop).

But that is what they are doing. They are giving you a 10 dollar incentive to buy a new game over a used one AND are fighting companies who sell used games hitting them in the place where they hurt more, the wallet, because they have to sell the used games for less money, because the product USED is inferior to the new one, that way they get less profit from the used market, and maybe it becomes better to sell new than used.

This is absolute BS.

For proof, one need only look at the way all other goods are bought and sold. When you buy, say, a piece of furniture, or a house, or other durable goods, the maker gets all the money they're entitled to. When you turn around and sell it, the maker is not entitled to a cut of the proceeds from this second sale. Neither is the game maker entitled to anything whatsoever from the resale of an honestly-gained copy of a game. This is called the first-sale doctrine, and it serves to ensure that IP sales work as any other sales do. It is good and just.

This is as opposed to piracy, when a copy is made and effectively stolen: by rights that copy should belong to the maker, but it is never rendered up to them. Thus, they have not gotten what they are entitled to from that copy, and so theft has taken place.

That's not a good thing however.  That's not hurting the sellers of used games, that's hurting the consumer.  If you go to a store and buy a new game, that's great for you.  You bought a new game and get all the benefits of buying that new game.  But if you go to the store 3-6 months from now and want to buy that ame game, and they no longer print it, then you're completely out of luck and HAVE to buy it used and now cannot get that extra content that only came from the 'new' version of the game.

That's how you breed negative sentement from customers, not hurt the sellers of used games.  Over the long term, it could actually benefit the sellers of used games as those who practice this type of service may lose sales.