Part of what is factored by the company is that people will lose interest in the game as time goes on. They know that there will always be a few people who will play it to the end, but that number is significantly less than the number of players in its prime. What the resale market is doing, is creating more interest in playing online longer, on more copies than originally planned for. Lemme use some numbers:

Game X is expected to have 80% of its players online for the first year. Expected dropoff is 50% of the remaining userbase every year. This will give you the following pattern:

80 - 40 - 20 - 10 - 5

And this is the pattern they budget for. However, used game sales introduce the game to more people at later dates, without increased revenue from the new sales. So, in this example, I'll say that the trailoff is 25%, not 50%. That would give this number pattern:

80 - 60 - 45 - ~34 - ~25 (Tildes indicate rounded to the nearest whole number.)

Notice that in year 3, the load is more than double expected, and in year 5, when things should be winding down, the load is a whopping 5 times more than anticipated! This is where the loss comes from. Of course, these are just sample numbers, not indicative of actual game numbers, but the used games do keep more interest for online on more copies for longer.

So... they should be aloud to charge for this because they live in a fantasy land rather then doing math based on... you know... reality.    I'm sorry but that's a stupid arguement.

Besides... look at companys like Valve... who do things to activly PREVENT trailing off with games like TF2.

Having more people play your online is only beneficial.

And everything Valve has added/tweaked in Team Fortress 2 has been free and it sells for $30 if you buy the Orange Box or $20 standalone. 

Compare that to $15 Modern Warfare 2 map packs and $2 Bad Company 2 specialization perks.

THis is why I use Ebay instead of Gamestop. I can sell my game for a lot more money and the buyer gets a better deal too.

All this new policy is going to do is make me consider that ticket as part of my buying used price. If the total price is not far enough below the current or expected retail prices in a relatively short time frame, then I buy new. No different than now.

because of the used market the sells of new games cripple companies. have you forgotten developers don't get payed for the sell of yoused games. start buying new and get over it.

I suuport the end of the used game market as it is crippling developers.  And EA's actions seem like a reasonable way to receive compensation from an individual who is enjoying their game from the used market.

if both sides made money off the sell of used games than this wouldn't be a problem. they need to find a way to balance it so it will be fair and profitable to retailer, publisher, and developer. what if the sell of used games caused a very important studio to close? Epic, Insomiac, or level 5 just to name a 3.

My point is... Valve is doing that basically for free... so clearly the cost isn't that great in terms of servers.  They're activily costing themself money.

Not to mention, saying they should be able to do this because they work off fictious math is like saying they should be able to charge longtime players 10 dollars if more of them stick on then they should.

Alternativly, I should be able to ask for 10 dollars back from EA is I decide to play the game less online then expected.

Or you know.... play the game less in general.  Which is why used game sales work for the consumer.  (Well consumers not like me anyway, who want to go back and play pretty much any game at their library years after purchase.)

If that was the case... it would be Epic, Insominiac or Level 5 put out series of bad games that few people bought... and the people who did buy them sold them back because the games were shitty.

If any company goes out of buisness because of Used sales it's a GOOD thing.

Used games aren't crippling anything.  It's bullshit corporate propganda because they want to get away with charging the consumers with more.

Used game sales aren't any worse then the PS2 era... people weren't complainging then.

I mean hell... most used games aren't even purchased until the new versions are hard to find on shelves in the first place... and the used versions that ARE on the shelves before then... are there because the person who bought it didn't like the game.

By destroying the used game markets all you do is destroy your "saftey net" for new buyers.  End result...

LESS people take risks and buy full price games.

Instead people buy less games in general, still buy used where they can, but buy less. 

Which is something else people don't realize by the way.... Used markets spur new sales.

Studies show that virbant used markets actually show an increase in new sales... not a decrease.

Because knowing that you can sell your game back for half price makes the consumer much more willing to risk a purchase on an unknown quanitity.  It's common sense.

Which are you more likely to buy... a 60 dollar product you unsure of but know you can get 30 dollars back if you don't like it?

Or a 60 dollar product you are unsure of but know you can MAYBE get 20 dollars back... if your lucky.

It's even worse if they "eliminate" the used sales market.  They'll be shooting themselves in the foot with it.  Not helping themselves... ESPIECIALLY the smaller developers and publishers who can't live off brand name.

Why do you think it's EA, Ubisoft and Sony leading charges like that?  They want to crush the little guys.