Completely false. Used game trade-ins subsidize the purchases of new games, and consumers are both able to buy more new games because of this and are more willing to do so because they have trade-in value so they aren't risking all $60 if they don't like the game.

Stupidity is hurting the gaming industry, and if this or any other industry needs to destroy property rights in order to survive, then it can die.

Not true. When a used games is traded in, it takes a potential sale away from a new game. You can have an endless cycle of users trading used games for other used games and only gamespot making money in the process.

Also you can trade games at Best Buy and buy a TV for example. I've done it...

I already said before, if publishers feel that they are losing money next gen, they just need to rise the price of the games($60 to $70 for example), and profits will remain at least as before.

BAN LIBRARIES!  They are preventing publishers from taking chances with books!

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=162989&page=1#

That will once again not solve the cancer that is the problem but just postpone it. Only games will be heavily invested in to which will sell on day 1...since all gaming companies want those first day sales before the used games cycle begins.

Also Andorid and Apple devices are offering games for 1/10th the cost and some of them are pretty comparable. They can't afford to raise the prices. 

First, I'd just like to say kudos on a very well thought-out post. I personally happen to disagree with about 99% of it, but you do seem to be passionate about the subject and took the time to lay out your argument quite succinctly, without any fanboy craziness or name-calling.

About my disagreement, it boils down to this. There is nothing, and I mean nothing that could ever convince me that a game publishers NEEDS to double, triple, and quadruple dip into a consumer's pocket to ensure that they remain in business. If they truly need to eliminate used games to survive, then their business model is fatally flawed anyway.

This argument seems to hinge on some unique, intangible aspect of the video game media that somehow makes it different than any other producer/consumer model of commerce. I just don't see any truth to that argument. In every other industry - even other entertainment media industries - that fact that a consumer who purchased a product can then turn around and sell it or trade it does not spell certain doom for said industry. Why are video game publishers special?

The motion picture industry has not been killed by used Betamax, VHS, DVD, or Bluray movies.
The publishing industry has not been killed by used bookstores or libraries.
The music industry has not been killed by used CD sales or (rampant) mpg3 file sharing.
The automobile industry has not been killed by used car dealerships.

In every one of the above industries a consumer is able to purchase a new product (and actually OWN it) and can then trade it in, lend it to friends, or sell it used.

The only reason game publisher are crying poverty and blaming used game sales is that they are trying to grab as much UN-EARNED money as they possibly can from consumers while hoping they are too dumb to notice. Sorry, they earned their money when their product was sold the first time. They aren't entitled to ongoing profits after that initial sale. I've no doubt they really really WANT that profit (any business would) but it doesn't make their rationale for eliminating used games any more valid.

If there were no used games at all, the polarization would be remarkable.  You'd have people paying full price on only a couple of games a year, which would ONLY be blockbusters.  Your Halos, CoDs, Uncharteds.  Everything below that threshold, and above downloadable titles, would disappear.  No one would try anything new.  No new IPs, no mid-level games.  Most people would simply not be able to take risks.  Beyond that, you'd have people playing a LOT fewer games overall, which would possibly lead them away from consoles in general.  The player base would fragment and fade away over time.

This could be combated with cheaper prices but the problem is that the industry wants the consumer to bear that burden.  Microsoft hinted that if everyone followed along, we MIGHT get cheaper prices eventually.  That's backwards.  The consumer does not have to put up with the cost if the industry wants to go in another direction.  Start with the cheaper prices and then we'll talk.

The real truth of the matter is that the perils of used games could be reduced dramatically overnight.  All that would need to be done is to make digital content significantly cheaper than retail.  Add "trade-in" credit on digital that matches what GameStop offers for a disc and they could kill used games.  However, they won't do that, because they want to keep retail happy.  Microsoft's crappy system was all about giving the big boys like GameStop a cut while completely destroying the little guys, such as the trading sites I like to use.  It wasn't about the developer, it was about controling the market.

Used games can be done away with naturally just by making digital a better value, which it SHOULD be, anyway.  When they're ready to do that, then we'll know they're actually serious about giving funds back to the developers.

I hear ya...but do you like playing the same games and franchises being made on a yearly basis? Same gameplay styles and ideas over and over...Games that are considered failures if they don't break first weekend sales records?

I would accept buying and playing less games if I knew these games will offer better and more quality content. Stuff like Dead Space 3, Gears Judgement...shouldn't exist. Relevant ideas in these games and franchises ran out long time ago. 

In a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem but what can you do...

This is assuming that those people would be willing to pay retail price for a new game. I might not be willing to spend full price for a new title, but by the time the retail price has gone down, I might not want the game at all as I have moved onto other games that I am more interested in.

A better solution to used games is the Steam model. I believe that you have made this comparison yourself in terms of the Xbox One, and I agree. If Microsoft did go that route, the DRM would be much more appealing. Personally, I never buy games at full price on Steam, but when they're 75% off, I'm a lot more tempted to get games that I otherwise wouldn't have bought. I am willing to give up used games for this type of steep discount, where I can get relatively new titles for very cheap.

Your entire point is false and misleading.

A high % of almost every used game sale goes back to a new game, especially in places like Gamestop where they are actually "trading" for new.

Used games also help new/young people get into gaming when they have very little cash. This helps future new game sales when they get to the point they can afford a new game.

Remove used gaming and you'll actually lower overall game sales.