This court ruling has nothing to do with games. It's about PC software and you have never been able to trade in PC games. You'll notice PC games come out at the same price they go for on consoles.

I'm serious, what do they do?

If I buy a game for $60 with the intention of reselling it for $20, I've based my purchase decision at the $40 price point while actually giving the industry $60. You remove the ability to resell, and the apparent cost rises to $60. It's basic economics that with rising price comes lower demand. To maintain current sales figures, they'd have to lower the cost of a new piece of software to $40. Guess what that does to profit?

Furthermore, I and everyone I know who resells games use that money towards future purchases. It's definitely not 100%, I'd bet the industry DOES see a large proportion of the money from used sales. In the current paradigm, the industry gets $60 from the "new" sale, plus an extra $20 in the customers pocket that will incentivise future "new" purchases.

Is there a problem with my logic I'm not seeing? Why doesn't the industry understand this?

It's things like this that make me wish our founding fathers didn't think the Right to Property was so fundamental and common-sense that it didn't need to be included in the Constitution.

This is the same argument, really, that Hollywood is doing with Netflix and RedBox. So what did they do? They make it to where RedBox and Netflix have to wait an additional 28 days before new releases are available thinking that people will run out and purchase a movie instead of renting it. Just because I have to wait longer isn't going to make me run out and buy something, especially when I perceive the item is not worth the asking price.

The cell phone analogy applies. If I buy a product, I have the right to sell it if I no longer use it. And by doing that the company that made the product (whether car, cell phone, or video game) can claim they lost a sale because of it.

Think about it this way: If you want a game, but you're not desperate for it, you wait a few months and buy it at around $45 rather than the initial $60 price tag. Now, the game developers are thinking that by forcing you to buy it at a full retail cost, consumers will just accept the $60 cost to get what they want.

Realistically, the opposite will happen. For years, gamers have complained the price of games has continued to increase far too high. Now, with this forced pricing at retail, you'd likely see a big drop off in new game sales. As a result, retailers will work to lower prices faster to liquidate volume. As this continues to happen, and it becomes apparent to retailers that a lower volume is needed, game manufacturers would be asked to lower MSRPs to compete with the reduction in sales, effectively moving price down. Realistically, we could be looking at brand new games coming out at a price closer to $40 within a year of the ban.

Of course, this would be similar to the price drops we saw on games for the XBOX and PS2 once next-gen consoles came out, as the newer consoles gave the manufacturers the ability to produce games at a higher quality, albeit a higher price point, which we, as consumers, are guilty of paying, since we wanted the games. On the other hand, demand moving away from more expensive games could hopefully also force a reduction in shovelware, and even more important, hopefully a push to those new consoles.