Publishers could measure the amount of people who had played the game against the amount of new copies they had sold:
|"I can take just one example of Heavy Rain. We basically sold to date approximately two million units, we know from the trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it. On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent. And my calculation is, as Quantic Dream, I lost between 5 and 10 million [Euros] worth of royalties because of second hand gaming."|
That was Quantic Dream's co-founder, Guillaume de Fondaumiere's analysis of the cost of used games to his business. To the uncritical eye it would seem that all money lost to used games would go to the publishers.
But if you look at those figures again, there must have been many who returned their copies to generate copies on the used games shelves at retailers. You have to ask how many of the people who bought it new would have bought it at all if they knew they couldn't trade it in? You also have to ask how many would have played the game, had they not been able to get it at a discounted price?
The only logical conclusion is that if you take away the ability to trade games, then a lot of people won't buy your game. You end up damaging yourself and public confidence in buying new games, damaging the industry as a whole.
Personally I find Quantic Dream's games to be as pretentious as the CG actor who plays the dark sorceror in their E3 tech demo. They are nothing more than barely interactive movies, and if you take away the ownership model that allows us to share the works of Kubrick, Dickens or The Beatles, they and other video games could never be considered art.