Hmmm, this is an interesting scenario. Whilst I certainly agree that trade-in culture has helped to over-devalue many solid games (such as Dead Space, which can be had for a tenner. Also, there's Final Fantasy XIII, which is already only £18 at amazon), we must also consider that;
Trade-in is probably responsible, at least partly, for the massive uptake of new games. How many people can honestly afford to regularly buy new games upon release? I know my now almost totally-new games collection would be nowhere near as big if I had to pay £40/$60 every single time I wanted to expand my gaming horizons (especially given that a large section of titles, especially on the Wii, are nothing like £40 worth of gaming fun). Instead, I can trade-in a few completed or unsatisfactory games and save some serious money (if I do it right). I, like thousands (possibly millions) of other gamers around the world, can now afford to take a much more active 'consumer role' in the rapidly expanding gaming industry.
Trade-in culture recycles capital within the industry. Not only does this itself strengthen the new market (as mentioned above), but it also creates room for thousands of new jobs that provide a genuinely useful function: choice to the 'consumer' (us). Obviously, with more people employed this is also good for economies, which can only improve with such a wide distribution of wealth.
More choice (via trade-in and pre-owned) is probably a really good thing for everyone. When you hand over your £40/$60 for a game, you want to know that you're getting a quality title. There are ways for 'sussing-out' the quality of a game, but you never really know until you try it out for yourself how you'll get on. At least with trade and pre-owned, the risk is much-lower, meaning that in order for a game to sell well 'new' it needs to be a quality title, and usually with 'legs'.
But, I do support the thinking behind what EA has proposed. I don't agree with the precise measures because I think simply diminishing or disabling a viable option from consumers isn't really on, and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I do, however, think an option, such as 7% of pre-owned sales going back to the individual publishers from retailers as a show of thanks for creating this revenue, might be a better measure.
EDIT: Of course, Gamestop, or whoever, don't mind this new move because the effects on them will probably be minimal and so they can carry on raking in the big bucks with pre-owned knowing full well that they owe all of their revenue, even pre-owned, to what developers and publishers produce; and the publisher can't, or won't, do anything about it. But to the average 'trade-in Joe' (aka, the targets of this new scheme) it might be a bit different (especially if other publishers start doing the same thing).
)
