This will actually mostly affect the *sellers* of second hand games, I expect.

This is sadly the truth...

Incorrect. The person buying the second-hand gamer is DIRECTLY responsible for the majority of new game sales. In short, the fact that the initial user knows he can sell the game after he is done with it increases sales beyond a fixed model such as Steam or GOG, where all purchases are final and fixed.
It's a basic version of telology, effect - cause.

I'm sorry at what point am I incorrect? The part about people buying it second hand are complaining the loudest or the part that all versions are the same game minus some extras?
Also are you trying to say that people only buy games new knowing that they will be able to sell them on in the future? In that case you are the one who is incorrect as there is NO second hand market in PC games at least here in Ireland. I'm pretty sure Ireland is not the exception to that rule.

I really appreciate them doing this to be honest. I'm tired of people saying "Oh, I'll just never support the publisher." if it's a game they really want or things like that.

Yeah, I also got into the whole "screw you, EA !" attitude when I saw the title, but then I read the article, read the comments here and figured out just what happened.
EA sells game X to user A. EA gives stuff Y for free to people who bought X from them, including A. A sells X to B, B doesn't get Y for free - he has to pay $10.
Sounds fair to me.
Most of the time - this only works in retail. Releasing games online is cheaper. Whether it's cheap enough for people to forsake the idea of resell-ability - remains to be seen.
I'm inclined to think that DD is the way to go and all the items that you may get in retail (manual, physical disk, collectibles) can either be self-made (printing, burning) or ordered separately (like the wonderful [url=http://us.blizzard.com/store/browse.xml?f=c:5]plushies and figurines from Blizzard[/url])
Ummm... Nope, sorry. Teleology is about having objective purpose. You may want to resell a game but reselling is not something a game intrinsically seeks... I guess ;P.
Still - I like you... kinda. You make an effort to use the kind of language and thinking I do. As long as you seek the truth and not merely try to fool or manipulate people - I admire that.
While I don't really want to argue with what you're saying at this point (partially because I'm in a hurry), I just wish to ask you a single question: who in their right mind buys games at launch ?
What you said makes a lot of sense and is pretty much a reason I'm waiting for GotY of DA:O and the likes... but the whole point behind doing DLC is using the money from sales to make a small and cheap (or even free) product that's less than an addon but more than a bugfix. If this model fails - we're back to square one with no DLC.

Yeah, shame it still costs the same to buy...
Err, lots and lots of people do. I'm one of them when its a game I'm certain I'll like, Mass Effect 2 (Will buy addons), Dragon Age Origins (have bought addons & will probably buy more), Assassin's Creed 2 (MIGHT buy addons), Batman: Arkham Asylum (won't buy addons unless they're story driven)... lots of good games that have been well worth getting on day 1. Heavy Rain is the next one I'm buying on launch day and I damn sure expect to be buying the addons for it.
Sure you end up getting better value waiting for a game of the year compilation but think how much better the value will be if you only wait till 2020 and buy Mass Effect 2 on GOG for $6! There's a point where you have to just put a dollar value on the content and entertainment you expect to get out of a game and buy it when it's price is at that level.
10 Check Price Of Game X
20 If Price <= Target price Then Buy, else wait
30 goto 10

You're assuming that the only two options are DLC as it exists now and simply not seeing the content at all. I think what is more likely is that if the DLC model as we currently know it proves to be a failure then we'll simply see most of what would have been zero day DLC being part of the core game. Remember, to convince people to buy a product you need to offer them good value for their money; more content, more value, and thus more people who consider your asking price reasonable.

Wouldn't that loop have you buying the same game over and over again? ;)

Nah, it.d be a subroutine after "do I want this game?", if yes then it'd run that purchase sub, otherwise it'd not bother.
That or you'd be repeatedly supporting the industry

You know - I was biting my tongue to not mention Blizzard. They release "patches" years upon years after the game is released and provide lots of additional features...
Still - it's not really an issue of 0-day DLC. Screw that - I never liked things like The Sims 3 store anyway. When I think of DLC, I think of things AFTER the release that are bigger than a patch and smaller than an addon. No point in selling it in retail but you may make a few bucks by selling this online. I'm not sure if it would be better if we had none of that and simply gotten either and expantion pack or nothing at all...
Of course - Blizzard still stands as a role model - I'd LOVE to see this kind of free, obligatory DLC...

How is it fair that an artist doesn't get money from the resale of one of their paintings? How fair is it that authors make not one penny from the resale of their books? Why is it nobody in any industry makes a profit from second hand sales beyond the original owner and whatever middlemen they chose to use? Why are you placing publishers on a pedestal above all others again?
As for the walking advert for premium content in a full price title, if you're willing to overlook that then there's no surprise you worship game publishers.

Why either? I can wait. I've got plenty of other games to play after all. So why not wait until it's both cheaper and has more content?
I've got no problem with DLC that is handled in the same manner as expansion packs. For instance: the Fallout 3 DLC that I bought each of on release. That's how DLC should be. Not 0 day crap they're only separating from the rest of the game to screw over others. EA have released a shitstorm of DLC in such a way as to ensure that the only way to get all of it would be to buy the game twice.
When your 360 red rings, you have no rights to the DLC on your replacement console. At best you have to wait an age for MS to transfer it. Those that don't suffer red rings won't be affected. But that's like saying 'those whose feet never come into contact with the ground will never be affected by blisters'.

I never heared other branches of the entertainment industry complain about second hand sales.
Not authors, not musicians nor other artists, not movie companies, etc.
In the music and movie industry they're trying to battle piracy and are happy enough with 2nd hand sales as it shows people are actually willing to pay for their content.
EA for some weird reason thinks they have the right to make money on 2nd hand sales.
Weird and obviously a wrong idea that instead of fighting piracy will actually encourage piracy and will cause initial sales to drop.
Why pay full price if you know you can't sell the game?
You're going to wait till it's cheaper of if you can't wait you'll download an illegal copy.
EA should be glad with people buying 2nd hand games as those people are willing to pay for content if they think the price is right.

Most of you have already echoed my sentiments on this issue, but two things really stand out to me:
#1) There has yet to be a GOTY edition of Mass Effect #1 that bundles the two pieces of DLC together with the main game; It's been two years since the original release.
#2) DLC in it's current form can be abusive to the customer.
Examples:
* XBox (original) DLC servers were recently taken offline resulting in customers losing access to DLC they purchased.
* Much of recent DLC requires online verification that you're the owner in order to play. This results in the customer needing an internet connection in order to play their games (sucks to be you laptop gamer!)
Without hard facts to back me up, I'd guess that we may be seeing less GOTY editions as time goes by in order to increase sales/interest in DLC as it's released. If you can't get a "complete" edition later, you're stuck buying it a piece at a time if you want the DLC content.
* Dragon Age: Origins's Warden Keep DLC (advertising a paid DLC option within the base game). I can't think of a more blatant reminder that I'm not playing the "complete" version of a game, even after I just installed the most expensive retail edition available on day 1.
I've heard the argument that the DLC was in a dev pipline while the main game was under certification/QA/etc: Fine, alright, but why the bloody hell does BioWare have to go and stick the DLC salesman in the finished product to remind me what I didn't get with my brand new game? That's just being a jerk.

*awesome network animated swooshing logo*
This just in: People don't work for their employers out of goodwill and a need for social contribution!
APPARENTLY, people are greedy and want to increase their own assets...and then, once they have, they want to do it AGAIN!
Also, has your pet joined a "drug cult"? More at the top of the hour!