They make noCD cracks for a reason

They aren't the same though. If a person buys games knowing they'll be able to resell them and recoup a portion of their initial purchase price, they'll be more likely to buy a particular game. They may end up selling it to someone else, but that person most likely wasn't willing to pay full price for the game either. They've basically split the cost of the game, which could be considered equivalent to going in with a friend or family member to buy games that you'll both play. The same game might get passed around a bit more through resale, but it probably won't go through more than a few hands before coming across someone who will end up keeping it.
An alternative would be for all parties to wait some months or years to buy the game new at a reduced cost, but that would have a comparable effect as far as a reduction of money making its way to the developer goes. If a large portion of people decide to wait for a significant price drop to get the game, then initial sales will be worse, causing retailers to drop the price quicker for everyone. What's more, the game could be considered a retail failure due to the slow sales, making it harder for the developers to secure future projects. A game bought at full price and sold a couple times could easily bring in more money to the developers then one bought after making its way to the bargain bin.
I do agree that retailers like GameStop who buy games used at a fraction of the initial price and resell them alongside new copies for $5 off aren't particularly good for either the developers or the consumers. Those trading in their games get significantly less for them than they would through someplace like eBay, and those buying them will pay significantly more. Most of the money doesn't go to the developers, or stay in the gamer's pocket to eventually make its way to the developers, but instead goes directly to GameStop. They create an environment that encourages resale, while profiting more from it than any of the other parties involved. Arguably any business that provides game rentals could be viewed similarly, though in that case they at least provide the consumer with a better value, leaving them with more money to spend elsewhere.
When game distribution eventually moves primarily to a digital model, it will provide more control over resale, trading, and rental services, but won't likely increase the amount of money a given person spends on games by much. If someone knows they can't resell a game, or even let a friend borrow it, and that they'll have little use for it once they've finished playing, they'll more likely not be willing to spend full retail price on it either. They'll wait until it sees a price drop, or not buy it at all.

Its a parasitic and ultimately self defeating business model. Legitimate or not, the publishers & developers are concerned with the second hand sales, this will push them into the digtal distribution market faster and they'll eventually stop producing physical products entirely (not that it'll reduce the cost naturally, there'll just be new excuses for why the prices are so high)

I visited local Gamestop yesterday and some kid came with a pile of games. Store guy asked which platform they are for. Then he said that they don't buy used PC games at all. That seems to be the case at least in this local store, can't say if all Gamestop stores in Finland have the same policy. I guess fiddling with online activations, banned keys etc. are a problem.
There is another game store over here that buys and sells used PC games but I haven't been there for ages. I guess I should pay a visit and see how that works and see what's available :)

I believe it's a company-wide policy. I haven't seen used PC games in a Gamestop or EB for several years. The DRM shit is probably largely to blame, but I'm sure they didn't need much of an excuse to reduce the amount of space dedicated to PC games.
There was an EB Games down the street from where I used to live, and I would visit once or twice a week and buy used PC games. Once they stopped carrying those, I stopped spending money there.

You're a smart guy, so you already know the answer. Of course this is the very reason for Steam's existence.
I don't see how anyone can feel that used game sales are the same as piracy. When you sell a used game, you no longer have access to it. Now if you copied it on your hard drive and played it from there after you sold the physical copy, that would be piracy.
Like has already been said, other media IP is sold used , with no outcry from the creators. I guess the software industry doesn't want a fair marketplace to compete in. They just want to push their new stuff without anything getting in the way. Why else can you buy new editions of decades old books, music and movies while games that are only a few years old can be so hard to find. With the advent of digital downloads, there is little excuse to be able to purchase nearly any game that was made.

I don't care what "legally" I bought. I have a physical copy of a media. I am holding it in my hands. It is a physical disc with 0's and 1's on it. That's what I bought. I am going to do whatever the hell I want with it.
Would you say that I have a license of a book rather than a copy of a book? No. It's a copy of a book. I'm not being licensed the right to read it (no matter what the idiotic laws say nowadays). The only difference between a book and a game is that the game needs a translator to make the game data usable to me.
Besides, EULA's haven't been help up in court yet, so there's no one saying that they are legally binding.
Consumer defeatist mentalities depress and anger me.

Besides, EULA's haven't been help up in court yet, so there's no one saying that they are legally binding.
That depends, some have been upheld in courts of law while others have been rejected (usually because they were not accessible until after purchase) but these days, if you ask to see an EULA before purchase, you usually can. So that argument no longer stands up in court, thus any further rulings on legalities of EULA will be down to their content not their accessibility.
That may well depress you, but that's the world you live in.

You are confusing a copyright holder's IP/copyright/patent ownership rights with a consumer's personal property ownership rights. When I buy a physical product of any nature I own that particular copy of that thing in the sense that it becomes my possession. I can use my possessions however I please as long as it is within the bounds of copyright and/or patent law (if a possession is subject to copyrights or patents at all); I can't go making my own copies of that book or cordless drill or car or whatever for obvious reasons--I do not have reproduction rights, only personal property rights--but I am free to transfer its ownership to any other party without restriction because I "own" that possession.
If you honestly think that I don't own--in the personal property sense--my copy of a game/book/CD/DVD in the same manner as I own any other physical possession I feel very sorry for you. Software is only inarguably "licensed" if paid for digitally, where it is treated as a "service" agreement rather than a "product" bought and owned in the traditional sense. In every other situation a EULA is not a truly legally binding document, and many EULA-related cases have been settled in favour of the buyer--oh, sorry, "licensee".
Additionally, all courts agree that a EULA can only bind the buyer (ahem, "licensee") if they themselves have agreed to its terms (however questionable) by personally clicking the agreement button. In my job as a computer serviceman I frequently set up new software for customers, and it is I who clicks through any and all EULAs. The owner has never seen this "license agreement" nonsense (and is typically not aware such things even exist) so they are clearly not bound to them, and because I was not actually the buyer--oh, sorry, "licensee"--my click-through agreement is not valid and does not make me the "licensee" either; the end result is that the customer has all the desired software but has not agreed to anything at all; while they could be held accountable for breaching normal copyright or patent laws covering that software any breach of the EULA would be very hard to defend in court. A while back there was the story of a woman who convinced her cat to click an agreement button (to terms she could not see before agreeing to them!) with similar results. While feline licensing is still a rarity, computer technicians and other third parties clicking through license agreements without the knowledge or explicit consent of the buyer is certainly not.
If buying online or direct from the software manufacturer, perhaps, but if I stroll down to my local electronics store and ask them to see the EULA of a product before I buy it they will look at me like I am some sort of idiot (if they even know what a EULA is in the first place), and they would certainly be completely incapable of accessing a pre-sale copy of the EULA for any of the "licensed" software they sell.
Is the electronics store at fault for not having the EULAs handy? Absolutely not. Even if I actually can see the EULA on request, am I bound to it until I have seen it? Absolutely not. EULAs in fact state that if I do not agree with the terms I can return the product, and while many stores will ostensibly refuse to accept returned PC software it is my legal right to do so under the consumer protection laws of my country (many other countries will have similar laws).

Well yes, but noCD crack is not really useful when I don't have rest of the game, now is it?

It is more appropriate to compare software to books rather than music or movies. Because software is essentially code at the core, it shares most copyright terms with written publications.
Though it is technically correct to point out that one purchases licenses to software, that only really serves a semantical purpose. Functionally, you do own the game. A license should not be mistaken for privilege. That license is yours until you sell or gift it away. If a EULA states you cannot make personal copies, it is invalid. If a EULA states "not for resale," it is invalid. Again, I speak only for Canadians here. It is your responsibility to know your own laws.
And what is all this jazz about Steam DRM? With the exception of Team Fortress 2, I have not had any trouble playing games purchased from Steam, without Steam.

oh, it exists, and I can show it to you, if you like.

Yes, please.

Oh, no need to go to that much trouble. Even just a relevant link would suffice. ;) I am only wondering what the restrictions of Steam DRM are because I can't actually find any. All the limitations seem to be built into the Steam client.