What it boils down to is the concept of buying and selling a product, regardless of the products value. Whatever that product is, you should be allowed to resale it (IE: sale used) after you purchase your product.
No other industry complains about used product sales, not even other media industries. (Although this current "used" game discussion does resemble the discussions of used/rented movies back in when movies first hit the home movie market.) It is basically just growing pains for the gaming industry and will, eventually, be settled...by the customer.
As is usual.

pkt-zer0 : I fail to understand why ONLY in the gaming industry do developers need to make profits from one title multiple times. In every other industry with used sales, the developer of the product spent the same massive amount of capital on research, development and production, just like a games company, yet only do game companies whine about losing profits fue to used sales. You need to explain WHY they deserve to have it any differently.
And, by the way, if these same companies would stop charging outrageous amounts of money for their products and stop focusing on intensely high end graphics that maybe 10% of PC owners can even run (thus clobbering their own market) they would SELL more new copies. However, rather than innovating and evolving, they complain about used sales.

Thats why I never bothered with crysis. With the money I spend on making a rig that runs the game on very high I can get a console and a high def tv, maybe even a cheap surround sound system.

Using that same logic: Why should you pay for a game at all, when you can just pirate it for a lot less money?
It is the exact same from the viewpoint of the developer. How is it unfair?
In which case, piracy isn't any less moral.
But see, that's still pretty irrelevant. Try looking at it from a viewpoint of usefulness. I, for one, wouldn't really like to see a dozen more sequels to <name of generic console shooter here>, and would much prefer the quirky, new, innovative titles. That gets harder with more and more parasites leeching off gaming, and the situation is bad enough as it is - no need to feed the parasites even more.
Oh, I'm sure they will - I'm not sure I like the idea of paying a subscription fee for single-player games (or transforming everything into MMOs), though.
That's all fine and well, but as far as I can see, you've failed to answer the question I initially posed: Why is it better that, for example, Gamestop gets the all the cash from used copies sold rather than the developers?
That works in the other direction, too. They don't innovate and evolve because it's risky. You can't take large risks when you have to sell an immense amount of copies to be profitable. You need to sell large amounts because
- customers demand shiny graphics, which costs a lot
- you only get a fraction of the customer's money thanks to all the useless middlemen

Meh, I was just providing an argument, devils advocate, and all ya'know so.
but what you said has made me feel positive about stealing games now though. hahahaha.

Because the first approach is perfectly normal and legal, while the second is considered a crime? You need a different reason?
I really don't see much sense in that question. Developers were already paid, when the first person bought a game. There is no reason at all for them to be paid again because someone wants to sell their product, just like we don't pay Volkswagen when selling our used car.
As for Gamestop itself - they came up with the idea of buying used games and reselling them, they invest money, time, storage space, they pay taxes, employ hundreds of people and are a small - but important - part of the economic system. They should get the money rather than the developers, because:
1. Devs have no right to that money whatsoever,
2. People want to use Gamestop's services.
That's all the reason you need in a free market environment. If the developers want a piece of that cake they should start a similar business of buying used games and reselling them, not whine about how the second hand market hurts them and doing everything in their power to stop it. That's competition for God's sake. Gamestop has the right idea, the developers don't. Gamestop gets the money from used sales, the developers don't. As simple as that.

Legality, huh. There was a time in the not so distant past when domestic violence was perfectly legal and socially acceptable. I still don't see much point to it.
See, I think the reason to buy games is that the developer gets compensated for their efforts, so they deem it worthwhile to continue making games. No "they don't have any right to that money" or anything, it's simply in your own interest to pay for games if you want to see them continue being made. And yet, some people actually do have the cash to spend, and choose to turn around and not support the developers anyway, but some third party instead.
Competition? If all that results in is less innovation and more risk-averse content producers, then as a gamer, I don't think that's "the right idea".

oh, and just to note, I'd rather by second hand console games, than pirate them, because i could get banned from xbox live if i pirated them.

And I don't see point of your comparison. Domestic rights change over time. The right to own property and do what you want with it stays more or less the same over the course of human history. And yes, stealing was always a crime.
It's funny how you completely ignore the fact that the developers were already compensated for their work. Sorry, but if you want to change the rules that were in existence long before we were all born, then you better have a damn good reason. So far I've seen nothing that would convince me to renounce my right to buy and sell used property.
And I think that developers should spend less time thinking how to maximize their profits, and more time thinking about innovation in their games. They got lazy, and now they want to be paid extra for that? Don't think so. And contrary to your beliefs, there are still many worthwhile and original games published every year. So if one developer can create something original then the rest should either work harder or change their occupation.
Oh, and by the way - competition always stimulates growth. To say it works the other way... well, that has a stench of communism on it, and I should know, living in a country that spend half of the last century in that kind of political system.
PS. God, what is wrong with quoting system on this board?!?

And yes, if you want to equate depriving the developers of profit to stealing, then buying used games is stealing as well. Already been there.
Would the following numbers be a good enough reason?
"Across the 2006 fiscal year, GameStop saw a gross profit of $651.9 million as a result of $1.36 billion in used video game and hardware sales, with retail sales of new software and hardware achieving gross profits of $504.3 million on $3.09 billion in sales."
Yeah, GameStop actually makes 30% more profit than those making the game. Are you entirely sure that's perfectly well-deserved?
The "chicken or the egg" situation of this I mentioned already. Innovative and niche products only make sense if they break even, and with a higher percentage of sales not flowing towards the developers pockets makes that more difficult.
Anyway, I don't believe it's innovation that people weigh when deciding whether to buy a used or original game - they think "it's five bucks cheaper", and that's about where the train of thought stops.
Even competing with your own product? Don't think so.

Oh, so people that bought those games in the first place didn't... buy them? Is that really what your saying? Or is GameStop selling illegal copies downloaded from the internet? Because there is no other way of "depriving developers of profit". They got paid already, they won't be paid again - as it should be, and as it is in ANY industry in the world.
Yup. Free market and stuff like that, you know. You want to sell your product well? You make it damn good. Otherwise your customers will be selling it for you, on the second hand market, or not buying it at all - again, as it should be.
Great - if they want to buy it cheaper then they find someone who sells it cheaper - legally. Everything is fine by me. That's the competition I already mentioned.
If you're too lazy, or too incompetent, or simply too stupid to create things that are BETTER than the ones you already created then you can blame only one person - you. As I said - work harder, hire people with greater imagination than yours or find yourself another job. Funny how those rules of business are known to every single person doing anything creative, and it's only the games developers that have a problem with it. You create something with high quality at a reasonable price, or you go out of business. I pay money for something, find out it's crap, and you can be sure I will either be returning it or selling to someone that will find the quality adequate. I buy something high quality - why would I want to sell it to anyone?
Tell me - is the idea "make something good and get paid for it" really so hard to grasp? Or are you just a blind follower of "I make crap, but I invested money in it so I MUST make a profit"? No one has ever any guarantee they will make profit. If someone's making more money than you are, then you are wrong in your conduct and he's right.

You say "any industry" - care to provide some numbers to back it up? Where do people reselling your stuff make more profit than those who create content in the first place? Furthermore, why should they? That would discourage content creation, and that's no good.
How is quality a significant factor here? I don't suppose people buy games second-hand because they're inferior, simply because they're cheaper. It's not as if those guys would go "hey, this is a really good game, I guess I'll buy it new instead". Heck, I'm not entirely convinced that they're well-aware they might as well be just torrenting the game, as far as the developer is concerned.
Also, you seem to contradict yourself a bit here. Cite quality as the reason for buying second-hand here, and later state that it's fine by you if people buy them solely because they're cheaper. Which is it, then?
We're speaking of second-hand stores reselling the exact same game, you know. It can't be better than itself.
Would that "reasonable price" be "free", then? Stick almost any price tag on a game, and Gamestop can still sell it used for five bucks cheaper. You can't push the price down as much as you want without any consequences, either, innovation suffers the same way in that case as well.
Quite the contrary. All I'm saying is that if someone makes something good, it's them that should get paid for it, not a bunch of greedy businessmen.
So tell me - what do you, the gamer, gain from the retailers getting their pockets stuffed at the expense of the developers? Small-time devs get screwed over, publishers see to it that less risks are taken with innovation - how is any of that good?
Selling stolen games, employing people for horrible wages, and using insane markup on the stuff you sell is not what I consider proper conduct.

just wanted to jump in here and point out that gamestop does not have a 100% profit margin on used games. they have to buy the product they are selling used, you know, with actual money. in other words, they're not getting the product for free.
oh yeah, and one other thing.

Current situation:
Publisher puts out a new game: Price $40
Potential buyer thinks: That is kinda expensive, I wonder if I can afford to buy it?
Potential buyer realises: Hey, I can always sell it as used when I get bored with it. I can probably get $15 for it, so the real price for me is only $25.
Potential buyer buys the game for $40. $20 goes to the retailer, $20 goes to the publisher and the developers (or however that works).
4 months later, games sells the games to a 2nd hand reseller, and reclaims the $15 (and promptly goes to buy a used game, thus keeping the 2nd hand sales alive).
With no 2nd hand sales:
Publisher puts out a new game: Price $40
Potential buyer thinks: That is kinda expensive, I wonder if I can afford to buy it?
Potential buyer decides not to buy the game and instead rediscovers a game he bought 2 years ago.
Publishers gets $0 and realizes that the price-tag is to high and is forced to lower the price to $25.
Potential buyer decides that $25 is a fair price, and buys the game as new.
Retailer gets $10 and publishers + developer gets $15.
Now, how is this better for the developers?

Ok, sorry but this is my last post in this discussion. As I see it - I have the right to buy and sell every property I own. Developers can whine all they want. They make quality games, I won't sell them. They make crap - I will get rid off it as soon as possible. You haven't written anything that would change my mind. Until such a time comes when I'll be paying Ford for selling my used car you can be damn sure the devs will not see a penny from my second hand buying and selling.