The thing is, they can't pull the no used game bit off for one very important reason: That will actually increase game piracy.
Why do you think they actually care about that? Yes, that's the official reason that gets flaunted around but you don't exactly see them go into fits over the security leaks related to the semiroutine occurence of pirated copies being available before commercial release. Or comment much at all about the reality that consoles are far from immune to piracy.
The reason for this is really quite simple. They'd make it necessary for even legally purchased products to be cracked just to function.
How so? Registering a license to the device doesn't cause any problems for all purchases they see any profit from, and is the increasingly standard approach.
When you buy a used game, you've already paid for it once, you sure as hell aren't gonna pay for it want to pay for it again.
The principle behind DRM, in actual practice, is that you do pay for the same piece of software more then once either on the basis of each individual having an individual license or in order to use it on different devices. More importantly however neither a console producer or a game manufacturer sees anymore profit from the sale of a used game then a pirated copy. The only difference between the used game market and the piracy circuit from their standpoint is they technically can't bring criminal charges against the former.
What benefit do used console or game sales bring to the producing parties? What benefit does rentals when the more traditional chains ala Blockbuster are disapearing and the surviving entities tend to be those who deny them profits thanks to making a point to operate around reselling? Remember Microsoft and Sony's strategy has been to sell hardware initially at a loss while marking up everything else so they make a net profit on hardware through TCO instead of the intial investment. This is very important to remember as it's the core of their strategy.
I'm not saying it's right or wise in the bigger picture, but in terms of business from their perspective, your objections don't make a lot of sense. They're in this market to make money. They're a business, not a charity.
I don't think they'd be quite that stupid yet.
Why would you assume past performance->future performance black box business analysis would pay that much attention to the facet you're focusing on? Especially as console software vendors are already engaging in these kinds of efforts? As far as I'm aware consoles don't have an equivalent of GOG, trying to counter these movements so where's the advocacy group that'd grab their attention enough to acknowledge this facet and give it weight versus doing what they think protects _their_ interests.
And let's really get at the heart of the matter. Let's say Microsoft and Sony do this full stop, every title. You as a console game now have the alternatives of using Nintendo's Wii U and PC, or caving. How do you think that will actually breakdown? Particularly when the latest Call of Duty is routinely one of the best selling titles.
On the other hand there's nothing to say this isn't just the stuff of good rumor bait.
