Why the people saying used sales should be eliminated are wrong.
Legally speaking this should not be allowable, at least in the united states. There is something called the first sale doctrine that says once i buy a product it is mine to do with as i wish and the developer has no further stake in the sale of that item. No one is talking about this being an issue in any other medium where a physical copy of the cd, dvd, book, or whatever is bought. These are the comparable mediums.
Unfortunately, video games have one key difference. They have the user liscencing aggreements that we are forced to accept to playthe game. Unfortunately, these essentially take away the consumers rights under the first sale doctrine, merely stating that we actually purchased the right to lease their game, not the game itself.
This is morally speaking, and from an enforceability standoint a very grey area. Essentially this is the equivalent of you buying a book that was sealed in a box set before you bought it that you could not possibly have looked at before purchasing and then chaper one beggining by saying "now that you own this if you want to read it you have to aggree that you no longer own this."
Or to put in a less confusing way imagine you buy a basketball. After you pick up that basketball and dribble it the basketball informs you (i am not sure how it informs you but it isnt really important) that it can only be used to play regulation basketball games. No pick up games, no 4 on 4, 2 on 2, horse, etc. now since you already started dribblng the basketball it is used and the store you bought it from has a policy that says they will not accept the ball back. Since you want to play basketball you go home and play horse with your friend. Next thing you know someone takes your basketball away and threatens to take you to court over misusing your basketball that you paid for and at the time of purchase had every reason to believe that it was yours, no strings attached.
Essentially that is what buying video games is becoming, after the point of sale we have the full rights to do anything we want with that game, up until the point where we actually use it, and then are left with no choice in the matter. In no other medium would this be considered acceptable or even be considered as a viable option. It is completely and utterly ridiculous in every sense of the word.
It also in a large way contradicts the origin of the first sale doctrine. The origin of it was a book company inside of their books stated that their books could not be resold for less than a dollar. Macys after purchasing the books directly went against this and sold the books for cheaper. You could make an argument that what that book company was doing is exacty the same thing video game companies are doing, that is telling you after purchasing your product that you have to use it the way they tell you to.
Obviously because of this this is a legal, in addition to moral gray area, and one that at this point would not even be considered in any other medium for physical copies of it. This trend is not by any means what should have been happening all along, it is an infringement upon the lawful rights given to consumers over how they may use the products they purchase that could potentially have far reaching consequences down the line if not opposed.
I whole heartedly despise IGN. Bad reviews and incorrect information.