I still fail to see how this is a great tragedy for the developer, used games don't just appear in the market, consumers have to purchase those games before they cash them in for credit. When we're talking about an online gameplay model it means that the original owner is no longer occupying that network space. You removed a value of 1 and now you have 0, the copy makes its way back into the hands of a new gamer and now it's in use and it's been allocated long before into the original pricing model (Yes the $10 hike in the next-gen meant to cover additional overhead)

The problem with the design of the system is that it's just a way to pocket extra cash on the side for sales they already received. You say that the $10 won't drive someone onto a street corner but over the history of modern gaming these used game sales haven't sent these corporations to the poor house either.

The editorial has a painful slant to it with little consideration to the history of the industry or how the sales structure works. They make their money up when they sell to the retailer, it's not on units sold to consumers. If Gamestop buys 200,000 units of Mass Effect 2, they (EA, Bioware) make that money on the spot and the challenge is up to Gamestop to move those units to make their investment back.