He's got very good points, and I can see where he's coming from, but gamers who pay attention to internet gaming media like ScrewAttack and TGO are vastly outnumbered by those who blindly shop at GameStop for the newest used games (at $5 less than the new copy), and don't care about how that affects state of the gaming industry.
Relying on the hardcore community to care enough to do some alternative shopping might not be enough to offset the sheer numbers GameStop puts out, compared to what developers and publishers rake in. As a result, we get publishers trying to recoup money lost to used sales, such as EA charging an extra $10 to access online multiplayer in a game bought used.
I'm not ready to let the publishers off the hook just yet. They've taken to acting like victims about used game sales for a long time, but have largely refused actually actively
compete with the used market. Meanwhile, they're also sniping at the gamers themselves by implementing things like EA's Project 10 Dollar and then saying "We have to do this because you folks don't buy games new." In any other industry, whining about how much you lose sales while making no effort to actively compete is laughable.
When it comes right down to it, it's a three-sided conflict.
At one side is GameStop, whose used sales make up a major part of their profits. However underhanded it may be, their business practice is legitimate and has made them a ton of money.
At another side are the gamers. The majority of gamers
don't care where their money's going, and frankly, they're given no reason to. All they see is one game for $60 new, and the same game for $55 used, both
identical in content.
At the third side are the publishers, who make themselves out to be the victims, but have done a precious little to compete with the used market, and nothing at all to make Average Joseph Gamer care about where his money's going.
(I wrote
an article on my gaming blog about this a while back that gives a bit more detail to my stance.)