I believe your right on the money . I have a different angle to explore for discussion:
Reggie said, years ago, that this industry cannot survive on a model where the consumer buys software to play with it once or twice. I am paraphrasing, because this was a video interview from around 2005 (I believe).
Fast forward to recent times. A big game comes out on Tuesday. Back when I would preorder locally, I would be unfortunate enough to visit Gamestop two weeks straight (I love preordering online now, call me anti social, but I like buying stuff without being asked to buy more stuff). On that second week, I would see several copies of this game, that is only 7 days old, back on the shelf in the used section. Someone traded in their $60 purchase for $30 or so of credit. This is insane for many reasons, but let us ignore the obvious financial ramifications, and focus on the fact that someone got bored with the software in 7 days or less.
I would get bored of the game in this span of time too, but I would shelve it, replay it later, or so on. If it was terrible, I would wait and revisit it later (this was rare, as I would wait for reviews instead of preordering random stuff).
Now, I would not see quality titles back en mass. There would always be a few back, but not the quality games. Mario Galaxy never came back until a good while later (maybe one, two copies at a time in 2008). In other words, Nintendo does not have high used game turnover (in all likelihood, or they would be on board).
However, games with shiny graphics and little depth are always back, for $5 bucks less. Guess what people buy?
Well, as the turnover ratio for used purchases of that title increases, the ROI of that title decreases for the publisher. The solution? Quality over quantity. 1 Madden every 3 years with roster updates. That would not make as much money as DRM.
More Off Topic Discussion Points
DRM may backfire. That's right. Little Timmy could take Madden 14 and get credit towards Madden 15. Now he can't. Uh oh. Now Timmy has to mow lawns, beg mommy for money, or go seek gainful employment. If Timmy goes outside to do these things, he might decide something else is worth the money he was going to use on Madden 15, like little Susie, the dog walker in the neighborhood. Alternatively, Big Tom, Timmy's dad, might be so upset that he can't unload his out of date Battlefield 4 game to get Call of Duty 17 (w/ Bomb Sniffing Tuna!), that he decides to use his new Xbox to watch TV. Upon seeing Timmy's interest in Susie, Tom sells the Xbox to a friend. The cycle repeats.
Once that bottom line contracts, the policy will stop. Thoughts?
I hope to God it backfires. Everyone in the industry need a smack of common sense.
Make quality games, take risks, and by doing so focus less on making things prettier, but rather on making them fun to play. You lower costs, make money, and will probably have more fun (god forbid) than spending development rescources in making next gen arm hair physics..