The title is pretty self explanatory, coming from this (Mike Smith, Yahoo! Games) short article.
To sum up, the first two restrictions (single-use codes and multiplayer restrictions) require an additional fee if there is a new owner, while the last two restrictions (digital games and install limitations) have no (legal) workaround at all (i.e. the game is useless after first sale).
It seems like some people in the (non-open-source, non-technical-legal) media finally get why DRM is bad for content like books, music, and video games.
Historically, publishers have only had control over the first sale (and nothing afterwards). These same companies would make quite good profits with this.
However, it seems like many video game companies are becoming especially greedy and intent on taking away consumers' rights to do whatever they please with their purchased property. Now, video game makers not only have control over first sale but over every other transaction afterwards (of that game).
This will kill the highly lucrative used video game and video game rental industries, which have to fork over huge chunks of their revenue just to continue operating (or face the possibility of not being able to operate under any circumstance).
It's the same reason why DRM on music will kill the used music industry (similarly, eBooks with DRM).
Stop the madness now. DRM may increase short-term revenues of companies, but in the long-term, there will be fewer purchases of video games (due to these ill effects) and as a result the industry as a whole will shrink.