Videogame execs are a bunch of crybabies

But that's not how it should be. And there IS legal precedent to say that if a EULA is sufficiently abusive of a consumer's rights, it may be tossed out or amended by a court.

If I buy a book, I have the right to read that book, and the right to SELL that book. Not to distribute new copies of the book, but to sell that specific copy.

If I buy a DVD, I have the right to play that DVD and I have the right to sell that DVD to someone else if I no longer want it. In DVDs specifically, this right was reaffirmed by the US court case NEBG vs. Weinstein, which held that the first-sale doctrine did apply to DVDs. I see no legal reason why games should be different.

What makes games different from, say, DVDs?

Edit: I also suggest reading up on two US Supreme Court cases, Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus.

Oh, and some states (including my own, Maryland) recognise a sale of a copy of software as a purchase at the point of sale, which infers the rights of an owner of a copy, including the right to resell that copy. And if a EULA is not disclosed prior to the sale, that EULA may be considered unenforcable. Now, I don't know about you, but generally, I only see EULAs when I pop a disk in for the first time and have to click "agree" to install the game - as in, well after I purchased it. Or at the least, there's a legal blurb on the insert inside the game's case - which still generally means you've opened it already, which you generally can't do without buying it first (or at least, I get funny looks at Wal-Mart when I open electronics cases in the aisle, and they don't seem to believe me when I tell them I was interested in the legal notice).