It's not JUST maintenance and bandwidth. $10 dollars per every user after the first is perfectly reasonable when you only see revenue for for one out of every five people that paid for your game.
This is an utterly nonsensical way of looking at the secondary market.
Resale value is part of the value of a game. Reduce that value and you reduce the likelihood of someone buying it in the first place.
A used sale isn't a lost sale. A used sale is something that's baked into the cost you charge for the item in the first damn place. Resalability is a feature, not a bug.
If I have a yard sale, the companies that made my old TV, paperbacks, shelves, toys, etc. don't get a cut. The bottom hasn't fallen out of Sony's TV business because Sony didn't get a cut when I sold my old TV; the bottom's fallen out of Sony's TV business because Sony ceased to provide a quality product at a reasonable price.
For example, after the movie leaves box offices you have DVD sales. And then after DVD sales you have television syndication.
Yeah, and Nintendo wants ten bucks for Super Mario 64, Valve wants ten bucks for Half-Life, and EA itself wants $20 for SimCity 4. The idea that video games don't have the same kind of perpetual rerelease cycle as movies is so 2005.
EA makes a sizable chunk of its money from sports franchises that it rereleases annually with minor changes. It makes another sizable chunk from free-to-play phone games with microtransactions. That's before we even get into whether or not zero-day DLC is legitimate (short answer: sometimes) and the myriad other ways EA's online double-dipping is bullshit (such as adding to games that don't actually need to be played online).