No. This doesn’t make sense with digital goods. Everything is a copy. Nothing is being re-used. A second person is merely making an additional copy of bits. That person may not even download/copy the same bits as the first person if the game was updated.
Taken to the extreme a middleman exchange with infinite resells and instant transfers of ownership could limit total sales to peak concurrent users. I mean why should an American and a European each buy a license? They could just share a license and instantly transfer it back and forth when they want to play!
Gamedevs participated in bundles because it generated extra cash. Steam keys were an obvious way to distribute. A harsh lesson was learned. Going forward the fix is easy, don’t distribute keys. Assign the key to an account at point-of-sale.
The other lesson is to stop selling games and go free-to-play. It solves this problem completely! I hate f2p. But there’s a reason the industry is moved in that direction. Le sigh.
Downvote all you want. But digital goods which are infinitely reproducible and instantly transferable do not and should not follow the same laws as manufactured widgets. They’re covered by copyright law. And someone buying a copy of a thing does not grant them the right to let someone else make a copy of some vaguely similar thing 5 years later.