Imagine the corresponding concept for programmers: you are not allowed to sell or share any software you create unless you pre-register a detailed plan for what code you will write and how it will be used before you write the first line of code. Pretty sure that would reduce the innovation going on in public GitHub repos a lot :)
Maybe pre-registering isn't the right answer; I'm sure there are practical hurdles, but the problem to be solved still remains the same (visibility into the graveyard of failed experiments to improve the rate of innovation).
It's not like it couldn't be gamed, but maybe it would incentivize people to also publish null results.
This will hardly achieve this goal as you basically make things harder, and now you are introducing more overhead. The main reason why people don't like publishing null results is that it hurts them in funding applications. The current system works with mentality, we shouldn't fund someone who don't get positive results. It is better to allocate this somewhere else. Most of the problems with research can be tracked down to funding issues and practices. But these are political issues, so people try to argue about other things because it is easy.