| Mr Khan said: Though i don't presume to speak for Avinash, i would say that there is a simple cost/benefit analysis regarding this sort of thing. Say a game is worth $15 trade-in value. If you feel that the value of the game to you is greater than what you could get in resale, you won't sell it. |
It only shows that the current value of the game for them is simply $15 or less. This reflects nothing on the satisfaction with the purchase however. The reason I used my food analogy is because people would not argue that someone should be less satisfied with their purchase once the food has been consumed. Video games do not offer endless replayability. Not one in existence offers this. As such, it is natural for people to be fully satisfied so long as he/she got his/her money's worth out of the game. The notion that somehow every video game you purchase should be played forever is possibly the most ridiculous one put forth on the board. A line of games that could never be topped would kill the industry faster than anything.
Lemme put it like this. If someone offered me 2 bucks after I saw a movie at the theater for my ticket then I would gladly part with it. I have seen the movie, and consumed the goods so to speak. This is not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, or that I was close to less than satisfied. I could love the movie, but just not care to watch it again. Same with many books in fact. Why should video game be the only medium that should offer no diminishing satisfaction over time?
