|
Avinash_Tyagi said: Actually I did, maybe you need to go read it again, as I pointed out, if you are willing to sell the game for less than you purchased it, it means that its value for you has declined, that is an economic fact and evidence of my point. lol, already addressed it, as I pointed out, games are merely played more sporadically as new games come in, in addition games with greater replayability have a larger audience, just look at the million seller s chart and you'll see that games that have longer replayabilityare the really big sellers. |
I read it. No where does it address my request. You stated the only reason someone would sell back a game is because they were not satisfied with it. Are you trying to change your argument and use that to say you have proven me wrong? Thats pretty ridiculous. Current value of a good does not mean the purchaser was not satisfied. It means they have consumed the good.
Ok I am going to try to make this even simpler for you. Lets say you have 30 hours a week to game, and have no games. Supposing every game you play is used for one hour a month you will only ever buy 120 games under your mode of thinking. Since they never get old, and the player is perfectly satisfied and never needs a sequel there is no point to buying new games. Larger audience only delays this effect. The number of new games released far exceeds the rate at which new customers are available.
Making perfectly replayable games would kill the industry. Eventually a person will reach the maximum number of games that can be played by them simulatenously. Any games that fall out of the rotation are better served as cash for new games. You can try to side step this point all you want, but it won't help you. Look at the mathematics of it and address that, or conceede the point.
