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.

Also people say that Wii is only bought for Wii sports and Wii Fit, and a few other nintendo games, indicating that for their gaming time that's all they need, yet Nintendo contineus to sell more software weekly and makes more profit, so the idea that games with high replayability will cause a crash is silly, if it was Nitnendo would be hurting, not dominating

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.

Some thoughts.

Jaffe -- along with several other "big name" developers are known for having big egos and big opinions. Nothing wrong with that. They are "great" and they know it. However, sometimes it can lead to feeling that their vision is always right -- and that is a problem.

I am going to preface this by saying I buy a lot of used games -- many if not most at Gamestop. So I may be biased for that.

But it seems to me that what many of these developers want -- including Jaffe -- is a console world closer to the PC world. The PC world has virtually no used market because you do not own the game, only a license to play the software. But that also usually comes at a lower price (console games cost 1.5x-2x PC games). Also, there are sometimes Internet registration requirements. The former limits profits. The latter limits the market. And of course, there is much more piracy.

Also, digital distribution is not the panacea some make it out to be. The Internet backbone in the United States is relatively (5.1 MBs average download speed). And console companies moving into this area think that they can charge full (or higher) price for download versions of games also available at retail.

Finally, Gamestop contends that gamers trade in games to buy more games. To the degree that that is true, preventing such actions would also take money away from game purchases.

Mike from Morgantown

of course resell of game is an aberation.
from customer to customer, it is one thing... you can't really avoid this.
But a company making profit out of game like this is akin to piracy to the publisher... and probably even more hurtfull, as the customers buy the used games at a significant price... sometimes up to 80% of the original price (that is the case in france for most games at micromania or game).

Good question.

And WTF @ your trophies card, do you ever sleep

If the value has dropped for you then your level of satisfaction has also declined, since you originally valued it at $50-60 dollars, but no longer do.  My argument has not changed, maybe you just need to read it again, if you were still as satisfied as when you bought it it would still have the same value, declining value means declining satisfaction.

Most people don't own 120 games, genius, even I don't own 120 games, even if you add up every game i've ever owned it wouldn't equal 120, lol you've just shown why your  argument is flawed, thanks you just made it so simple for me, the majority of people buy far less than 120 games in their lifetime, so even if we assume that the number of gamers is limited, lets say only 1 billion of the 6 billion or so on earth will ever play games, if each person were to buy 120 games, that would be 120 billion games sold, hello, genius, how is that industry going to crash?  So you wanted me to address the mathematics, I just did, and as they say in math Q.E.D.

In some cases this is the difference between perceived value and actual value.

Ah but if your percieved value (the value that you place on an item, independent of its actual market value) is higher than its actual market value, you wouldn't sell it, since you would value it more than you could sell it for.

I value you a McDonald's meal at about $5. I do not value the dump I take later at $5, but would still pay $5 for another meal. I am not any less satisfied with my purchase. I have consumed it. There is a difference.

And you addressed my math by admitting I was right. There would only be X number of games that could ever be sold. This means there is a cap on the industry, and it will die. You can say it won't happen for X number of years, but that is irrelevant. It is in the publishers best interest to make you want to buy his next game. So in addressing my point you have conceded I am correct. I did not expect both.