Because for the consumer who returned the game it wasn't good, see quality is subjective, you may like modern god shock 5: Snakes vengeance, may think its the greatest game ever and GOTY, but another person may think its utter garbage, you may keep the game, but the other person will sell it, showing that for them it was not a good game, why should the dev et extra money for failing a consumer.  That's like a CEO getting a golden parachute after they drive their company to bankruptcy, you don't reward failure.

they are only right because a salesmen's job is to hold their hand and sell a product that the customer wants. even if said customer hates FPSs, if they say the want the game even after a salesmen pitchs the product to make sure its correct for the customer, we have no right to not sell the game to them under the belief they will hate the game. So it falls onto the customer's wants to make their purchase what they want, its just that the product they select might not be right because of their choice and lack of understanding or common sense in this instance.

Ah, but hype doesn't educate consumers, it just generates demand, see the publishers aren't educating consumers on what content is in a game, which is why people buy many games on hype rather than on actually playing and loving it.

So, wait a second. It's a developer's fault that they made a fantastic game, but someone bought it when it didn't appeal to them? You'e arguing that the developer somehow failed and should be punished, even if they make a fantastic product, because of what some consumers think. You can't please everyone, and you certainly can't stop people from buying your products, but that doesn't mean publishers and developers should be chastised for it. Let's take Nintendo, who is in my opinion, the best developer in the industry. If they put out a great game like Twilight Princess or Super Mario Galaxy, should they suffer from used game sales? Those are two incredible games, but some consumers might not like them. It's not a failure because Nintendo failed to appeal to a person they don't even know. That's just a consumer who should buy some other game. You may have someone that has never played a shooter before. They buy a shooter, decide that it isn't the genre for them, and return it for used sale. Then, a devoted shooter fan goes to the store, and buys the used copy. You're basically arguing that a developer failed in some way if they didn't appeal every last person who bought their product, even though they have no control of that. They can't please everyone, but they can release amazing products. And they shouldn't be punished for that.

People don't return fantastic products Montana, a product that they love and does everything that they want doesn't get returned.  Greatness is subjective, you may find Mario Galaxy awesome, my mom probably wouldn't, she'd probably think its stupid, also why wasn't the person who didn't like shooters propely exposed to the game before they bought it?  Why weren't they educated on the game fully before buying, if they had been they wouldn't have bought it in the first place, see that's what you seem to be missing the publishers aren't educating people properly, so the argument that they shouldn't be punsihed for people's ignornace is falwed, if they did their job the consumers would not be ignorant.