Like it or not, Reggie, people will re-sell Nintendo games.

In a recent interview with Venture Beat, Regie Fils-Aime produced this nugget:

We don’t believe used games are in the best interest of the consumer. We have products that consumers want to hold onto. […] Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs.

I understand the point of view from the games companies. Used games mean people are buying games without the publisher getting a piece of the pie. But they’re not in the interest of the consumer? That last bit is just to show how out-of-touch Reggie might be. There are entire businesses selling used books, CDs, and DVDs. I know. I’ve been to them. I’m even — dare I say it — a customer of such stores! Oh, the horror! Let’s look at it this way. A customer plays a game. They finish it… to the end. (Or, much to the dismay of Reggie they *gasp* might not like the game that much. More on that later.) That game can then either sit on a shelf and gather dust, with maybe the occasional play for old-times-sake.  Or, that game can be sold (either directly, or through a used-game business) to someone who wants that game. ((This is the First-Sale Doctrine.)) The game actually get used, and it’s producing less waste as only one copy of the disc (and packaging) is used instead of two. To me, that sounds like a pretty good deal for both consumers involved. I believe what Reggie takes greater offence to is the very idea that someone might no-longer wish to own one of their games. “The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again,” he says. Now think about that. I’ll even repeat that in a quote block so you might re-read it:

The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again.

Did you catch that? In case you didn’t, let me break it down.

• “The consumer likes having a brand-new experience…” Okay, they like to experience new things. I get that.
• “…and reliving it over and over again.” But wait, I thought you just said they like new things?
• If they’re reliving said things, they’re not new anymore.
• If they’re not new, wouldn’t the consumer want to go and find something new?
• If they’re experiencing something new, do they have a use for their previous experience (game) outside of nostalgia?
• If they don’t have a use for it, why can’t they let someone else use it (for a price) to whom the experience would be new?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I still have a few of the games I completed. But most, I sell. Zelda: Twilight Princess? Beaten (by both me and the wife… yes, I have a wife). Sold on Craigslist. Super Paper Mario? Beaten, sold. Super Mario Galaxy ((Side note: what’s next? Super Mario Universe? That’s just silly.))? Guess. I enjoyed those games thoroughly (especially Zelda). But I was done. I moved on. There’s no reason for me to keep them. Other games like Smash Bros. Brawl ((Yes, these are all Nintendo games. That’s kind of the point.)), I keep as it has greater replay value. Though that can also be argued that the replay value of multi-player games like that does provide a “new experience,” and therefore not old yet. In the end, the used games industry might not be a good deal for someone, but that someone is the publisher, not the consumer.