Gamestop in New York was crazy busy. My brother was exchanging some games (for full value since he had played and beaten them within the return/exchange period -about 8 days). It made me think about the length a game a manufacturer would design a game to be able to be beaten in as to not run into the buy and return/exchange thing my brother, and undoubtedly other people, did/do. But really, is it the manufacturer or the retailer that would have to deal with this issue? In a theoretical world, the manufacture games however they figured would be bought by retailers. Retailers would buy things they thought consumers would buy from them. (What happens to games and systems that do not sell well? Do they go on discount? Are they returned? are they destroyed like surplus shoes are?) If this buy, exchange, exchange, exchange and finally end up with some games thing does happen on a noticeable scale, it would make sense for the retailer to see that there are a lot of unprofitable game exchanges going on and that a lot of games are going out new and in used... right? The $6 premium (or so) is quite a bit when multiplied by the national volume of sales. The trade in value, probably $2 a game is also lost.

So the retailer may determine that a median or average return period is 6-10 days and that the return policy is a week and exchange

My brother thinks that if Game Stop realizes that people are doing this, they will crack down on it. I think that that they already know, but have chosen not to act as this may be a competitive advantage. People think they will do this, but, like mail in rebates, they forget and pay full price. So in essence, it may be possible that Game Stop gains more money by allowing the few people (percentage wise) that do this go ahead and do it because the more games they play, the more games they will advertise. They will be "the masters" and will all recommend Game Stop. Ok. That may be far fetched.