*Value* means little if the *price* is too high. A five thousand dollar Bentley would be a great *value*- but a lot of people still couldn't afford the price.

And I'm not saying a $400 PS3 is too much- I paid that for my 360. But I had the cash to do so then. I don't have $400 to spend on a console now, regardless of how good the bang for the buck is.

But I am saving up for one.

“…While customers wanted to buy a new, say, Killzone 2, they weren’t going to wait the week or two weeks it took to get the credit, then buy Killzone 2. They want Killzone 2 the day it comes out. They need the money and the credit right now.”

That's true if the person trading in wants a new title now. I want to trade games in to Amazon to get credit to use toward *anything* they sell, not just games. Amazon's model is serving a different consumer with different goals. Gamestop couldn't make trade in's by mail work because all they sell is games. Amazon sells everything, and used games will be just one more revenue source. In that respect, they don't have to be as successful as Gamestop.

As far as developers are concerned, no one has ever explained why games should be different than any other product. If you sell your used car, jeans, laptop, DVD player, whatever, the original manufacturers of those products don't see any more revenue. Why are game developers special? If developers want more money at launch, then they need to focus on making titles worth buying, rather than shoving out the junk that makes up most releases. Add incentive with DLC, which some are starting to do already.