Editor’s Note: This is a semi-rebuttal to an editorial that appeared on RPGamer. Feel free to check Trade Ins: A Blessing in Disguise, or Devilish? by Anna Marie Neufeld.

I will say first that I make these statements from the perspective of a dedicated, serious video game collector. (You are more than welcome to read that as frothing-mad nerdboy, as it’s much the same.)

When speaking of trade-in value, picking sports games as a counter-example is a bit unfair, but mostly to the sports-games fans. Innovation within that genre has been squashed to the point of ineffectualness ever since Madden et al realized that they could sell the same game twice with different rosters and a few “improvements.” It’s much like buying the same house over and over again and simply changing the window shades: looks different but is fundamentally the same.

RPGs on the other hand tend to be fundamentally unique in some aspect. (Please note, I said “tend to be” as we all know plenty of examples that are not – Third Age, I’m looking at you.) Whether that uniqueness be in story or battle system or characterization or whatever, RPGs tend to age better than almost every other genre. (For what it’s worth, good side/top scrolling shooters also tend to age well.)

It is that fundamental difference that makes it so different than trading in a sports game. All the Final Fantasy games have similar themes and patterns, but each is very much a unique entity, capable of standing by itself without necessitating a comparison. And when comparisons are made (say the FFXII demo to FFXI or FFVIII to any other incarnation), the result is usually heated arguments based on the unique points of each game.

Paws offers up two reasons why people hesitate to trade in RPGs as opposed to the latest sports incarnation. The first, emotional value, is a completely legitimate reason and likely the basis for many RPGamers holding their RPGs near and dear to themselves. And while there is the debatable point that RPGs are more emotionally involving than other genres, this is an argument that can be applied to any genre. Even overlooking my obsessive collector tendencies, there are many games that I would never trade in – many of them non-RPG: Worms World Party, Project Justice, Ikaruga, etc.

The second reason, collector value, is a bit off though. Very few, and I do mean very few, games ever appreciate above their initial cost. Sure, we all know a few (Suikoden II, Valkyrie Profile, Panzer Dragoon Saga) but these are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the number of RPGs released, much less to the entire gaming pool. (For those who paid several hundred dollars for one of the handful of SNES games that can command that price in mint/complete condition: if the internal battery is dead, it’s easily fixable. Google will help you.)

Holding on to a game because you think it will skyrocket in value is something of a crapshoot with the odds stacked against you. The odds are especially stacked if the game wasn’t that good in the first place – it may become rare, but it will likely not become valuable. (Rare = expensive is a myth. High demand/low supply = expensive. Rare + great game = expensive, but rare + crappy game = no one except frothing-mad nerdboys will care.)

As for others think about whether or not you trade stuff in, who cares? If you don’t have an emotional attachment to the game, you are not a frothing-mad collector, and you don’t ever plan on playing it again, then there’s no reason to keep it. Begone with the old and let someone else play it.