The conjecture requires a theory of time in the form of periods/rounds to reduce price to zero - but wants to ignore time when it comes to information spread and product value.
Pinning a variable to any 1 extreme can be very informative, but when the variable has to both exists to justify the presumption, but also be ignored in the model - you're not going to find an elegant basis for a grand-theory-structure to add corrective terms onto.
Instead, you'll just get a mess of variables from over-fitted data.
If you want to make Game Theory collide with reality, the actual convergence to an equilibrium is only one of many venues where there is a large divide. Other assumptions of these models - from rational behavior to uniform prior assumptions - are equally problematic.
Game Theory models are nevertheless very helpful because they require you to actually lay out your assumptions or - when you observe something else - reason about "what else is going on" in any of these areas. As it turns out (as another person has said), it is also immensely helpful when designing mechanism (i.e. games) like a Steam store or an ad auction, which is why tech companies hire quite a few Game Theorists.
Game theorists, like any academic, prefer models with the least number of assumptions and (transitive) dependencies.
My issue is with thinking this presumed fixed point was created with an elegant model (and thus conclude it's relatively interesting to study).
If you deconstruct the model - i.e. look through its full dependency tree to state the assumptions - It's not simple or elegant.
Other assumptions like modeling without irrational behavior are purer in that sense.
EDIT: I now understand “durable” to mean “something that lasts long”, whereas I thought it just meant “non-perishable” (ie not fruit or flowers).
Gotta admit I still don’t understand how the original theory resonated with anyone though. I can’t even come up with an example. What monopolist sells a durable good? Games aren't a monopoly. Most other monopolists sell subscriptions or consumables (eg a train ride).
The gist of the conjecture is that if the customers can wait out for price drops and the monopolist wants to sell their thing, then after a few rounds of "he knows that we know that..." the price ends up to be the marginal cost.
Now, real world disagrees with the model, so next steps are to examine why this happens and maybe discover some new economic interaction.