This is about the idea of replay value of a game as it could be applied to cinematographic or televisual productions.1 Of course, nothing in either type of experience inherently bars repeat enjoyment or revisiting the work, even if the story arc were linear, and irrespective of ending. I take that to be the gist of some opinionated commentary underscoring the absence of the word replayability from most if not all online dictionaries(MW, OOD, Collins, Cambridge, AHD - at most you have playability, playable). The Google corpus shows it's not a very significant expression, but hindsight may be lacking.
So what to make of this absence of replay value or replayability from the dictionaries and books despite some modern colloquial use: in that context can a movie have a high/great/low "replay value" - is that an oversimplification, bad English proper, or the leveraging of an "incomplete definition"? Should I rather say for more precision a movie is "fun to watch many times over", or that another "relies on a one-trick pony type of device for its ending"(I may nevertheless enjoy repeat viewing, or not)? Is there a way to express the specific quality - or lack thereof - a movie would have which would elicit repeat viewing or is that generally considered a misnomer?
1. TFD copies from a version of the Wikipedia article (replay value) which has since been edited to remove an earlier reference to replayability and any field but gaming(yet the word replayability still appears in the text of the wikipedia article).