Publishers Still Love Blockbuster Video

[vansau]

Publishers Still Love Blockbuster Video

Blockbuster Video may be broke, but one executive is claiming that videogame publishers still love his company.

Even though Blockbuster Video is a <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105520-Blockbuster-Spending-15-20-Million-to-Escape-Bankruptcy>shell of its former self, with only a fraction of stores still open around the world, it's apparently still a darling in the eyes of game publishers. Why? Because "it takes away from trade-ins."

Speaking to MCV, Blockbuster's commercial director Gerry Butler explained that since his company draws customers away from buying used games. Over in Britain, Blockbuster is starting to heavily promote its game rental service, which it's recently overhauled. Should you rent a game from the company, you're no longer charged late fees; instead, you can just extend your rental for £1 a day. Additionally, if you've rented a game and then decide to buy it, Blockbuster will discount you the rental fee you've already paid.

According to Butler, all of this means more money in publishers' pockets, as opposed to used game sales (which said publishers don't see a dime of):

"We have ramped up the rental side of our business and we have got an awful lot of support from publishers. Publishers like renting as it takes away from trade-ins. The problem with trade-ins is the publisher doesn't get any money. The advantage of renting is that they get quite a lot of money."

Butler's comments certainly seem to make sense, but I'm not sure he realizes that used games will always be a tantalizing offer for gamers. Sure, renting a game isn't a bad way to try it out, but if Blockbuster is selling the titles at premium prices (if they're anything but new) then it's probably safe to assume that trade-ins will sell for less.

Source: IndustryGamers

Permalink

 

[Lunar Templar]

which leads to the question

how can the sell a clearly USED game for full price?

 

[TxMxRonin]

I've never seen a BlockBuster sell used games for full price but I've gotten games that are $40 at GameStop for $10.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Fond memories of playing Spider-Man on the original xbox when I was like... 13. I got that game at the local blockbuster for 10 bucks, but they're shut down now

I think it's a great system. I know renting games can be costly, but if I'm on the fence on something, or know personally it won't last me very long, renting can be quite helpful.

 

[LittleMikey]

which leads to the question

how can the sell a clearly USED game for full price?

Surely they discount them heavily... I hope.

 

[Jadak]

which leads to the question

how can the sell a clearly USED game for full price?

Why not? They can do what they like, the more relevant question is "why buy it?" If people will pay for it, of course they'd do it...

 

[Therumancer]

If they want to actually combat trade ins the thing to do is lower their prices. Of course they won't do that because this is all about making more money and if they wind up stopping it but breaking even with their current profits there is no point.

With the mentality of the gaming industry there is no real solution to the "issue" because it all comes down to games being bloody expensive and trade ins mitigating the cost to the purchuser.

What's more the entire situation is fundementally ridiculous because when a game is sold the developer is pledging to support it. Selling a game used does not in any way change the number of active units out there that might say call for technical support or be online
their servers at any one time. A game being played for 10 years by one person, and being played for 10 years between 5 differant owners is ultimatly no differant. It all comes down to increasingly ridiculous levels of greed... you know when an industry making billions of dollars in profits is no longer enough.

I'm all for capitalism, but as I've said before the problem is when you get a few people who are so ridiculously greedy that they ruin it for everyone else. I mean after a certain point you wind up with so much money you couldn't possibly spend it all, nor could your kids or grandkids. New and ridiculous things have to be invented for such people with inflated prices just so they have special things to buy. At the point where a guy like Bobby Kotick has his own private Jet, where the heck does he get off insisting he needs even more ridiculous piles of money than he's already making for example?

I'm hardly a socialist, I have no problem with making a profit, and getting rich, but there is a point where people who are already rich beyond rational belief start exploiting people to make even more money, where it becomes a sort of sociopathic game of "how far can I push these people before it all breaks... lulz" more than anything. I mean when your attacking with things like used games for more money when you have billions in profits that's taking it too bloody far because it's in no way nessicary as the existing piles of profits demonstrate.

 

[Scrustle]

Maybe someone should tell them that Blockbuster deals in used games too...

 

[Tallim]

which leads to the question

how can the sell a clearly USED game for full price?

Surely they discount them heavily... I hope.

How it works is you take the rental copy back and you pay for a brand new copy minus the cost of the prior rental of the game.

 

[Dastardly]

Butler's comments certainly seem to make sense, but I'm not sure he realizes that used games will always be a tantalizing offer for gamers. Sure, renting a game isn't a bad way to try it out, but if Blockbuster is selling the titles at premium prices (if they're anything but new) then it's probably safe to assume that trade-ins will sell for less.

He says it "takes away" from trade-ins. He doesn't say it eliminates them, or even that it should. Used games will always be a draw, and they should be. But I don't blame publishers for wanting to continue to find ways to compete with the secondhand market by 1) making new games worth more by including single-use content, and 2) lowering the gate-to-entry for new games (through rentals, for instance)

 

[Tallim]

How it works is you take the rental copy back and you pay for a brand new copy minus the cost of the prior rental of the game.

Have you actualy been there and found out or are you making wild assumptions? I ask this because they did not say that in the article.

I've done it personally *although* that was some time ago when they first did it so can't vouch for it now.

Where I live the only places that sell games in town are the supermarkets which sell mainly top 10 stuff and Blockbuster.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Maybe someone should tell the more retarded companies like EA and Sony so they'll stop locking the most interesting parts of their games behind online passes and crap like that.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe someone should tell the more retarded companies like EA and Sony so they'll stop locking the most interesting parts of their games behind online passes and crap like that.

Oh, they'll still lock 'em. No question there.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Maybe someone should tell the more retarded companies like EA and Sony so they'll stop locking the most interesting parts of their games behind online passes and crap like that.

Oh, they'll still lock 'em. No question there.

Then they're pretty stupid. Had I been able to play the multiplayer when I rented Battlefield 3, I might have actually bought it. The campaign on the other hand was completely lame.
They really shot themselves in the foot there.

 

[Something Amyss]

Then they're pretty stupid. Had I been able to play the multiplayer when I rented Battlefield 3, I might have actually bought it. The campaign on the other hand was completely lame.
They really shot themselves in the foot there.

Don't most of these games have a "trial period" intended for rentals?

Besides, Battlefield 3 was TOTALLY invested in the single player. >.>

 

[GonzoGamer]

Then they're pretty stupid. Had I been able to play the multiplayer when I rented Battlefield 3, I might have actually bought it. The campaign on the other hand was completely lame.
They really shot themselves in the foot there.

Don't most of these games have a "trial period" intended for rentals?

Besides, Battlefield 3 was TOTALLY invested in the single player. >.>

Were they? Then it's really too bad it still sucked. Maybe next time they should be totally invested in not being greedy pricks who shoot themselves in both feet.

I don't like the concept of an online pass at all. In fact, for companies like EA who always manage to make a ton off every release anyway, it just seems like a dick move that will (over time) lead to their user base shrinking even further. If it was only practiced by struggling "indy" devs, I might be more tolerant but it's been Sony & EA who have been loading it onto every game. Even for an indy it would be stupid for them to lock a whole gameplay mode; especially if it's the most interesting. I like the idea of an online level cap over a trial period if it needed to be done...but it doesn't.

 

[Something Amyss]

Were they? Then it's really too bad it still sucked. Maybe next time they should be totally invested in not being greedy pricks who shoot themselves in both feet.

I don't like the concept of an online pass at all. In fact, for companies like EA who always manage to make a ton off every release anyway, it just seems like a dick move that will (over time) lead to their user base shrinking even further. If it was only practiced by struggling "indy" devs, I might be more tolerant but it's been Sony & EA who have been loading it onto every game. Even for an indy it would be stupid for them to lock a whole gameplay mode; especially if it's the most interesting. I like the idea of an online level cap over a trial period if it needed to be done...but it doesn't.

Well, they said they were serious about single player. The end result is all the more comical for it.

Without buying used, I never would have supported half the franchises I currently do. It's funny, because it makes the entry to a franchise a lot easier, but with online passes, it brings the barrier back.

It's probably telling that I've only bought one retail game this year.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Yeah, shame it's actually customers you want to love your company.

While I'm still tentatively on the publishers' side when it comes to used games, Blockbuster rental charges are fucking extortionate. I can't imagine they keep used sales down that much when you're financially better off buying used in the not-that-long-at-all run. LoveFilm offer much better rental deals with their packages, and you don't have to leave the house.

 

[Nazrel]

If they want to actually combat trade ins the thing to do is lower their prices. Of course they won't do that because this is all about making more money and if they wind up stopping it but breaking even with their current profits there is no point.

With the mentality of the gaming industry there is no real solution to the "issue" because it all comes down to games being bloody expensive and trade ins mitigating the cost to the purchuser.

What's more the entire situation is fundementally ridiculous because when a game is sold the developer is pledging to support it. Selling a game used does not in any way change the number of active units out there that might say call for technical support or be online
their servers at any one time. A game being played for 10 years by one person, and being played for 10 years between 5 differant owners is ultimatly no differant. It all comes down to increasingly ridiculous levels of greed... you know when an industry making billions of dollars in profits is no longer enough.

I'm all for capitalism, but as I've said before the problem is when you get a few people who are so ridiculously greedy that they ruin it for everyone else. I mean after a certain point you wind up with so much money you couldn't possibly spend it all, nor could your kids or grandkids. New and ridiculous things have to be invented for such people with inflated prices just so they have special things to buy. At the point where a guy like Bobby Kotick has his own private Jet, where the heck does he get off insisting he needs even more ridiculous piles of money than he's already making for example?

I'm hardly a socialist, I have no problem with making a profit, and getting rich, but there is a point where people who are already rich beyond rational belief start exploiting people to make even more money, where it becomes a sort of sociopathic game of "how far can I push these people before it all breaks... lulz" more than anything. I mean when your attacking with things like used games for more money when you have billions in profits that's taking it too bloody far because it's in no way nessicary as the existing piles of profits demonstrate.

It's not greed, it's desperation.

The current gaming business and design philosophy does not work.

They're spending increasing larger amounts of money, needing increasingly larger numbers of sales to break even, on increasingly generic games.

They're running a red queens race of they're own design, and they're losing.

They feel they must do this to remain competitive; so instead of cutting costs, toning back graphics, increasing output, lowering sale price, focusing on more creative and unique game concepts to draw in buyers, and waiting till it's fiscally sensible to continue pressing the hardware capabilities; they whine about the secondary market.

The industry is probably going to fail soon.