I don't, nor ever would, speak for Ben or another employee. I stated that the customer always has the option to not trade in their games as a lot of people fail to understand that by accepting the trade in price, they are agreeing that it is a valid offer for their items.Synonymous said:Ben seems to be, though; he's offended at those who "snatch their worthless copy of Madden NFL '04 off the counter" and finds the more "reasonable" and "adult" option to be to "accept their fate - i.e. their $2.50 credit - in silence." It's a complaint separate from the customers' rudeness regarding disappointing trade-ins; he flatly doesn't seem to think they should have a right to reject GameStop's offer in favor of keeping the game.nomadic_chad said:You, the consumer, have a choice. You can trade your game(s) in, or you can keep them and sell them some other way. ... I won't be offended...
Yeah, but on balance, GameStop is doing quite well on their used-game division, as has been detailed at tiresome length in just about every gaming website. For example, the home-improvement store where I worked had a extraordinarily lenient returns policy - power tools in deplorable condition returned for full value, etc. Did they lose money on this particular policy? Yeah, they did. (It's offset by their return agreements with the manufacturers, but some is lost.) It was part, though, of a larger sales strategy that encouraged consumer spending by giving them some security about their purchases - what's the harm in buying something you can return at any time?nomadic_chad said:Something you probably haven't thought about...is that GS is going to end up eating a shit ton of money on games they accept which then don't sell.
There is no consumer charity in business. GameStop isn't forced to put a relatively high markup on used new releases to finance their expansive trade-in policy; they have that expansive trade-in policy because it's helped popularize their used-game business, put used games as an option at the forefront of consumers' minds, and made GameStop known as _the_ place to buy and sell used games. They wouldn't have the policy if it weren't profitable and effective.
I got the feeling that Ben's comment about worthless copies of Madden '04 was anger that people over-value items that have become largely irrelevant and likely remain unplayed, despite being saved from trade in. That's how the context sounded to me anyway, what was really thought is beyond me. However, what was posted in the article was Ben's opinion, I was merely recommending an alternate option to game traders.
I also made no claims that GS's trade in policy made no or little money. I simply stated that the seemingly huge markup isn't quite so huge when you stop to think about it. Yes, they make money off of traded in games and accessories, no one claimed differently. I did claim that they would lose a shit ton on stuff they couldn't sell, but in no way denied that they made a larger shit ton of money doing it. My comments on this matter were mostly directed towards educating people on the fact that not all of the money made from trade-ins was pure profit. Most of GS's money is made from the trade in and reselling of pre-owned games...and there's nothing wrong with that since it's not mandatory that you accept the amount offered.