Gamestop: Used Games Provide Billions for Publishers

[Epona]

no offense, but their policies are directly opposed to what their president says. they encourage used sales, to the point of second-guessing their customers' decisions if they want to buy new.

my story: bought a PS3 new last year. explicitly stated i wanted new copies of god of war 3 and demon's souls (both retail at $20 greatest hits editions). was asked by the employee if i wanted the used copies for $18 and after saying no, she assured me that the discs were fine, and i had to again repeat that i wanted the new copies. she grumbled and got me the new copies. i finished my transaction but was furious.

i mean, i didn't say 'i want X'. i said 'i want a new copy of X' and i can understand asking once if i'd want a used copy for $2 less, but the fact she asked me again pissed me off to no end. read your fucking customers: if someone comes in and asks explicitly for something, you don't question them, you get what they ask for (unless they didn't have it). i doubt this girl would have continued to pester me to buy used if there wasn't some story or company incentive for her to get me to buy used.

That doesn't happen at my local stores. Anyway, Gamestop pushes pre-orders (those are new) and Gamestop is always running a special where you get more if you put it towards a pre-order or a recently released NEW game.

Here's the special right now:

Power Trade: Get a 30% trade bonus on any games traded toward a new copy of: Darksiders II, New Super Mario Bros. 2, Madden NFL 13, Transformers: Fall of Cybertron


Anything else you would like to say about them pushing used games?

My Gamestop has a list behind the counter going "Gamestop is currently searching for:" and a list of games that has been released recently. They do this in order to encourage people to play the games and then trade them in so they can resell them while the demand for them is high (during release hype).

Not to mention that it more or less says in the employee handbook that if a customer comes up with a new title you have as used, you are supposed to ask them if they would like to save money buying used.

Also the fact that they shrinkwrap used games and sell them as new.

That is all i want to say about them pushing used games.

Is there something wrong with a business seeking out the most valuable products so they can sell them? You act like it's a big secret, check their website, they often run specials for new releases (get $30 back in the first month). Yes, they encourage people to do business with them, so does every other business.

If there is something wrong with Gamestop trying to sell used games then there is equally something wrong with them trying to sell new games via pre-orders. I have been pushed for a pre-order every time I shop there. I have rarely been asked if I wanted a used copy instead.

Your last statement can't be backed up for every store.

Well if you ask me if there was more about them pushing used games and I pointed to it. Why would you even ask that if pushing it isn't a problem as you are saying now?

But hey its just business. Then it is alright for the publisher to prevent them cannibalizing sales this way.

Let me clarify:

- They should push used games, they are a used game store
- My local stores don't push used games on me, if I bring a new box to the counter, I get a new copy. If people are too lazy to pick up a new box off the shelf and just go in and ask for a specific game, of course a used game store is going to suggest the used copy first.

No see, used sales are a good thing for an economy and consumers have a right to resell what they buy. Gamestop is doing nothing wrong by creating a business around used sales. People choose to sell their old games to Gamestop, there is no arm-twisting. Publishers trying to stop used sales, now that is anti-consumer. I am sorry if you can't see the difference.

Non of the used sales goes into making new games. They do however cannibalize profit from what would otherwise be new sales. Now it comes down to whether or not the industry needs these sales to survive. Maybe overblown budgets are the problem and they need to survive on smaller sales, but when used sales in some cases make up a third of the sales (heavy rain) its kinda hard to argue that they dont have a negative effect on actual people making games.

Now I am not against your rights to resell your property. You have every right to resell you property. However the publishers have every right to change their business method to what is the most profitable. Dont start going anti-consumer rights. You do not have a right to buy anything you want. And if publisher make games into services you have to deal with that. Because is their right to threat something they own whatever way they want.

The publishers aren't preventing you from selling your games you have bought. They are however changing their product so they no longer sell you the whole thing. And they have every right to do that.

EDIT: I am just going to point out. In the Employee handbook they are told to actively encourage people to buy used over new. Not just when people dont pick it up. You are being dishonest by changing the scenario. If you come with a new title to the counter they are supposed to ask if you wouldn't rather have a slightly cheaper used version.

I don't get it. You would rather trade in consumer rights to make publishers even richer? These same fuckin people who wanted to sell you out with SOPA?

I don't know what else to say to you about this.

EDIT: They are a fuckin used game store, of course they want people to buy used over new. What part of your brain isn't working that you can't comprehend that? That's rhetorical, I don't want you to answer me because I am done with you. I have had enough of arguing with you anti-used sales people. It's always the same shit.

 

[Epona]

Ignoring the rest of the article, I find it funny that he claims to be really into videogames with that massive 4 hours a week gaming... I understand hes busy and probably can't spend a lot of time on games, but at that point why put a number on it?

Anyways, I bet publishers do realise this effect, but they want the money heading for their games, not increasing business in gaming all around.

4 hours a week is a hell of a lot of time. That's like going to the movies twice every week. It's just that us hardcore gamers, it seems like less, but really we're the ones playing too much.

Uh no, 4 hours of gaming is like watching 4 hours of TV or spending 4 hours on the phone. Most people do that easily.

 

[Lunar Templar]

In the worlds case. Not so.

so?
that's they're own, painfully miss-guided practices at work, the 'get the new, and throw away the old' doesn't really fly with me, not when i had to hunt down some of the games in my collection to get them.

 

[esperandote]

That has been said a bazillion times.

 

[Epona]

Non of the used sales goes into making new games. They do however cannibalize profit from what would otherwise be new sales. Now it comes down to whether or not the industry needs these sales to survive. Maybe overblown budgets are the problem and they need to survive on smaller sales, but when used sales in some cases make up a third of the sales (heavy rain) its kinda hard to argue that they dont have a negative effect on actual people making games.

Now I am not against your rights to resell your property. You have every right to resell you property. However the publishers have every right to change their business method to what is the most profitable. Dont start going anti-consumer rights. You do not have a right to buy anything you want. And if publisher make games into services you have to deal with that. Because is their right to threat something they own whatever way they want.

The publishers aren't preventing you from selling your games you have bought. They are however changing their product so they no longer sell you the whole thing. And they have every right to do that.

EDIT: I am just going to point out. In the Employee handbook they are told to actively encourage people to buy used over new. Not just when people dont pick it up. You are being dishonest by changing the scenario. If you come with a new title to the counter they are supposed to ask if you wouldn't rather have a slightly cheaper used version.

I don't get it. You would rather trade in consumer rights to make publishers even richer? These same fuckin people who wanted to sell you out with SOPA?

I don't know what else to say to you about this.

EDIT: They are a fuckin used game store, of course they want people to buy used over new. What part of your brain isn't working that you can't comprehend that? That's rhetorical, I don't want you to answer me because I am done with you. I have had enough of arguing with you anti-used sales people. It's always the same shit.

Ok wow.

Strawman and then an attempt to pigeonhole me. Then follow it up with an ad hominum. Good game. You show your real nature.

Listen

You have no consumer right that ensures you that you can buy things.

I just don't think it's worth my time to argue with you anti-used sales types anymore. You would have us renting games for full price.

 

[loudestmute]

The big concern I have regarding the whole "used vs. new" argument in the game industry right now is the issue of DLC.

No, not online passes, actual honest add-ons that would've been called "expansion packs" back in the day.

Let's take for example, Rock Band. One of the few games published by EA that has never required an "online pass" to function, yet continues to release new track packs every week. How many $2 songs does Harmonix have to sell before they make back what they lost on the sale because it was secondhand?

This also raises concerns about how long a developer should consider a "franchise" viable (let's not kid ourselves, most every publisher out there wants every new release to be the start of a franchise.) If I can't find a new copy of a game like L.A. Noire, Warhawk, or Brink, I might buy used. But then I like the game and grab the DLC from the appropriate marketplace. Is there a time limit for how long those sales of digital goods (whose price rarely changes from the initial asking point, btw) count towards a product being viable and worth creating a sequel for?

...I'm just curious to see if publishers see any post-retail DLC sales as a waste of money on the part of the buyer, I guess.

 

[The White Hunter]

Thanks Gamestop. I hope you can do more (like not hiring dickheads?) to help gamers and the industry.

Over here in the UK I would like to see both Game and Gamestation (They're the same fucking company anyway..) adopt a not-hiring-dickheads policy.

Along with lowering new game prices from:
£40-£45 to £35 for home consoles
£35-£40 to £25-£30 for handhelds

I'm much more likely to take a risk with a game for slightly lower prices. I think most people probably are, I'd also accept better trade in prices from game because frankly they're often pitiful unless it's a AAA game released 2 weeks ago and part of a special offer for the newest AAA game with open arms.

I don't care if you have to deal with overheads, if Amazon are cheaper by more than 10% for a game (my student discount in game), then Amazon wins, fuck the borderline useless reward points.

OT: Used games are a great thing but I do so hate having to buy an online pass later for the sodding thing.

 

[Epona]

Non of the used sales goes into making new games. They do however cannibalize profit from what would otherwise be new sales. Now it comes down to whether or not the industry needs these sales to survive. Maybe overblown budgets are the problem and they need to survive on smaller sales, but when used sales in some cases make up a third of the sales (heavy rain) its kinda hard to argue that they dont have a negative effect on actual people making games.

Now I am not against your rights to resell your property. You have every right to resell you property. However the publishers have every right to change their business method to what is the most profitable. Dont start going anti-consumer rights. You do not have a right to buy anything you want. And if publisher make games into services you have to deal with that. Because is their right to threat something they own whatever way they want.

The publishers aren't preventing you from selling your games you have bought. They are however changing their product so they no longer sell you the whole thing. And they have every right to do that.

EDIT: I am just going to point out. In the Employee handbook they are told to actively encourage people to buy used over new. Not just when people dont pick it up. You are being dishonest by changing the scenario. If you come with a new title to the counter they are supposed to ask if you wouldn't rather have a slightly cheaper used version.

I don't get it. You would rather trade in consumer rights to make publishers even richer? These same fuckin people who wanted to sell you out with SOPA?

I don't know what else to say to you about this.

EDIT: They are a fuckin used game store, of course they want people to buy used over new. What part of your brain isn't working that you can't comprehend that? That's rhetorical, I don't want you to answer me because I am done with you. I have had enough of arguing with you anti-used sales people. It's always the same shit.

Ok wow.

Strawman and then an attempt to pigeonhole me. Then follow it up with an ad hominum. Good game. You show your real nature.

Listen

You have no consumer right that ensures you that you can buy things.

I just don't think it's worth my time to argue with you anti-used sales types anymore. You would have us renting games for full price.

And I just dont think its worth talking to anyone who think pigeonholing is a valid form off argument. I guess we should stop wasting each others time.

Tell me, what is it EXACTLY that you object to with Gamestop?

Then tell me that i have ignored those things?

 

[Epona]

Ignoring the rest of the article, I find it funny that he claims to be really into videogames with that massive 4 hours a week gaming... I understand hes busy and probably can't spend a lot of time on games, but at that point why put a number on it?

Anyways, I bet publishers do realise this effect, but they want the money heading for their games, not increasing business in gaming all around.

4 hours a week is a hell of a lot of time. That's like going to the movies twice every week. It's just that us hardcore gamers, it seems like less, but really we're the ones playing too much.

Uh no, 4 hours of gaming is like watching 4 hours of TV or spending 4 hours on the phone. Most people do that easily.

Most people don't have a life with family, kids, workout, wife, and a top-end job in a big international company. You don't just "do" things, you have to make time for them. To anyone having a busy life with any or all of the things I mentioned, 4 hours wasted on gaming every week is 16 or so hours every month. That's 2 full workdays.

Most people spend 4 hours a week in front of the TV and I know that people spend 4 hours a week fucking with their phone. Damn people can't even go to the toilet without the damn phone in tow. Ever see people in the grocery store texting away? Yeah, let's not pretend that we are abnormal because we game more than 4 hours a week.

 

[Lost In The Void]

Ignoring the rest of the article, I find it funny that he claims to be really into videogames with that massive 4 hours a week gaming... I understand hes busy and probably can't spend a lot of time on games, but at that point why put a number on it?

Anyways, I bet publishers do realise this effect, but they want the money heading for their games, not increasing business in gaming all around.

4 hours a week is a hell of a lot of time. That's like going to the movies twice every week. It's just that us hardcore gamers, it seems like less, but really we're the ones playing too much.

Uh no, 4 hours of gaming is like watching 4 hours of TV or spending 4 hours on the phone. Most people do that easily.

Most people don't have a life with family, kids, workout, wife, and a top-end job in a big international company. You don't just "do" things, you have to make time for them. To anyone having a busy life with any or all of the things I mentioned, 4 hours wasted on gaming every week is 16 or so hours every month. That's 2 full workdays.

Most people spend 4 hours a week in front of the TV and I know that people spend 4 hours a week fucking with their phone. Damn people can't even go to the toilet without the damn phone in tow. Ever see people in the grocery store texting away? Yeah, let's not pretend that we are abnormal because we game more than 4 hours a week.

Just because people watch too much tv doesn't take away from the fact 4 hours of anything a day is a lot. Whether this is gaming, tv or cellphones.

 

[Epona]

Ignoring the rest of the article, I find it funny that he claims to be really into videogames with that massive 4 hours a week gaming... I understand hes busy and probably can't spend a lot of time on games, but at that point why put a number on it?

Anyways, I bet publishers do realise this effect, but they want the money heading for their games, not increasing business in gaming all around.

4 hours a week is a hell of a lot of time. That's like going to the movies twice every week. It's just that us hardcore gamers, it seems like less, but really we're the ones playing too much.

Uh no, 4 hours of gaming is like watching 4 hours of TV or spending 4 hours on the phone. Most people do that easily.

Most people don't have a life with family, kids, workout, wife, and a top-end job in a big international company. You don't just "do" things, you have to make time for them. To anyone having a busy life with any or all of the things I mentioned, 4 hours wasted on gaming every week is 16 or so hours every month. That's 2 full workdays.

Most people spend 4 hours a week in front of the TV and I know that people spend 4 hours a week fucking with their phone. Damn people can't even go to the toilet without the damn phone in tow. Ever see people in the grocery store texting away? Yeah, let's not pretend that we are abnormal because we game more than 4 hours a week.

Just because people watch too much tv doesn't take away from the fact 4 hours of anything a day is a lot. Whether this is gaming, tv or cellphones.

4 hours of work is too much too eh?

 

[Epona]

Non of the used sales goes into making new games. They do however cannibalize profit from what would otherwise be new sales. Now it comes down to whether or not the industry needs these sales to survive. Maybe overblown budgets are the problem and they need to survive on smaller sales, but when used sales in some cases make up a third of the sales (heavy rain) its kinda hard to argue that they dont have a negative effect on actual people making games.

Now I am not against your rights to resell your property. You have every right to resell you property. However the publishers have every right to change their business method to what is the most profitable. Dont start going anti-consumer rights. You do not have a right to buy anything you want. And if publisher make games into services you have to deal with that. Because is their right to threat something they own whatever way they want.

The publishers aren't preventing you from selling your games you have bought. They are however changing their product so they no longer sell you the whole thing. And they have every right to do that.

EDIT: I am just going to point out. In the Employee handbook they are told to actively encourage people to buy used over new. Not just when people dont pick it up. You are being dishonest by changing the scenario. If you come with a new title to the counter they are supposed to ask if you wouldn't rather have a slightly cheaper used version.

I don't get it. You would rather trade in consumer rights to make publishers even richer? These same fuckin people who wanted to sell you out with SOPA?

I don't know what else to say to you about this.

EDIT: They are a fuckin used game store, of course they want people to buy used over new. What part of your brain isn't working that you can't comprehend that? That's rhetorical, I don't want you to answer me because I am done with you. I have had enough of arguing with you anti-used sales people. It's always the same shit.

Ok wow.

Strawman and then an attempt to pigeonhole me. Then follow it up with an ad hominum. Good game. You show your real nature.

Listen

You have no consumer right that ensures you that you can buy things.

I just don't think it's worth my time to argue with you anti-used sales types anymore. You would have us renting games for full price.

And I just dont think its worth talking to anyone who think pigeonholing is a valid form off argument. I guess we should stop wasting each others time.

Tell me, what is it EXACTLY that you object to with Gamestop?

Then tell me that i have ignored those things?

Now here is your problem. You are changing my argument.

I had an argument of
"It is the publisher right to treat their product whatever way they like."
and
"It is a pretty clear picture that used games lower the amount of new games sold. I do not know whether or not if the publisher need this. In some cases the used sales would have ensure the success of a game, while in others they are just getting more money. I see why they would want to get that profit either way."

Now I do believe that the system with used sales has a negative effect on the production and sale of games in general leading to us the consumer getting a shoddier product as a result.

However the thing about rights is that they are universal. I cant say that the publisher are the bad guys for using the same rights we are using. The right of ownership. So no one is in the wrong here. Neither Gamestop nor the publishers.

I am not pointing to any bad guys here. I am pointing to how Gamestops action causes a perfectly expectable reaction.

...and I say that people trading in used games and buying new games INCREASES the amount of new games sold. I say that if publishers succeed in killing used sales they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Epona]

Non of the used sales goes into making new games. They do however cannibalize profit from what would otherwise be new sales. Now it comes down to whether or not the industry needs these sales to survive. Maybe overblown budgets are the problem and they need to survive on smaller sales, but when used sales in some cases make up a third of the sales (heavy rain) its kinda hard to argue that they dont have a negative effect on actual people making games.

Now I am not against your rights to resell your property. You have every right to resell you property. However the publishers have every right to change their business method to what is the most profitable. Dont start going anti-consumer rights. You do not have a right to buy anything you want. And if publisher make games into services you have to deal with that. Because is their right to threat something they own whatever way they want.

The publishers aren't preventing you from selling your games you have bought. They are however changing their product so they no longer sell you the whole thing. And they have every right to do that.

EDIT: I am just going to point out. In the Employee handbook they are told to actively encourage people to buy used over new. Not just when people dont pick it up. You are being dishonest by changing the scenario. If you come with a new title to the counter they are supposed to ask if you wouldn't rather have a slightly cheaper used version.

I don't get it. You would rather trade in consumer rights to make publishers even richer? These same fuckin people who wanted to sell you out with SOPA?

I don't know what else to say to you about this.

EDIT: They are a fuckin used game store, of course they want people to buy used over new. What part of your brain isn't working that you can't comprehend that? That's rhetorical, I don't want you to answer me because I am done with you. I have had enough of arguing with you anti-used sales people. It's always the same shit.

Ok wow.

Strawman and then an attempt to pigeonhole me. Then follow it up with an ad hominum. Good game. You show your real nature.

Listen

You have no consumer right that ensures you that you can buy things.

I just don't think it's worth my time to argue with you anti-used sales types anymore. You would have us renting games for full price.

And I just dont think its worth talking to anyone who think pigeonholing is a valid form off argument. I guess we should stop wasting each others time.

Tell me, what is it EXACTLY that you object to with Gamestop?

Then tell me that i have ignored those things?

Now here is your problem. You are changing my argument.

I had an argument of
"It is the publisher right to treat their product whatever way they like."
and
"It is a pretty clear picture that used games lower the amount of new games sold. I do not know whether or not if the publisher need this. In some cases the used sales would have ensure the success of a game, while in others they are just getting more money. I see why they would want to get that profit either way."

Now I do believe that the system with used sales has a negative effect on the production and sale of games in general leading to us the consumer getting a shoddier product as a result.

However the thing about rights is that they are universal. I cant say that the publisher are the bad guys for using the same rights we are using. The right of ownership. So no one is in the wrong here. Neither Gamestop nor the publishers.

I am not pointing to any bad guys here. I am pointing to how Gamestops action causes a perfectly expectable reaction.

...and I say that people trading in used games and buying new games INCREASES the amount of new games sold. I say that if publishers succeed in killing used sales they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

Every argument I have heard for that hasn't held water. If you have one that does please show it. I am perfectly open to the possibility, but no one has made a solid argument supporting it. Jim Sterling tried to make a 3 part series arguing this, but it wasn't solid when looked upon. At times he would even downright contradict himself.

Besides we have already made pretty clear that Gamestop actively prevents new sales buy selling used. This is their main business strategy. Preventing a new sale in order to resell their used copy. Sometimes so direct as selling a used copy as new. To argue that it doesn't cannibalize new sales a very hard case. You will have to show me something pretty strong.

As for the main article. I already debunked that posts ago.

So the 70% of the money never leaves Gamestop. So if we follow the money that means it is essentially Gamestop giving discounts equal to 70% of the trade in value. Giving 1.8 billion dollars in discounts on new purchases with trade ins more or less.

Now that sounds like a shitty deal that Gamestop. I mean where does the 1.8 billion dollars come from? Oh yeah.... they sell those traded in titles to other customers at 4 times the value of what they were traded in for....

Now here is the thing. That cannibalizes new sales. You should know that Gamestop since you made a business model of trying to get games traded back in the first week where the hype is high. You should know that since you directly ask people if they want a slightly cheaper used version whenever they they walk up to the counter with new copy. I dont buy the bullshit spin you just put on this. If you couldn't siphon money out of the system you wouldn't be in business. You dont add to the mix. Digital distribution will make you a relic off the coming years. And I wont be mourning.

Fact is that after the first 3 weeks of sales Gamestop will not order any more new copies because now they have the used version in rotation. But please tell me your argument for why Gamestop doesn't cut into the profits of publishers.

You aren't going to believe anyone who tells you that people trade in used games and buy new ones so what's the point in trying to convince you? I can tell you this, I couldn't afford as many new games if I didn't trade some in. You can take that as you will.

We have also made clear that Gamestop creates new sales by pushing pre-orders and offering higher trade in values if you put the money towards a NEW game. I think the fact that people trade in games to buy new ones, that Gamestop pushes pre-orders more than any other store and that they offer incentives for people to buy new blows your case out of the water. The numbers you want would have to come from Gamestop but you won't believe them either.

I don't care, I am done here.