Gamestop: Used Games Provide Billions for Publishers

[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.

And you go back to pigeonholing. I was wasting my time from the start it seems. I have heard the argument. I believe that they help push new sales. BUT THEY DO SO VIA TRADE IN! Its is like the 5th time it has been pointed out! You ignore it every time.

They dont keep the traded in games. They resell them. And by reselling them they prevent sales of a new copy of that game. Cannibalizing sales of new copies. It doesn't matter they put 1,8 billion towards new sales when they are making 5 times that by cannibalizing other new sales! And the publishers actions are a clear reaction to this. And I already pointed out that I am not against the publisher trying to prevent this circumventing by changing their business. It is the reasonable thing to do.

Your argument doesn't show me anything new. Yes the used store credit will go towards new sales, HOWEVER IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN THAT STORE CREDIT WAS OBTAINED BY PREVENTING OTHER SALES! NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND! jesbus....

You seem to believe that every used sale is a lost new sale. I think we must have time warped back a few years because even publishers don't say shit like that anymore.

Whatever, go worship EA or something, I have better things to do.

 

[Baldr]

Simple math: If you sell a used product for slightly lower price than a new copy you sold 1 copy of the game of the game to two customers instead of two new games, thus reducing the money back to the publisher/developers in half.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

I see where they're coming from with this logic. I understand the complaints Game Companies have about a skip in profits, but honestly I'll agree with others when I say the pre-owned system has opened my eyes to games I would never have gotten otherwise.

For the most part, all my PC purchases are digtal, so Gamestop is there to sate my PS3 hunger. Anytime I go in I've got one or two games in mind that I'd like, and while I tend to find appeal in brand spankin new copies, I definitely can't help but look over the vast display to see what's going for 10$.

I've gotten so many different PS3 exclusives I never would have experienced had it not been for the low price of a used game. While a used purchase doesn't support the developers, I'm definitely willing to state it has swayed my views on future purchases. I've pre-ordered and purchased new copies of games I never would have known about had it not been for used games.

And this does in fact remind me of something an author once stated about his book being pirated.. (For the life of me I can't remember who, so I'll paraphrase) Essentially bringing up how of course it initially bothered him to see his book out there in the world while he wasn't making a dime, but eventually he did come to the realization that 'borrowing' and pirating are everywhere.

How likely are you to go into a bookstore, grab a book from an author you've never heard of and purchase it? Books are shared among friends, borrowed from libraries, etc etc. And while he missed initial profits, just having his work out there meant he was getting exposure grabbing the attention of people who would never have looked at his work otherwise.

I purchase things I've no knowledge of on a whim, sure, and that can definitely pay off. But if you offer incentive to purchase things I otherwise wouldn't have looked twice at? You might just be looking at someone that'll come back and purchase the rest of the series/developer library full price next time a game comes out.

 

[deathninja]

Used games keep consumers locked into a store, and anything they but with credit goes to buying new games (which the store already paid the publisher/distributor for) so EActiUbiBlizz still gets their cut for Call of Honor Russian Kill Simulator 16, but the game store get to lock down the market a bit. Everybody profits, to varying degrees.


Yes it's old news, but the GS guy's right; it does add weight to the "used sales are not the spawn of Satan" theory.

 

[FalloutJack]

Gamestop appears to understand economics on the whole, that commerce is give and take, not take and take and take. Granted, the used game sales allow them to take in a fair bit, but the idea that creates both other business AND competition at the same time is the POINT of business. It may be a big game of everyone trying to top each other, but you need the foil to your rapier wit sometimes.