Help me explain how GameStop is screwing over gamers and developers alike

[The Wykydtron]

Uk only has GAME or Gamestation, is £40 the same as $60? Whatevs i've never seen any basis for these arguements anyway (in the UK at least)

 

[Defense]

Because they're a monopoly. Developers and publishers don't make any money off of used games, so Gamestop gets all of the profit.

I'm sure everyone likes to save money, but how would you feel if your hard work only got you a fraction of the pay that you were supposed to receive?

Supposed to receive?

Yes. As in, you were supposed to get $1,000 if 1,000 people bought your $1 game, but only 100 of the people buy it new, so you don't get the $900 that you were supposed to get. The Game Overthinker already talked about it.

Now, to open a new can of worms because I'm like that, piracy very much can be considered the same thing if we're talking about how they affect the developer, but with piracy you're dealing with hypothetical sales.

 

[JoeThree]

The unnecessarily high game prices. 5 years ago it was 50 bucks per game now its 60.

10 dollar raise in 5 years isn't that much

OP: I don't know if game stop is really screwing us over. Now that Best buy and other retailers are getting into the used game business, gamestop should start giving you more money when you give them used games.

If you want to help developers, you have to spend more and buy the game new. If you want to save money buy the game used, but you give gamestop your money instead of it going to developers. You have to choose which is more important to you.

It is when you are broke.

The unnecessarily high game prices. 5 years ago it was 50 bucks per game now its 60. The amount of "hardcore gamer" employees who will make fun of you because you are not buying some mega tbs game. These reasons hurt developers more because of the high prices i wont buy a game unless i know i will like it, and i will buy somewhere else or not at all because of the employees.

Everywhere sells new games at around 60. With the SNES, Chrono Trigger went for $70 at Walmart. $60 isn't as bad as you're making it out to be.

Ive been to walmarts with 360 games for 50 bucks. I would go in but im to scared to be at walmart.

Why are you scared to be at Walmart?

He doesn't want to endanger his precious "indy cred", which incidentally, is apparently worth an extra $10 per game, but such vanity is clearly not his fault, it's Game Stop's, because gaming companies and inflation happened...?

 

[xDarc]

The unnecessarily high game prices. 5 years ago it was 50 bucks per game now its 60.

10 dollar raise in 5 years isn't that much

Games were 50 bucks before you were born. So yes, a 20% increase in average price after nearly two decades of stability is a cause for concern.

 

[Defense]

Because they're a monopoly. Developers and publishers don't make any money off of used games, so Gamestop gets all of the profit.

I'm sure everyone likes to save money, but how would you feel if your hard work only got you a fraction of the pay that you were supposed to receive?

Supposed to receive?

Yes. As in, you were supposed to get $1,000 if 1,000 people bought your $1 game, but only 100 of the people buy it new, so you don't get the $900 that you were supposed to get. The Game Overthinker already talked about it.

Now, to open a new can of worms because I'm like that, piracy very much can be considered the same thing if we're talking about how they affect the developer, but with piracy you're dealing with hypothetical sales.

This pro-dev nonsense leads to insanity when taken to the extreme. To think that buying used is the same as piracy is lunacy.

In relation to the developer, it kinda is. The consumer gets what he wants both ways, but with buying a game used someone actually gets a profit out of it. Piracy is dealing with hypothetical sales, and if said hypothetical sale was real, then it would be equally harmful to the developer.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

They have a huge freakin monopoly on our industry.
http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-41-The-Revolution

Of course they do. No other distributor sells games or game-related accessories.

*cough* Best Buy Walmart Amazon.com Target Buy.com eBay GAME Gametraders Robina Numerous small game shops *cough*

 

[Grygor]

The unnecessarily high game prices. 5 years ago it was 50 bucks per game now its 60.

10 dollar raise in 5 years isn't that much

Games were 50 bucks before you were born. So yes, a 20% increase in average price after nearly two decades of stability is a cause for concern.

You're ignoring the effects of inflation. It's not the increase to $60 that warrants concern, it's the two decades of stable pricing beforehand that is problematic.

Remember, adjusted for inflation, a $60 game now cost less than a $50 game bought anytime before 2003. I mentioned this elsewhere before, but the original NES Double Dragon sold for $70 when it came out - taking into account inflation that's equivalent to about $130 today.

When you think about it, it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would expect games to cost now what they cost 25 years ago, when prices on everything else have DOUBLED over the same time period.

 

[DeathsHands]

When you think about it, it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would expect games to cost now what they cost 25 years ago, when prices on everything else have DOUBLED over the same time period.

You forgot that everyone here doesn't know real economics at all.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The only time I buy anything in Gamestop is their bargains. Recently, I got Timesplitters: Future Perfect for $3.

So, my local Gamestop gets a thumbs up there.

And please don't respond to me lamenting about your dealings with them.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I wouldn't necessarily say GameStop is screwing over gamers (maybe perhaps in the trade-in department) but i can say that the used games part of their business is. That's only because the sales from those don't go to the developers.

 

[sdmblack]

The unnecessarily high game prices. 5 years ago it was 50 bucks per game now its 60. The amount of "hardcore gamer" employees who will make fun of you because you are not buying some mega tbs game. These reasons hurt developers more because of the high prices i wont buy a game unless i know i will like it, and i will buy somewhere else or not at all because of the employees.

75 bucks for a new game in canada.

 

[Double A]

People seem to complain about prices. But that's the developer's fault, not Gamestop's. The cost of games have simply gone up, as they've gotten more complicated. Gamestop sell the games with minimal profit margin, less than 10$. What they're doing to screw over developers are selling used games. The developers get nothing and it's all profit for Gamestop. But that's good for the gamers, so how are they screwing us over? Well, that would be pre-order exclusives.
/thread

Exactly, and because they only get <$10 profit, they have to sell used games and screw over the industry if they want to make decent money.

This is how the economy works, people.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

They really do have the market cornered on used games. There have been a few department stores talking about selling used games, but none of them have started the service yet. As I mentioned in an earlier post, online and independent brick and mortar stores do tend to have better prices, but they obviously aren't putting enough of a dent in Gamestop's bottom line for Gamestop to drop its prices. This is especially true of the independent stores, which are practically non-existant in many parts of the country.

Ok, I don't know where you live but in my area EVERY STORE sells games for $60, and I know for a fact that amazon sells games for $60.

Re-read that passage, I was exclusively referring to used games. Gamestop has perfectly competitive prices on new games, which, as you pointed out, are $60 no matter where you go -- aside from eventual markdowns for greatest hits releases and the like. As a matter of fact, they eventually mark down New games that don't sell -- I recently got the PC version of Turok for $5, and Fallout Trilogy for $10, both about as new as you can expect from a store that guts their supposedly new games.

As for the figures on the prices, that is what I remember games costing up until the mid 2000s. I live in a part of the US that had more EB games stores than Gamestops, right up until a year or two before the buyout, so if Gamestop has overcharged to the extent they do today all along, I wouldn't know. It would, however, be surprising that the company with the higher prices was the one that prevailed in the long run. If you can get me a source that shows my memory to be faulty, I'll accept it, but until then it's my word against yours.

That is because Gamestop doesn't overcharge, they aren't the ones setting the prices. They were able to buy out EB Games because they were the better store, simple as that.

Again, they overcharge on used games, not new games. They certainly set the prices on those, at least within the borders of their own stores. While market factors can put pressure on those prices, in the absence of any real competition on the retail used game front, they can effectively charge whatever they want, with the only limiting factor being what people can afford to pay; it's not like anybody is going to undercut them. The comment about how it would be surprising that Gamestop would outlast EB games was aimed at you saying that my initial comment about what used games went for during the time period was wrong. If we both agree that the prices were competitive between Gamestop and EB, it was probably a combination of other factors -- and indeed, Gamestop stores at the time were better laid out, and in my experience had more knowledgeable staff than EB -- both factors that could lead to Gamestop edging out the competition.

As for your point about charging $55 for a used game not being a case of screwing over the customer, that's just ridiculous. It's screwing over the customer in that they're way over charging the customer. You said it yourself -- why pay that much for a used copy, when a new copy is actually new and costs a negligible amount more? The only reason Gamestop gets away with it is that its the biggest used game retailer by far, and in fact the only one in most parts of the country. You can't honestly tell me that a used game, regardless of condition, and which is probably extremely common, is worth $55, only $5 less than it would cost new?

Their not screwing over the customer because the customer is getting to pay less for a game, if they wanted to buy the game new they would. If they want to save that $5 they will buy it used. And were I live at least, both Toys-r-Us and Best Buy already sell used games. Guess what? Gamestop still gets the customers, you know why? because you can return a defective game within 30 days of buying for another copy that works. At no cost to you.

My argument is that they are screwing over the customer by charging far more than a used game is actually worth. Think about it, $5 of of $60 is roughly 8%. Once that shrink wrap comes off, the value of the game drops way more than that. They should be charging something on the order of 20-30% less than the new price, and even then only for as long as the game is current. But they get away with the 8% markdown, because they don't have any real competition on the brick and mortar front. I can guarantee you that individual used sellers on Ebay and Amazon knock off way more than 8% of the MSRP, and that the markdown in brick and mortar stores was similarly high before Gamestop beat out most of the competition.

The thing about returning a defective game within 30 days is irrelevant to the point; the fact that you can't do that otherwise is an example of the software industry as a whole screwing over the customer, so the fact that Gamestop allows for a short period where you can return a used game doesn't work as much in their favor as you seem to think. All retailers should allow for returns on all software, new or used -- but that's another argument for another day, or at least another thread.

 

[BeeRye]

My argument is that they are screwing over the customer by charging far more than a used game is actually worth. Think about it, $5 of of $60 is roughly 8%. Once that shrink wrap comes off, the value of the game drops way more than that. They should be charging something on the order of 20-30% less than the new price, and even then only for as long as the game is current. But they get away with the 8% markdown, because they don't have any real competition on the brick and mortar front. I can guarantee you that individual used sellers on Ebay and Amazon knock off way more than 8% of the MSRP, and that the markdown in brick and mortar stores was similarly high before Gamestop beat out most of the competition.

This don't screw the customer over though. The customer sees the price and makes the decision as to whether the used game is worth $55. If they don't think it is then they can choose to attempt to source the game elsewhere at a different price.

Things that screw the customer over are things like the razerblade trap. You buy your shaver from Gillete, and in doing so are bound to buy the razers from them as well.

If Gamestop were doing things like bundling used games in packs of three, where you have to pay for two you don't want just to get the one you do, that would be screwing people over. As it is they put the used games up for a price they deem appropriate and you get to decide whether or not you think it's worth that price. Like you yourself have pointed out, individual sellers tend to knock off more, so if you want to find one of them and negotiate a price with them you're perfectly entitled to do so.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This pro-dev nonsense leads to insanity when taken to the extreme. To think that buying used is the same as piracy is lunacy.

It isn't lunacy in the slightest. The math proves this. Basic economics proves this.

Furthermore, this problem is not unique to used game sales; the Right of First Sale Doctrine came about because of this very issue about a century ago. That right has recently been contested in court (Autodesk vs Vernor) as it pertains to software AND THIS VERY ISSUE.

What we are seeing are two economic forces clashing over control of the consumer's spending habits. The Publisher's near total-control over production, and Retail's near-total control over the best possible price.

Publishers want to take advantage of overly inflated retail-prices through digital distribution (which the presently do through DLC. See Project 10 Dollar/Day 1 DLC for proof).

Retail wants to take advantage of the Used Games Business by abusing arbitrage. They have an amazingly efficient system for doing this.

I've seen this in action. I have mathematical proof of this. I've already cited my real-life example. You can recreate this process for real by going to any Gamestop and just asking about their trade-in program. Why can I not sell back console games for what I paid? Even if I bought a game, and never took it out of the store, I would never get anything more than store credit for it.

"Company policy. That's why. Now bend over and take it you stupid consumer lackwit."

Remember: When they sell a used title to you under the pretense of "lower price" it's only lower IN COMPARISON TO GAMESTOP. Though expect those prices to become more relevant as more of Gamestop's dwindling competition get bought out or collapse because apart from major box-stores Gamestop will soon be the ONLY business in town.

Case in point, they have already torpedoed no fewer than 6 individual stores/chains in my local market. Every one of those locations was bought out and converted into a Gamestop within a year of their failure. To me, if that isn't proof of a hostile takeover, I don't know what is. Until the local Gamecrazy went under, I think there were a whopping TWO non-gamestop stores left in a city of 100,000.

The only say Developers have in this is a yes or no proposition at this point (just like the consumer). Infinity Ward walked out of a lucrative contract due to legal issues regarding (allegedly) royalty payments from Modern Warfare 2. Usually, under-performing developers get canned long before ever reaching that point.

The fact that the publisher was able to legally send armed goons to their office speaks volumes of the sort of business these developers face.

I admit that even without the Used Game Market, the sales still go to the Publisher first and the developers second; but that's the thing. Publishers, by their very nature have ALWAYS been part of distribution while the two originating forces of supply and demand (the developer and the gamer) have been the ones getting fucked by these middlemen.

So to me, blindly supporting either the Publisher or Retailers (while discrediting the other) is stupid, because in an ideal market they wouldn't exist. While we can never feasibly be rid of the publishers, we should at least be moving as close as we can towards that ideal, no?

 

[xDarc]

Inflation has little to do with it.

If that were the case prices would have risen steadily, but for a time in the 90s games got cheaper. The reasons are varied, mainly increased competition.

Point being, you do not attribute 20 years of stable prices and then a near overnight 20% markup as inflation. That's greed and price fixing. The reasons in the past have more to do with changing technology, supply and demand, monopolisticc business practices, increasing competition, a diversifying market place, etc.

Same thing happened to the home computing market, they got cheaper because conditions for an emerging market improved. Any price sudden price hikes are always greed. Don't be a sap.

P.s.

Everyone is screwing you over, developer, publisher and retailer.

Dev studios are making smaller/shorter titles, allowing them to artificially inflate their number of projects/titles so they can make more for less game.

Publishers are marking up this garbage because used games are hurting their bottom line.

Gamestop is an overbearing middle man that stiffles more direct consumer trading and resale, which would give a better deal to everyone buying or selling used.

 

[Evilbunny]

Over half?
That means for every copy sold new, more than one copy must be sold back to gamestop.

That isn't exactly likely.

Wait, why not? One person buys it new, then sells it back when they're done with it, then somebody else buys it used and then does the same when they're done with it. Finally somebody else buys that same used game. Why can't that happen?