InstantAction CEO: Retailers Are "Parasites and Thieves"

[Cid Silverwing]

GameStop rang, Louis, and they told me to leave you a message: they invite you to bite their money-making, vitally important to the future survival of the games industry, shiny, metal arse.

I feel obligated to stop you there and correct you on one thing - GameStop is THE parasite of the industry. They buy used games for cheap then re-sell them at triple the original price as "used" without the case, booklet, often in terrible condition and way over the New price of any other decent retailer like Amazon.

 

[Pearwood]

Off topic: does anyone else remember when new games were $20-30, $40 tops? Feels like so long ago.

Yes, yes I do. Now I'm paying £40 for every new release (yay for bluray)

OT - Mr InstantAction CEO, make better games.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Why is it only the gaming industry, one of the most profitable industries in the world, bitches about used sales?

I don't hear ANY of this moaning from used car dealerships, used DVD sales, used books, nothing. Someone had to have bought the game new in order for used to exist; you already made your money.

Car manufacturers make most of their money selling "official" parts to dealers and maintenance chains. Also replacing custom bodywork and other such bullshit damaged in accidents.

Because film makes most of it's money from theaters.

Because print is a very low investment venture. Books are written out of the author's pocket, printed for pennies a copy, and sold for $20-30 new.

The commonality here is, "none of this applies in any way, shape, or form to the video game industry." Car manufacturers do not have to reinvent the internal combustion engine with every new model, film doesn't need to reinvent a hundred years of film history with each film, print doesn't need to invent whole new languages with every book.

If you could provide a back-catalog then perhaps there would be more new sales.
If you're dismissing retailers as thieves, then why are you supplying them?

Because thats not how it works. This isn't a case of publishers not supplying new copies to establish a backlog, its a case of retailers not requesting copies because they're making too much money from undercutting new copies with used copies to even care about replenishing stock. If the game doesn't sell well, they ship excess copies back to the publisher (if theres a lot) or mark them down a fair bit (if theres only a few).

Off topic: does anyone else remember when new games were $20-30, $40 tops? Feels like so long ago.

You know what happened? Gamestop and other chains bought out all the mom&pop shops that undercut them.

 

[XT inc]

I like my games new, but I've grown to feel a lot better knowing I got something for 10 bucks at blockbuster used than 59.99 at best buy new. That's the difference of buying 4-6 games for the option to open a game box. And with gaming becoming the slew of six hour burn outs I rent and beat 90 % of games I want to try and you'd better be a shiny diamond earning game of the year in my mind to warrant me dumping 70$ for it.

 

[jaeger138]

That doesn't work, if the games would cost 30$, the used-games industry (GameStop etc.) would sell em for 25$, if the games cost 20$ they'd sell em back for 15$ and so on, if it's 10$ they'd still sell em for 7$ and still make a profit... as the OP says they're parasites and they don't have to compete with anyone or anything else because they don't create a product... they just resell and take all the profit, and apparently the greed to save those 5 bucks will make lots of people buy used in the first place.

The only way to go is offer more content with a new copy of a game (both digital and physical) as they're doing with their "project 10$" and imbed some some form of CD-Key system in the next generation of consoles so if a developer chooses to lock a game copy to 1 sale only they can do so and they can even choose to unlock it against whatever price they deem right, effectively making them able to control used sales.

And yes, as much as piracy is nothing like stealing a car... selling a software product (in this case video-games) is nothing like selling a car, a car gets old and used and also needs to be repaired and parts from the manufacturer... cars are also used on a day-to-day basis and cannot be bought, used for a day or a weekend and resold (or they can, but it'd be retarded). Books als deteriorate over time and show signs of wear... movies get their main income from theatric releases. I'm sure if you could resell your movie ticket for other people to watch after you've seen the movie there'd be huge problems with that etc. etc.

Everything you've said is precisely what I think is the downfall of gaming. Offering more content with a new title and this 'Project $10' scam are precisely the wrong way to go. This 'more content' is likely stuff cut from the game to be sold on online stores so that users have to either buy new or spend a lot more and this little scheme to make a second-hand buyer pay to unlock the game they've already bought is ridiculous.

I would be all for offering more content for consumers who buy new if the price was a little more fair in the first place. Not only that, but if the price was more fair and I DID buy used I would be more okay with spending some to unlock the game but that's not the case. I'm not looking for freebies, I buy my games, I download content and I download titles using my money to do so but I don't like to be told that if I don't want a game in the first few months of it's release and I end up wanting it maybe a year later that I have to pay for it twice.

I'll admit, my proposed solution may be a little obtuse and simplistic as there are a lot of factors to take on board here but one thing I do know is that there isn't another industry out there that looks to punish the consumer for looking for a bargain. If I see a game for £40 on the charts shelf at a store then see the exact same game only a few feet away on the used shelf for £32 then I'm gonna go for the cheaper one because there are few games that I feel I really want to own brand new and I'm happy to wait for the prices to drop until I purchase most games, and I don't think I'm alone in saying that either.

One solution could be filling this gap in the market. If the big publisher's execs got together and pooled their funds how much better for them would it be to open a chain of 'ethical game stores' where all used sales give a percentage to the publisher. Again, it's an idea and it probably isn't that viable but it's got to be better than what it looks like we're going to be getting.

I'll certainly agree with your point that piracy isn't like stealing a car but the industries don't compare. When you sell a car you don't have to give a percentage of that sale to the manufacturer and the new driver doesn't have to pay a percentage before the manufacturer will unlock the steering wheel. Admittedly, they're making a bigger profit margin on the initial transaction but that's why you can't compare the industries. One sells what has become an almost necessary item that people need for their daily lives and one sells an entertaining piece of software. I'm okay with paying 5 figures for a car that I need to use every day on the basis that the manufacturer isn't going to tell me they have removed the engine but kept the price the same so that I'll buy it when it comes out. If a person wants to upgrade their car they are free to do so within the limits of the law and if someone wants to add content to the game they bought they are free to do so when a publisher releases that content.

 

[Thorvan]

Ok Someone please correct me if i'm wrong here but....most games sell a million units on average at full price right? Full price being $60

Thats $180 MILLION. Oddly enough I somewhat doubt it takes $180 Million to develop and publish a game.

Each disc costing about 10 cents, thats 100k, say a team of 20 to make the game at $50k a year, thats $1M. That leaves $178,900,000 dollars for marketing (which there isnt much of compared to stuff like movies), distribution etc.

So I fail to see why they are whining so much. It's not like they are about to go under -.-

Uh, most games sell way less; 500,000 would seem a decent "average," although I think it might be somewhat less. Additionally, the publishers get about $45 out of every sale; $67,500,000, if I calculate correctly. Assuming that it sells 500,000, of course.

One million is a bit of a low number for development, as well. Proper marketing can also be potentially pricey. Note that I'm not arguing with you; they're just not as swimming in money as you think.

 

[oppp7]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

 

[squid5580]

Has anyone considered why there is a used game market in the first place? The whole spend 69.99 + tax for a 6 hour game might have something to with it. Not only that you take away used games then you are going to see a decrease in new game sales. I use my used game trade in for new games most of the time.

Anyone else find it funny renting wasn't mentioned?

 

[squid5580]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Has anyone considered why there is a used game market in the first place? The whole spend 69.99 + tax for a 6 hour game might have something to with it. Not only that you take away used games then you are going to see a decrease in new game sales. I use my used game trade in for new games most of the time.

Anyone else find it funny renting wasn't mentioned?

Except games are getting shorter because publishers/developers don't want to invest as much if used sales are going to account for 75% of a game's revenue. Money they'll never see. Catch 22.

Also, I assumed the reason most people bought used was they were simply unaware no money was going to anyone who mattered. If thats not the case... if you don't care about supporting developers, why not just pirate? Cut out the middleman, get games for free, save more money. or do you not know how piss easy console piracy is?

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

By that logic piracy is perfectly Okay because at least one copy needs to be sold before the game can be cracked.

Its just hilarious how because of a legal loophole, cutting developers/publishers out of money that should by all rights come to them is awesome, and piracy is selfish and shitty.

 

[squid5580]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

By that logic piracy is perfectly Okay because at least one copy needs to be sold before the game can be cracked.

Its just hilarious how because of a legal loophole, cutting developers/publishers out of money that should by all rights come to them is awesome, and piracy is selfish and shitty.

Except how many hands will that used game pass through? 2 - 5 people? 10 max? It isn't going to millions of people from 1 purchase. Do we not purchase the disc? Not the code, not the game the physical disc,manual and case. They own the code within but the disc is mine to do with what I please. And since it is my property can I not do with it what I wish? Just like a car, a couch or anything else that I own? See piracy is taking the code not the thing you bought. You bought a medium to use said code.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

By that logic piracy is perfectly Okay because at least one copy needs to be sold before the game can be cracked.

Its just hilarious how because of a legal loophole, cutting developers/publishers out of money that should by all rights come to them is awesome, and piracy is selfish and shitty.

Except how many hands will that used game pass through? 2 - 5 people? 10 max? It isn't going to millions of people from 1 purchase.

So? They sold their game, they should be happy, by your logic.

Now, if every used game passed 2-10 hands, how is it okay for developers/publishers to sell new copies equal to only half to a tenth of the amount of people that played it?

 

[squid5580]

Why aren't retailers forced to give a portion of their used game sales to the game makers? Seriously, it would solve this problem immediately.

Why should they? The dev made a game. They sold that copy of that game. They made their money off of it. So if you forced EB or GS or whoever to pay a % of the profits to the dev then they are double dipping. How is that fair to EB or GS? Then who are the thieves?

By that logic piracy is perfectly Okay because at least one copy needs to be sold before the game can be cracked.

Its just hilarious how because of a legal loophole, cutting developers/publishers out of money that should by all rights come to them is awesome, and piracy is selfish and shitty.

Except how many hands will that used game pass through? 2 - 5 people? 10 max? It isn't going to millions of people from 1 purchase.

So? They sold their game, they should be happy, by your logic.

Now, if every used game passed 2-10 hands, how is it okay for developers/publishers to sell new copies equal to only half to a tenth of the amount of people that played it?

Go back and reread. I was editing.

 

[squid5580]

Jesus, that interview is FULL of solid gold bullshit. My favourite? The "if you can legally steal it's still stealing" bit. Last time I checked, the concept of stealing was to "acquire something illegally." I mean, that's a hilariously nonsensical thing to say.

This fixation some publishers have that they're convinced they still own the games you've bought is ridiculous. It's mine now. Short of copying it I can do what I damnwell like within reason.

GameStop rang, Louis, and they told me to leave you a message: they invite you to bite their money-making, vitally important to the future survival of the games industry, shiny, metal arse.

no, legally they DO own the game. you bought the pass to use it, not the information on it.

They own the game. The data on the disc belongs to the developer. You bought the disc it is put on. That is your property.

 

[BrionJames]

What is InstantAction and why should I give a damn what the CEO of it thinks??

 

[Icehearted]

Publishers take a huge risk and should definitely be rewarded for gouging us with withheld content (Assassin's Creed 2) or content that should have been included (Alan Wake DLC) at a premium. That so makes me want to pay full price!

They can ***** ***** ***** all they want, but if they try anything we'll so boyco-.... oh right, we don't boycott anything, we just smack talk too.

I don't really remember where I was going with this, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere so just... yeah... um... greed sucks....

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Go back and reread. I was editing.

Execpt what you added was irrelevant.

You are saying it is perfectly okay for used sales to account for 50%-90% of a game's sales. Its perfectly fine for retailers to pocket 70%-95% of the proceeds from a new game (they make more money on used sales than new copies, adjustment probably isn't accurate though). That its okay for developers/publishers to lose millions because retailers found a legal loophole. That retailers are the good guys here, because they're selling you used copies of newish games for $5 less than new copies. Copies they bought off someone else for, maybe, $7 off another used game.

That its the publisher's fault for not lowering prices, because retailers don't control pricing and wouldn't just percentage match the buy/sell prices of their used games.

Seriously, if you do not care about supporting the people responsible for developing video games, just pirate. At least then you aren't adding bloat to a purely parasitic entity and are only passively destroying the video game industry.

Developers/publishers are running down all sorts of shitty routes (DLC, withheld content, subscription based gaming, etc, etc, etc) because distributors are making more money than they are on things they made and they have no legal recourse.

 

[squid5580]

And 1 other quick point. It is the developer's job to make me not want to trade in my games. Ya that's right I said it. And not with this promises of DLC announced months before it will be released. No that ain't gonna cut it because I can just as easily trade in the game and pop into Blockbuster when the DLC is finally released. No make them so fun that I don't want to quit playing so I won't trade them in.