In other news, a group of authors banded together to publicly denounce libraries and used book stores because "It's like they were stealing the money from our wallets!" Uwe Boll also has joined the fight, but in favor of cable tv and video rental. "If it weren't for these mediums, people might never watch my movies," he said in a statement slamming the other side.
InstantAction CEO Says Retailers "Horribly Abuse" the Industry
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
A few things.Gildan Bladeborn said:
First, a sizable portion of those preorders are financed by trades. Probably approaching 30% of all those games wre pre-ordered in whole, or in part, by trade credit. And each one of those pre-orders is a legit new-product day 1 sale.
Second, pre-orders are guaranteed sales. That's why they're done. Every single pre-order GS takes is a guaranteed day one sle of new product. Whether or not they have more for walk-ins is actually largely irrelevent, because they have just sold through a horrendously large number of new product. They frankly don't need your sale. Furthermore, if you really want the game right away, and didn't preorder it, you're either going to go get it from somewhere else, or you'll come back and buy it (still probably new, because used turnover is typically not fast enough to beat the second shipment) new a few days later.
Thirdly, by and large, unit allocation to retail chains is determined by the publisher, not by the retailer. If Gamestop only gets enough copies to cover pre-orders, that is mostly in the control of the publisher. Retailers have some input, but the final determination is made by whoever it is that's shipping the game.
I was referring expressly to new product, as would the overwhelming majority of trade promotions and bonus credit deals.Gildan Bladeborn said:
Again, that's the publisher. markup on the typical new game is between 10 and 15%. Retailers have next to no wiggle room on new pricing. For some perspective, markup on the average clothing item is in the 60-85% range.Gildan Bladeborn said:
(also, I never said that the pricing of product was good for consumers.)
Retailers, like any ther for-profit business will work to maximize their profit. It happens that new video games are a very expensive and very low-margin product to sell. If you're a big box retailer, that's not such a problem. You have other lines of business there to offset the relatively low performance of your game section, and the additional business being brought in by that product offsets the costs of maintaining it.Gildan Bladeborn said:
Specialty game stores do not have that safety net, and therefore have to sustain themselves on used sales. Gamestop isn't profiting in a significant and functional way from new games. there just isn't enough money in it. The money is in advertizing partnerships, promotions, and used sales.
The really hilarios part is how outraged people get over the fact that Gamestop makes 50% profit on used games. The running shoes you bought last were made for maybe a dollar or two and cost $150 in store. And people are pissed over the fact that GS made half the total of the used game they purchased?
-m
"On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement." - Andrew Ryan
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
And that's why it's so risky to be in specialized retail of any sort.uppitycracker said:
But that's why other specialty retailers offer other services along with the product. For example, you go into a music store and I'm sure there's people who give lessons.
Game retailers might have a hard time selling gamer lessons but they could certainly sell lessons in how to use the consumer dev kits that are around like the one for XBL and the track maker for rock-band.
They could offer other services while not ripping off the consumer; maybe by even fixing mess ups from other companies that screw the consumer. Imagine how much money gamestop could've made if they were offering in-house (maybe even same-day) repairs when the rrod problem first hit. Even after MS started offering free replacements I'm sure there would've still been tons of people who would've paid to have their system repaired if it was done same-day/week. I'm sure that ps3 owners who's consoles break would rather bring it someplace to repair like that just so they can keep the data on the HDD or just keep the big HDD they installed intact. How about if they offered a service of replacing the HDD, which was a pain in the ass on the older fat models-before they changed the screws. I'm sure there are a lot of gamers who would've taken advantage of that.
There are tons of ways for gamestop to make money without gouging prices and ripping off consumers, but I guess that wouldn't be as easy and employees with skills are herder to take advantage of than the mouth breathing high school dropouts they pay minimum wage to now. I think it would be best for gamestop to look into these routs of income if only for the fact that they need to change their business model at this point. We can see that the publishers are gunning for them and they can put the beat down themselves, especially if they get the consumer on their side.
The reason you can't lump those together is that we (in the US at least) have a legal right to sell what we own, and we don't have a legal right to take what we don't own. The industry needs to figure out how to be profitable with that set of rules, not ***** and moan that they can't. Gamestop has been trading in used games for years, but 2009 was the first year that the game industry didn't grow, and that was mostly due to the poor overall economy. Seems like they aren't really being affected by the used game market.Caliostro said:
Besides, should we really be revisiting the first-sale doctrine? Open that can of worms and the music and movie industry will wrench that right open, pushing for any sale, loan, or rental to require a fee.
But it's only right that video games are some sort of special exception, and the used industry must be killed right? Because Johnny Game Dev needs to make up the cost of having Joss Whedon write his script and Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry, Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford act in his game. If the used industry isn't murdered like a baby seal, how can he ever see a profit with his huge overhead? Obviously the solution is to browbeat everyone who doesn't buy a game new until the only people buying games are giving him money.Matt_LRR said:
Never mind that used games sales create expectation and introduce new gamers to running series' and can increase sales of new titles (like a guy who buys Mass Effect used and later buys the second game new). Never mind how retailers get used AND new products to people who otherwise probably wouldn't buy otherwise, or how much in-store ads, reservations and subscriptions contribute to the sale of new games. Nah, let's just shut out an entire group of consumers and make them feel like criminals, thereby convincing them to shop somewhere they won't be treated like dirt.
Excuse me, game developers, but I'll buy that used Xbox copy of Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath that nobody has seen fit to manufacture new for freaking ages, and you can all just jump off a cliff. If anything, attitudes like this tell me I should buy more of that developer's games used, so these opinions aren't rewarded with money.
This really is an incredibly poor attitude to take. No doubt that developers and publishers would benefit from increased new game sales, but just bitching about how the system currently works and calling for the destruction of retailers is not going to change things. If you want people to buy your game new, make it more valuable to them or make it less expensive. Almost all of the games that I buy new are PC games because they're usually about £25-£30 and that's an amount I find acceptable. But console games are generally £40-£50. That's just way too much for a game that's likely to only last me for about weekend or so before I've finished it. I just won't pay that much and things won't change if you simply remove the retailers; your 10 hour or you half-arsed games won't suddenly become worth £45 to me because you destroyed the ability to get it cheaper. I just won't buy it.
Well there's also the fact that I like walking into a game store and the feeling I get from buying my new games. I also like having physical copies. I still have old game boxes from back in the days when they sold games in gigantic boxes for no real reason. >_<Agorwal said:
Sorry but rentals are awesome, otherwise half the games I would own would be shit, aka Darkisiders or Final Fantasey 13.
Some of us poor suckers live in Australia, where we still have such stone-age concepts as download limits. Most games nowadays take up about 4gb, not counting all the patches you then immediately have to download. On my current plan, a single game would burn through a fifth of my download limit in one shot. If physical game retailers were to disappear, I wouldn't be buying any games.
The gaming industry really is trying to take back the record from the music industry (no pun intended) for the most whine.
The gaming industry really is trying to take back the record from the music industry (no pun intended) for the most whine.
Irrelevant. You're just mindlessly quoting someone else.dthree said:
Things are legal and illegal for a reason (supposedly at least). It's not because someone felt like it.
It's illegal to take things you don't own because there's an expected loss when you do so, the item you stole. It's not illegal to resell them because you're not losing anything. If I steal a car the stand is out of that car, which has a specific cost and value. When you torrent a game you don't really take anything, you copy it, so there's no real loss to begin with.
Then people claimed piracy was illegal because you were causing the loss of a potential sale - someone was getting the product without the developers getting paid. That is a giant slippery slope if you even bother to think about it, but it's not the point here. Point was, it's considered stealing because someone gets the product without the producer of said product receiving compensation.
Isn't that exactly what happens when you rent or resell a game? Someone is getting the product, and the producer is getting jack shit. Worst! Someone is making a profit out of it, and it's not the producer, cause he gets squat.
Under most laws you're allowed to sell something you own... You can also copy it, borrow it and a myriad of other things considered illegal with the "virtual" industry. But you don't own the game... Not the "intellectual property", which is what's claimed as copyrighted. So, either you do or you don't. Besides, don't forget games are already operating under special rules, remember? When you pirate software you're being cast as a criminal for potential, hypothetical losses... Which, in any other branch, would be unconstitutional to say the least.
"Your honor my client maybe could have been, perhaps, killed in that accident."
"And, what does your client claim to have suffered?"
"Well... Absolutely nothing at all... BUT, there was the chance that maybe he could perhaps still come to suffer something we can't in any way honestly and reliable quantify or demonstrate."
Yeah, that would hold it in court in any other situation. /sarcasm. But, again, with the "virtual" industry there are special rules which mean this works. Because otherwise the developers don't get paid for their work. Ok, so far so awkward and shady at best, but still... The REALLY tricky part is that, in that case, reselling and renting virtual media has to be considered just as illegal. It's the EXACT same loss for the developers, except, with the added aggravation that someone IS making a profit for it, there is a demonstrable interest in the product and financial capacity to acquire it... And it's all being thrown into the hands of a middleman that in no way benefits the original developers.
Isn't the EXACT same argument valid for piracy? Piracy has been around since videogames have, and, as you said, only last year was there a lack of growth in the industry during a recession.dthree said:
All I want is consistency. Either they're both illegal, as they both cause harm to the developers, or neither are. You can't have it both ways.dthree said:
You have a point. Both do not help the developer. One is legal, one is not. You want them both to be illegal, or neither.Caliostro said:
The rational answer is that they should both be under the control of the original creator or manager. No used sales without permission of the copyright holder, period.
However, This is not conducive to a functioning society. That's why the first sale doctrine was applied to games. We give them the "Though shall not copyright infringe" and they give us "You can sell your copy as long as you don't use it anymore".
Give, and Take. Unfortunately people have been violating one, and game companies have been violating the other. I don't feel sorry for pirates nor game companies, none of us have been playing by the rules lately.
I sympathisize with the guy. I realy do. Games haven't gone up in sale price much in 25 years, but production costs have skyrocketed. That ever shinking margin has to hurt and somthing needs to be done above the standard whining about how something cheaper is cuttring into your profit margin.
That said, blaming the idea of rentals and used games isn't the right tactic. Granted the guy comes off like the standard hard line greedy corporate type that thinks that if I want to play a DVD for my family, every member should buy a copy first because no one should enjoy thier intellectual property without paying for it, bt if used sales and rentals are dangerously cutting into the profits of the publishers some deal may need to be cut. Say something like a small royalty fee on rentals and commissions on used sales through major retailers. Yeah, I know, a reasonalbe soulution wouldn't cut it since the publishers want what's most profitaable for them (everyone buying new games only) and the renters and used sellers wouldn't want their own margins cut into by and additional fee.
The secondary market will probalby always exist (in fact it can often be the only way to play a lost classic). The only way to get around it would be to go all digital, with really wouldnt' be feasible for Final Fantasy 13.
That said, blaming the idea of rentals and used games isn't the right tactic. Granted the guy comes off like the standard hard line greedy corporate type that thinks that if I want to play a DVD for my family, every member should buy a copy first because no one should enjoy thier intellectual property without paying for it, bt if used sales and rentals are dangerously cutting into the profits of the publishers some deal may need to be cut. Say something like a small royalty fee on rentals and commissions on used sales through major retailers. Yeah, I know, a reasonalbe soulution wouldn't cut it since the publishers want what's most profitaable for them (everyone buying new games only) and the renters and used sellers wouldn't want their own margins cut into by and additional fee.
The secondary market will probalby always exist (in fact it can often be the only way to play a lost classic). The only way to get around it would be to go all digital, with really wouldnt' be feasible for Final Fantasy 13.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE OVERCHARGED FOR OUR PROJECT! IT'S UNFAIR!
Idea. Lower production costs by making games smarter, not bigger.
Idea. Lower production costs by making games smarter, not bigger.
Some of Wal-Mart's lowest markups are on games and consoles to boot. One might argue Gamestop is "abusive," but this whole idea that it's box stores like Wal-Mart sucking the profit out is inane.uppitycracker said:
Unfortunately, pretty much every entertainment medium claims something similar. It's harder to claim with other industries, but the MPAA and RIAA have likened used media to stealing (RIAA spokespeople going as far as to claim it should be illegal), and publishers hate used book stores.Matt_LRR said:
I do wish they'd stop the whining, but the fact is it's easier to whine about a scapegoat than it is to address the problems with the industry.
