Is gamestop perhaps justified?

[Rawne1980]

B)It cuts both developer and publisher profits. This is as bad as pirating for them, worse maybe, it's legal.

No, no, no, no and did I mention no.

Forget what bullshit you have read from people saying they have "lost profits due to used game sales".

Most people that buy used games only got them because they were cheap they wouldn't have paid full price for the game.

If the used market suddenly vanished those very same people STILL wouldn't buy a full price game.

I'll say that only 2 or 3 times a year will I buy a full price game. The rest i'll get when either the prices drop dramatically or in the January sales when things sell for a fraction of the price.

Games that I got used for my 360 I only got because they were between £5 and £10. Those games I would not have paid £40 for, they just weren't worth it.

The people that genuinely want the game, will pay full price. Those that don't will either get them in sales or used. Get rid of the used sales and they will still wait for the price drops.

Getting rid of used sales will not hike up a publishers/developers profit margins by the millions they seem to assume it will.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Once digital distribution gets a hold on the Console market the way it did on the PC, it's over for gamestop (and the others), they are going bankrupt.

But the used games market is another way for them to earn a huge profit before this happens, so in a way, they are justified. I still dislike gamestop, but this is one side of the coin that I never bothered seeing before.

Please tell me that I?m misunderstanding this.
It seems to me that what you?re saying is that Gamestop is completely justified in shafting publishers and ripping off consumers because they probably don?t have enough ingenuity to evolve with the market?
That?s like saying that the retreating army is justified in burning the village down as they run. Sure they can tactically do it, but it?s a dick move that only serves to benefit a few pricks? sense of spite.
It would be one thing if they did good things with their money but gamestop doesn?t put a lot of support into charities and they pay most of their employees minimum wage. They don?t even do anything for the industry, they?re only damaging to it.
So while their board members think that the practices are justified (because they are a part of the very small group of people that benefit from it), I don?t think the benefit to those few people (who are already rich mind you) outweighs the damage to the game industry or the swindling done to regular people.
Gamestop going bankrupt will probably be the only good thing to come out of complete digital distribution.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I always buy physical copies of games (only real exception being games where the physical copies are out of print and digital download is the only legal way to get them), and I never buy used games. Guess that makes me an anomaly.

While I deeply hope that digital distribution isn't going to put brick and mortar stores out of business, I can't deny that the writing is on the wall.

I used to work for an electronics store. It wasn't a specialized gaming store like GameStop, but it still had a pretty large selection of games for all the major gaming systems and PC. A few months before I quit for a better job, I sat in on a meeting where the-powers-that-be were talking about expanding upon our gaming department since they anticipated a 300% increase in sales over the next year. That's not a typo. 300% increase... despite the economy and competition from digital distribution and online marketplaces. It was hard not laughing, but what did I know? I was just one of the peons working the floor and interacting with the consumers. So anyway... they went ahead with their plans, and I bet now they're regretting it, as right up until the day I left, sales weren't rising. I still talk to some of my former coworkers, and they claim sales have actually dipped.

So... yeah... not looking forward to having to embrace digital distribution, but it's probably inevitable. Stores like GameStop are just trying to milk whatever's left from their slowly dying cow, and I suppose I can't blame them for that. So I guess in that regard maybe it is, at least somewhat, justifiable for them to do what they're doing.

I just wonder who threw the first stone. Did the industry start pushing for digital distribution because of brick and mortar stores attempting to cut them out of the profits, or did the brick and mortar stores start cutting the industry out because of the impending switch to digital distribution that'll cut out the middlemen between industry and consumer. I dunno. /shrug.

 

[The_Deleted]

It would be a fair argument if the consumer got a fair deal aswell. We don't. We get shafted unless there is some special deal on regarding a special offer trade.
Fuck the lot of them.

 

[Reishadowen]

Uhm....am I the only person on this site who doesn't think Gamestop is hideously evil? "Hey guys, I just bought Kirby's Epic Yarn and Assassin's creed from Gamestop-"
"FOLLOWER OF THE DEVIL! BURN HIM!!"
"Aiiieeee!"


In any case, I'd hope that physical copies don't ever go away. Yeah, software is great, but if your system gets damaged, everything on it is lost. I can't count the number of times I've had to whip out my old CD's I've backed up my files on. They're a god-send for us stupid people who change machines (or accidentally break them) fairly often.

This is as bad as pirating...

This is where I stopped giving a shit about your opinion and stopped reading.

Does being a corporate shill pay well, or do you just do it as a hobby?

Glad I'm not the only one who thought he was being just a touch melodramatic... =/

 

[Tanis]

ha-ha...no.

No to both GS screwing their customers and NO to 'everything going digital soon'.

At least not in the USA - our download speed (on average) is too dang slow for that.
Imagine, if you will, having to DL 20-40GB for a PS4 (w/e) game...every...damn...time.

I just don't see folks willing to put up with that when they could just buy the same game, for the same price...and actually OWN IT...physically.

Because, you know, why knock off 20USD when people are STUPID enough to spend 60USD on a digital copy for a game.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

The cost of making the game, the development budget, is the money being paid to the developers which they use to pay themselves since 99% of the cost here is human resources, in the scope of these projects the cost of materials (office space & computers) is minimal. If a game costs like say 30 million dollars to make that means the developers pocketed 30 million dollars to make the game.

No. There are so many more costs to making games than just human resources. If a publisher wants a game on a console, then they have to get development kits and go through all the certifications, which costs money. If a developer doesn't want to spend time developing their own game engine, then they have to pay someone so they can use theirs. If a developer wants to put in fancy technologies like Havok physics, then they need to spend money on that. If a developer wants big name voice actors in their game, then they have to spend money on them.

Sure, some people in development studios may pocket more than their fair share of the money, but human resources don't make up most of a game's cost in most cases.

I agree with your post overall, but I felt like I needed to correct this.

 

[krazykidd]

Wait digital distribution? Oh god , my days as a gamer are numbered ! I will never EVER ever buy a digital copy of a game . I like having physical proof that i own/purchased a game ... I better start stocking up for the gaming apocalypse ! ( i wish i was joking , but i'm not ...)

 

[Atmos Duality]

B)It cuts both developer and publisher profits. This is as bad as pirating for them, worse maybe, it's legal.

I wish people would quit stating that, because it's factually incorrect.
Math proves this.

 

[Savagezion]

Once digital distribution gets a hold on the Console market the way it did on the PC, it's over for gamestop (and the others), they are going bankrupt.

But the used games market is another way for them to earn a huge profit before this happens, so in a way, they are justified. I still dislike gamestop, but this is one side of the coin that I never bothered seeing before.

Please tell me that I?m misunderstanding this.
It seems to me that what you?re saying is that Gamestop is completely justified in shafting publishers and ripping off consumers because they probably don?t have enough ingenuity to evolve with the market?
That?s like saying that the retreating army is justified in burning the village down as they run. Sure they can tactically do it, but it?s a dick move that only serves to benefit a few pricks? sense of spite.

How are they shafting publishers? How are they ripping off customers? I ain't even going to bother with the "evolve with the market" line as that bridge is still pretty far down the road. Also, considering the circumstances of the war, the retreating army could be justified in burning down a village - not just as a tactic but as their right. But no villages are being burned here though. Not even in an allegorical manner.

It would be one thing if they did good things with their money but gamestop doesn?t put a lot of support into charities and they pay most of their employees minimum wage. They don?t even do anything for the industry, they?re only damaging to it.
So while their board members think that the practices are justified (because they are a part of the very small group of people that benefit from it), I don?t think the benefit to those few people (who are already rich mind you) outweighs the damage to the game industry or the swindling done to regular people.
Gamestop going bankrupt will probably be the only good thing to come out of complete digital distribution.

Um, a lot of game companies don't give money to charity. Why do you hold this against Gamestop and not them? Minimum wage is a crime? Their employees do trivial labor if you can even call it labor... it is more like tasks. Working at McDonald's is more stressful and McDonald's net income is higher. Who exactly has the right to pay minimum wage according to you? Gamestop is a part time job at best for anyone over 18-24. Perhaps they should grow a bit of ambition and seek a better paying job if that is what they need/desire? Retail is the worst place to complain about wages. Wal-Mart employees are the only ones I that have a legit argument and that is more due to the company's size and market strategies it employs.

They don't do anything for the industry? I will admit that they cater more to the consumer than the industry but what retailer doesn't? That is the name of the game. Does Walmart need to contribute profits to JVC, Kraft, or Hersheys to help those industries? Is McDonald's responsible for bailing out the beef industry? Should Blockbuster have sent profit to MGM and Warner while they were open? Of course not. They are an outlet for these companies not their investors. However, they do pump money into it. They offer large sums of cash to publishers for exclusive content which encourages more people to pre-order games which means more day 1 purchases AND a baloon payment to the developers. Recently, Gamestop has started offering a better rewards program where buying new games gives you points that give you money off more new games. That is gamestop footing the bill for us, the consumers. They are willing to go halfsies with you every 4th or 5th game you buy at their store. What other retailer is offering gamers that? As well, they have Game Informer they pay for to give out for "free" to anyone who uses their $15 a year service which is great for advertising upcoming releases in. Gamestop is an advertising haven for publishers. What more do you want them to do as a retailer? Their marketing tactics are not impenetrable for other stores to compete against. (Especially, in the used game area.)

It irritates me when I see people saying they are screwing the publishers by trying to avoid giving them money by profiting on consumer spending habits. (Used games) Then turn around and say they are swindling the consumers by charging too much for used games and too little for trade in credit. Which would discourage the first one from even happening. The fact is, most people that trade in their games - aren't trying to profit, they just no longer want the game anymore and would prefer an easy transaction over hunting for the right buyer. As far as buying a used game - it varies, but at that stage, who gives a shit why someone would if it isn't your transaction? That is moot. $5 bucks, they must have their reasons.

The reality is, publishers don't give a shit about retailers. I don't see publishers throwing a bone to Target or Best Buy for not selling used games. They plain don't give a shit about them. However, since Gamestop sells used games they put on their dog and pony show about how much this is "hurting the industry".*** Something completely unprovable and they know it. But it is the propaganda that is important not facts and they know that too. Millions of gamers will read their statements and just believe it is true, because 'the people running the industry would know that'. They are claiming "losses" on games that have netted them over 10 million dollars! They made 10+ million dollars and are shouting, "We lost money!" And there are people out there actually shouting, "Oh no! Damn Gamestop!" - and believing it.

EDIT: ***Which, with Gamestops strong presence in the market, conveniently gives them a great platform to give a bad impression to consumers about retailers and how 'costly' it is to distruibute hard copies and possibly promote how much better gaming will be once everything is digitally distributed. (Bullshit)

EDIT2: Bah, fudged my numbers on my first time editing this. Gamestop nets roughly 2.5 billion a year in profits. However, considering that Gamestop has released their records and they make more money on new merchandise than they do used merchandise, that is at most 1.2 billion a year on used merchandise. (Just because the profit margin is better on used merchandise doesn't mean the sales are better) That is still not enough to threaten an industry that people spend $25 billion a year on. Gamestop isn't allowed to make $1 for every $25 the industry makes that they will spend to at least promote the industry?

Also, found this article while I have been digging around. It is a good read:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/109719
Publishers are the reason Gamestop is the way it is from that perspective. The retailers at one time were trying to bend to consumer desires. But there was no bend on behalf of the publishers. Since retailers were the middle men, they were almost driven out of business by trying to meet the consumer's wishes and getting no help from the publishers to do so. They are a business, not a puppet-master in control of what the publishers will offer them or you by extension.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Once digital distribution gets a hold on the Console market the way it did on the PC, it's over for gamestop (and the others), they are going bankrupt.

But the used games market is another way for them to earn a huge profit before this happens, so in a way, they are justified. I still dislike gamestop, but this is one side of the coin that I never bothered seeing before.

Please tell me that I?m misunderstanding this.
It seems to me that what you?re saying is that Gamestop is completely justified in shafting publishers and ripping off consumers because they probably don?t have enough ingenuity to evolve with the market?
That?s like saying that the retreating army is justified in burning the village down as they run. Sure they can tactically do it, but it?s a dick move that only serves to benefit a few pricks? sense of spite.

How are they shafting publishers? How are they ripping off customers? I ain't even going to bother with the "evolve with the market" line as that bridge is still pretty far down the road. Also, considering the circumstances of the war, the retreating army could be justified in burning down a village - not just as a tactic but as their right. But no villages are being burned here though. Not even in an allegorical manner.

It would be one thing if they did good things with their money but gamestop doesn?t put a lot of support into charities and they pay most of their employees minimum wage. They don?t even do anything for the industry, they?re only damaging to it.
So while their board members think that the practices are justified (because they are a part of the very small group of people that benefit from it), I don?t think the benefit to those few people (who are already rich mind you) outweighs the damage to the game industry or the swindling done to regular people.
Gamestop going bankrupt will probably be the only good thing to come out of complete digital distribution.

Um, a lot of game companies don't give money to charity. Why do you hold this against Gamestop and not them? Minimum wage is a crime? Their employees do trivial labor if you can even call it labor... it is more like tasks. Working at McDonald's is more stressful and McDonald's net income is higher. Who exactly has the right to pay minimum wage according to you? Gamestop is a part time job at best for anyone over 18-24. Perhaps they should grow a bit of ambition and seek a better paying job if that is what they need/desire? Retail is the worst place to complain about wages. Wal-Mart employees are the only ones I that have a legit argument and that is more due to the company's size and market strategies it employs.

They don't do anything for the industry? I will admit that they cater more to the consumer than the industry but what retailer doesn't? That is the name of the game. Does Walmart need to contribute profits to JVC, Kraft, or Hersheys to help those industries? Is McDonald's responsible for bailing out the beef industry? Should Blockbuster have sent profit to MGM and Warner while they were open? Of course not. They are an outlet for these companies not their investors. However, they do pump money into it. They offer large sums of cash to publishers for exclusive content which encourages more people to pre-order games which means more day 1 purchases AND a baloon payment to the developers. Recently, Gamestop has started offering a better rewards program where buying new games gives you points that give you money off more new games. That is gamestop footing the bill for us, the consumers. They are willing to go halfsies with you every 4th or 5th game you buy at their store. What other retailer is offering gamers that? As well, they have Game Informer they pay for to give out for "free" to anyone who uses their $15 a year service which is great for advertising upcoming releases in. Gamestop is an advertising haven for publishers. What more do you want them to do as a retailer? Their marketing tactics are not impenetrable for other stores to compete against. (Especially, in the used game area.)

It irritates me when I see people saying they are screwing the publishers by trying to avoid giving them money by profiting on consumer spending habits. (Used games) Then turn around and say they are swindling the consumers by charging too much for used games and too little for trade in credit. Which would discourage the first one from even happening. The fact is, most people that trade in their games - aren't trying to profit, they just no longer want the game anymore and would prefer an easy transaction over hunting for the right buyer. As far as buying a used game - it varies, but at that stage, who gives a shit why someone would if it isn't your transaction? That is moot. $5 bucks, they must have their reasons.

The reality is, publishers don't give a shit about retailers. I don't see publishers throwing a bone to Target or Best Buy for not selling used games. They plain don't give a shit about them. However, since Gamestop sells used games they put on their dog and pony show about how much this is "hurting the industry".*** Something completely unprovable and they know it. But it is the propaganda that is important not facts and they know that too. Millions of gamers will read their statements and just believe it is true, because 'the people running the industry would know that'. They are claiming "losses" on games that have netted them over 10 million dollars! They made 10+ million dollars and are shouting, "We lost money!" And there are people out there actually shouting, "Oh no! Damn Gamestop!" - and believing it.

EDIT: ***Which, with Gamestops strong presence in the market, conveniently gives them a great platform to give a bad impression to consumers about retailers and how 'costly' it is to distruibute hard copies and possibly promote how much better gaming will be once everything is digitally distributed. (Bullshit)

EDIT2: Bah, fudged my numbers on my first time editing this. Gamestop nets roughly 2.5 billion a year in profits. However, considering that Gamestop has released their records and they make more money on new merchandise than they do used merchandise, that is at most 1.2 billion a year on used merchandise. (Just because the profit margin is better on used merchandise doesn't mean the sales are better) That is still not enough to threaten an industry that people spend $25 billion a year on. Gamestop isn't allowed to make $1 for every $25 the industry makes that they will spend to at least promote the industry?

Also, found this article while I have been digging around. It is a good read:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/109719
Publishers are the reason Gamestop is the way it is from that perspective. The retailers at one time were trying to bend to consumer desires. But there was no bend on behalf of the publishers. Since retailers were the middle men, they were almost driven out of business by trying to meet the consumer's wishes and getting no help from the publishers to do so. They are a business, not a puppet-master in control of what the publishers will offer them or you by extension.

I?m in agreement with you on a lot of this (especially the Publishers? propaganda on used game sales in general) however, I don?t think you realize that Gamestop is the lynchpin of this entire issue.
Sure there?s nothing wrong with trading or buying used. The publishers weren?t even complaining about it until several years ago. The problem arises when that used market has less outlets and the one big outlet gouges the prices into absurdity.
It?s bad for consumers because back in the day, used games were either a way to get more future customers with lower prices or an impulse buy that were done in addition to whatever new titles you went to the store to pick up. The problem with gamestop is that it?s no longer more affordable for people with less money and if you don?t pre-order from them (give them money for a game weeks, sometimes months, before release) they make you buy a used copy for $2 less than the new price. That?s not a benefit to the consumer or the publisher.
When a gamer buys a used game for $10 off amazon, he might still have enough to buy a new game as well but if he?s buying a $57.99 used game from Gamestop, he will be much less likely to have enough to buy that new game that just came out and even if he does, if it?s not pre-ordered, he has to buy another used game.
I have nothing against the used market in general and I think publishers are really overblowing the affect it has on them but at the same time Gamestop is the absolute worst thing to happen to used game sales both on the consumer side and the publisher side.

 

[Savagezion]

-snip-

I?m in agreement with you on a lot of this (especially the Publishers? propaganda on used game sales in general) however, I don?t think you realize that Gamestop is the lynchpin of this entire issue.

No, I do. I would even take it a half step further and say they have become the icon for the issue ever since publishers directly pointed at them to start the propaganda ball rolling. But the important thing to note is that this issue is not catastrophic as some people make it out be. On the contrary, it is barely relevant.

Sure there?s nothing wrong with trading or buying used. The publishers weren?t even complaining about it until several years ago. The problem arises when that used market has less outlets and the one big outlet gouges the prices into absurdity.
It?s bad for consumers because back in the day, used games were either a way to get more future customers with lower prices or an impulse buy that were done in addition to whatever new titles you went to the store to pick up.

I don't see a big problem with threatening and pushing out competition. In fact, in the recent years I am seeing more and more stores like Gamers pop up in the US. They sell used games for cheaper and have an added benefit of selling all platforms back to the NES. Gamers operates just a few doors down from Gamestop in Mason City, Iowa. I think they are within a couple blocks radius in Omaha, Nebraska. As well, I see plenty of other oddball gaming stores open all over the place.
Used games are still a way to get more future customers, but Gamestop uses a more price gouge-y system in it. The system you are talking about is still used today. But Gamestop's method is the most profitable way to deal in used games. Which, I don't think they should be faulted for, especially if you read that article I linked in my previous post. (It is a good article as it favors neither side. Actually, Gamestop leaves the door wide open for competition on used games.

The problem with gamestop is that it?s no longer more affordable for people with less money and if you don?t pre-order from them (give them money for a game weeks, sometimes months, before release) they make you buy a used copy for $2 less than the new price. That?s not a benefit to the consumer or the publisher.
When a gamer buys a used game for $10 off amazon, he might still have enough to buy a new game as well but if he?s buying a $57.99 used game from Gamestop, he will be much less likely to have enough to buy that new game that just came out and even if he does, if it?s not pre-ordered, he has to buy another used game.

As for the pricing part, that is the fault of the consumer for not shopping around. Most of the time I find Gamestop to be about on par as its competition. Extreme cases I have seen Gamestop selling for 10-15 bucks higher on a used copy as somewhere else. But in the same breath I have seen it the other way around where Gamestop is selling an older game for significantly less than other places.

I don't think I understand the new as used claim fully. Unless you are referring to fiasco of 2009 with "employee check-outs". In that case, the proper action is to complain to the FTC if you see something going on. I just don't buy that act as overriding anything and everything positive the company does offer. When I walk in Gamestop, I am aware of this practice - personally. I just pretend a sign is posted. As a consumer I do know what liabilities are involved. I personally, am OK with it. If I could change it would I? Yep. I also understand if someone isn't OK with it. I see it as the same thing as a new transaction but I let John at Gamestop check it out first. The same way I might let my sister play it before me when we got home. But ultimately, they don't open every copy of every game that comes in to play them. We are talking a handful of copies that get cracked open.

I have nothing against the used market in general and I think publishers are really overblowing the affect it has on them but at the same time Gamestop is the absolute worst thing to happen to used game sales both on the consumer side and the publisher side.

I gotta disagree. The worst thing to happen to used game sales on the consumer side and the publishers side was when games could be returned after the seal was broken and publishers wouldn't support that move forcing a stockpile of used goods retailers couldn't get rid of and had to take a major loss on. Back then, consumers weren't willing to bend and neither were publishers because both had retailers bent over backwards. Gamestop's model is the result of those consumer and publisher attitudes. Consumers and publishers alike are OK with shafting retailers - the place where "the customer is always right" and the industries hold the negotiating power. I am not saying that Gamestop doesn't have some shitty deals on their shelves but I just don't see it as anything to get worked up about.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Who cares, im getting a game i want for a fair price. Only thing i hate about 2nd hand games is when a store sells them for £5 cheaper than a brand new copy. But if a game isnt worth buying day one release, then i will never buy it until its cheaper. If they never had second hand games, then i wouldnt buy the games full price so the developers havnt lost a penny.

Also 2nd hand gaming isnt piracy, i buy a product....its mine. I sell it and it becomes someone elses property. Piracy is taking something without paying a penny for it and also taking it illegally. That comment that 2nd gaming is like piracy is so retarded and wrong that it made me laugh. That like saying if you buy a house or a car, your not allowed to sell it on to someone else because the original company you bought it off would lose the money.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Manah Manah

The stupid thing the Publishers are doing right now is painting the whole wrong picture of all this. They make a big deal about complaining that it?s an issue of immediate funding when in reality, those who make good games rake in huge profits regardless of the used market so everybody knows they?re full of shit. The problem for them is in the long term. With the majority of used game prices climbing to the price of new, there are a lot of people who would play but can?t afford it. To give you an idea: if used games were at these prices 10 years ago and there was the same limited variety to ?shop around? at (I?ve never heard of these retailers you mentioned but the bare fact is that there are much less non-gamestop game retailers now), I wouldn?t be gaming and buying new games now. These prices are shrinking the future market when they should be expanding it. You can make all the excuses you want (from it?s the most profitable to they?re not allowed to return defective merchandise; which I think you?re mistaken), but that is just going to be bad for everybody: the publishers, gamestop, and the other gamers. If they offered better values, they could do the opposite and be a devise that expands the market and in the end would rake in more profits over the long term.

 

[Savagezion]

The only problem I see with that, is that it is a free market. If gamers can't afford to buy new games, they should really shop around more. The likes of Amazon and ebay alone are decent competition. When you figure in Best Buy, Target, Walmart, and any specialty shops that are out there - they have ways to try to afford more. I will say that if there isn't much competition around that is a bad deal for you but you do have the online access. The problem is that other specialty retailers generally have poor business sense. I have a game store in my hometown that will charge you 40 bucks for Smash Brothers 1 used. You know why? "It is a collector's item" they say. Despite the large population of gamers, I don't see anyone really setting a copy of Earthbound on their mantle as if it were a Hank Aaron baseball card. I personally, don't buy from that retailer as that isn't even the most ridiculously overpriced video game. They have shelves of them. The crazy thing is, they have been in business for over 3 years now so somebody is OK with those prices.

I too have mentioned the point that if not for used games there is a strong possibility I wouldn't be into games now. Mine was last generation. I just didn't have the money to throw at games and the ones I did buy were between $5-20 except for a couple PC titles. (Note: I got those $5-20 games mostly from Gamestop) Also, it really depends on what you mean by "expand the market". Gamestop is growing and by doing such the market is expanding. As well, they have left a sizable hole in the market by making it so that their used game prices can be beaten. So if you mean "expand the market" by having other retailers flourish, that isn't their responsibility. Someone needs to step in and exploit that hole in the market for cheap used games. (Although, I think Amazon and ebay already have that market on lockdown as they also offer convenience of being able to purchase from home.) Gamestop right now has to fight against digital downloads (Something I think gamers should be against anyways as this is us only looking at the short term.) as well as other retailers where the real competition for profit is in new game releases - not used games.

However, when they do those buy 2 used get 1 free sales... that is awesome. It is almost time again for their big one at the end of the year. I love those sales and they have them 3-4 times a year to move merchandise of used games that obviously aren't selling otherwise. THAT is the best time to shop gamestop. You can get 3 fairly recent/popular used games or 9 less recent/popular games for around $60 bucks. When that sale is active, Gamestop is one of the best places to get used games. Even better if you have a membership.

 

[Savagezion]

Doop dooo dee doo doo. Doop doo dee doo.

Manah Manah

My full response of my view is above this quote. I think the two of us are just projecting different futures based on Gamestops model. You saying Gamestop is damaging to the industry, mine saying Gamestop is a part of the industry and any damage to the industry is happening mostly on part of the publishers. Here is an analogy as to how I see it:

It is the equivalent of a guy asking someone to chop off his legs because he keeps tripping over the curb in front of his house. (He doesn't think it is his responsibility to chop off his legs and refuses to do it himself in case it turns out to be a bad idea.) The justification for drastic measures like this when you ask him? He doesn't feel justified taking out the curb and placing a ramp in front of his house instead unless he is in a wheelchair.

 

[Therumancer]

The cost of making the game, the development budget, is the money being paid to the developers which they use to pay themselves since 99% of the cost here is human resources, in the scope of these projects the cost of materials (office space & computers) is minimal. If a game costs like say 30 million dollars to make that means the developers pocketed 30 million dollars to make the game.

No. There are so many more costs to making games than just human resources. If a publisher wants a game on a console, then they have to get development kits and go through all the certifications, which costs money. If a developer doesn't want to spend time developing their own game engine, then they have to pay someone so they can use theirs. If a developer wants to put in fancy technologies like Havok physics, then they need to spend money on that. If a developer wants big name voice actors in their game, then they have to spend money on them.

Sure, some people in development studios may pocket more than their fair share of the money, but human resources don't make up most of a game's cost in most cases.

I agree with your post overall, but I felt like I needed to correct this.

Your only partially correct. The developer kits and such are labour saving devices, intended to cut down on the work that needs to be done so they can pay less people more money. It's generally cheaper to buy someone else's engine, than it is to code your own. This is why so many games are nearly identical, they are pretty much the same game when you get down to the basic code.

Voice actors, and people like that are also human resources.

If someone is developing a game, the majority of the cost is to the people involved. The cost of materials, computers, etc... are minimal in proportion to the budgets being assigned to these projects. Things like "Maxim Magazine" have run articles with titles like "why game developers drive Ferraris" (which I believe even got covered here on The Escapist) and such which broke down what these guys are making fairly well.

The big issue largely comes down to who is getting paid what. While there is a myth about game developers living "hand to mouth" which is even perpetuated by game journalists nowadays with claims like "well, we like to eat" the reality is that with each year the development costs go up in proportion to how much those human resources are demanding. When you look at things like studio tours of various developers I will say that their facilities are better than what we had for the employees when I worked for the #1 and #3 casinos in the world (#1 = Foxwoods, #3 = Mohegan Sun... the rankings might have changed, however when I worked there this was global, not just for Indian casinos). Valve's snack bar seems better than what either casino provided for it's employees cafeteria-wise, and those perks were pretty bloody nice compared to most employers. Covering this kind of thing goes into the development costs.

Of course one also has to look at guys like Peter Molyneux, Gabe Newell, and other big time developers as well. When Lionhead develops a game for example, most of that money goes towards human resources, but you also have to wonder how lavishly Peter pays himself. On the producer aspect of things you have guys like Bobby Kotick flying around on their own private jets, like he's some kind of major Hollywood or Music producer when he's a guy whose making video games.

The point here isn't that these guys have no right to make money, the point is that all of this stuff gets kicked down to us in terms of product prices. It also figures into my thoughts when I hear them talking about how much money they are "losing". Saying that they need to curtail my rights as a consumer because of piracy when these guys are making this kind of money does not inspire much sympathy in me.

I'll be honest, I think the gaming industry can potentially get to be as big as Hollywood and Pro-Sports combined over a period of time. The problem is gaming companies, both on the production and development end, trying to act like they are big wheels now, and strangling the industry with their greed as opposed to letting it grow to that point.

When you hear about the industry crying about used games, piracy, or needing more money, understand it all comes down to financing Bobby Kotick and his ilk and their private jets. The industry is in the multi-billion dollar range, the only real danger it's facing is that some fat-cat won't get his latest gilded cat toy. It's not like we're generally seeing this money being re-invested into the gaming industry, because right now all it wants to do is cater to the lowest human denominator and re-cycle whatever sells to the masses.