Is Gamestop really to blame ?
- Thread starter mohit9206
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeap, pretty much.mohit9206 said:
Think, selling and buying used games, PC or consoles, have always been around, and publishers and developers were fine with that, as stores didn't make it a focus.
Then Gamestop started pushing it, very aggressively for that matter, for the past decade or more. And various reports of the past couple years show it accounts for almost 1/4 of their profit. How would you feel if the largest retailer, seller of your game was stiffing you for 25% of possible revenue and skewing sale numbers?
And at the same time, because they're the largest seller, also strong-arming you into copy-protection schemes, pre-order bonuses, forcing digital distributed titles to be the same price - otherwise they simply won't carry your game, so you're losing out on like 50% or more of your possible sales?
Yeah, studios don't like them at all because it means extra work and fragmenting the player base, as well as having to provide servers to host the content and support issues. That and the retailers do pay for the stuff, which admittedly does help for funding the project.nevarran said:
I doubt they have that much power. Unless it switches to a purely digital distribution model, a console that blocked used games or whatever would still be reliant on retail sales of games.
If these anti-used game measures were a way to get back at Gamestop and its ilk, they wouldn't even sell the consoles or new games at all.
If these anti-used game measures were a way to get back at Gamestop and its ilk, they wouldn't even sell the consoles or new games at all.
Yes, he's pretty much dead on. The issue is not used games, the issue is the parasitic GameStop model of selling used games.
Well, actually, he's wrong about one thing. He states that those who buy used at GameStop are getting said games for reasonably reduced sale prices. This, quite simply, is not the case at least at any GameStop/EB I've ever been to. The standard saving is only about $5. Sure it's a lower price than a new copy, but that's hardly major savings (and, frankly, if a $5 saving on a $60 item means that much to you, maybe you should consider that buying a game probably isn't in your best financial interests).
Well, actually, he's wrong about one thing. He states that those who buy used at GameStop are getting said games for reasonably reduced sale prices. This, quite simply, is not the case at least at any GameStop/EB I've ever been to. The standard saving is only about $5. Sure it's a lower price than a new copy, but that's hardly major savings (and, frankly, if a $5 saving on a $60 item means that much to you, maybe you should consider that buying a game probably isn't in your best financial interests).
I disagree Microsoft are a businees and they do what they 'have' to do to make money. By implementing anti-used games DRM.the hidden eagle said:
If you disavow Gamestop of moral responsibility for hard pushing used games sales over new retail sales, how can you then make Microsoft morally responsible for anti-used game DRM which they're fully within they're rights to do and are doing for the same reason that Gamestop sells pushes used games despite it screwing over developers and publishers, because they want to make money
EDIT: Incidentally in response to the 'set up their own used game market'. The reason used games are cheap is because you don't have to pay the publisher or developer (or console manufacturer) any money for them. If Microsoft were to compete it would also involve not paying publishers or developers for the games they're selling, else the margins would have to be higher. That's the point, they have higher margins because it doesn't involve paying any royalties to the people who made the games.
They really can though, and it's not as though it's new. PC games have been dictating whether you can sell them used for years. But what I mean is all 'it's capitalism at work' arguments end up splitting just the same for Microsoft.the hidden eagle said:
EDIT: Actually I think Germany are still trying to sue Valve, so if that comes off then they can't do it. Else that's pretty much universal acceptance that companies have the right to do this
There can't be any legal battles that will stick. Steam doesn't allow you to resell physical copies of third-party games at all. Germany are the only country to have challenged them on that (well also the EU) and they haven't succeeded yet. By all accounts we've heard so far, the Microsoft system is going to be far more lenient than the Steam systemthe hidden eagle said:
They have far more to worry about than the fact they are trying to block used games.Because if the rumors are true then Kinect 2.0 will be watching and collecting data on you and your family whenever they use the Xbone.So not only can your privacy be breached but that information can be used to steal your identity since it copies your face.[/quote]the hidden eagle said:
Again Germany and the EU might sue them, but they're the only country/organisation that care about this thing. They're the only country that have tussled with Facebook or Google over privacy issues. The Kinect has a physical offswitch that you press to turn it off completely at any time (they confirmed this a while back) so it's not really any worse than the fact that smartphones record their owners physical locations every second of the day, or Microsoft and Google dipping into the worlds email addresses etc. Someone might try, but with that offswitch, I dont see a case. They'll probably make people agree to the most disgusting awful and amoral user agreement ever as soon as they turn the thing on and after that people can switch it off or suck it up.
It's not even going to discourage people's spending habits. That's the worst thing. Everyone will buy it anyway
This is something Total Bisquit needs to prove in his stance. Gamestop doesn't demand it, they pay for it. Just like Best Buy, Amazon, or Steam. It is something the retailer BUYS from the developer as an advantage to pull as many "new" sales their way to get the lions share of customers. If I only make $5 off every new copy I sell, of course I need to make sure that most customers will buy the game from ME and not other retailers. I honestly believe that now many publishers are having devs actually build "pre-order kits" ahead of time to sell to any retailers interested. Dishonored's pre-order plan screamed of a model like this. What was there like 6 or 7 pre-order bonuses based on where you bought it? That could net a nice portion publishers initial investment in the game back.nevarran said:
I am highly skeptical that Gamestop has enough weight to say "give us pre-order material for free or we wont sell your game." I think that is on the fringes of conspiracy theories.
Aren't you basically saying "It's a free market and they're exploiting it, it's ethical, devs dislike it but instead of compete they're competing by making it extinct." it sounds legit to me, it's probably not very wise to annoy half your customers and if I had a console I'd potentially be pissed(though we're not sure about values or even if it's really truth yet.) but it does sound like a valid strategy, they are making the content after all. Gamestop seems to me(as a foreigner) to be a parasitical business model that hurts the industry quite a bit to be fair, not that the solution is much better of course.the hidden eagle said:
PC games are digital now and some people(as escapist leads me to believe.) still buy them retail, slowly but steady since 98 we haven't been able to trade PC games due to cd keys, multiplayer being locked to them and general DRM that emerged, it's just "capitalism at work" far as I'm aware, Your liberal stance seems to fail when it inconveniences you. I do miss the 90's creative DRM and shareware models though.the hidden eagle said:
The game is called 'Competitive Marketing and Business', and some companies aren't smart enough to play.mohit9206 said:
Well, that would mean that publishers should in fact be eager to sell these pre-order bonuses. As it would mean free advertisement on top of it; meaning they are actually getting more in trade for this content than they are actually selling it for. Paying me to advertise MY product in exchange for a dinky exclusive side mission/skin I can later sell as DLC? SOLD! Where is the downside exactly? The 20 hours or so it takes for my devs to whip something up?nevarran said:
Well, I'm not so sure it's fair. Most of the shops would do this without payment. Selling your product is their business after all.Savagezion said:
I see your point tho'. I just think Gamestop and all other retailers are the "third man", and not having them would be for the better.
Honestly, Gamestop has no reason to snub your game either way. They really are no different and actually stand to lose money if they don't do it moreso than say Best Buy. Gamestop being a game specialty store benefits from trying to make EVERY game look like a good investment as that is the only thing they sell. They can't make it up by selling car stereos or refrigerators. It just means they sell less copies thus losing out on that $5 per copy for themselves. I doubt their business model favors avoiding $5 a copy to be vindictive for not getting pre-order DLC on a game. Sometimes people forget that business is business, it isn't personal. We hold personal stake in it because for us it tends to be more personal transaction as we a single entity buying a product but Gamestop and publishers are businesses that must look at the big picture over individual sales. Many people out there try to paint Gamestop as some evil entity out to suck the blood from the industry but all arguments can be deconstructed logically and even more easily when you look at Gamestops sales data and learn that they make more net profit every year off of new merchandise than used merchandise or at worst break even. Last time I checked it was around 30% more a couple years ago during the whole "used games are killing the industry" debacle. So of every 10m they made back then, about 6-7m of it was off of new merchandise. This was when people were crying for Gamestops head on a stick and vowing to boycott. You can look at the used market as a safety net for them that the publishers want to remove and take for themselves, but should not have the right to do so. I don't have a problem with them doing it TOO. As in, competition, but they aren't doing that. They are trying to figure out wa way to control the entire market. They are the ones after the monopoly. By controlling both the new and used market, publishers would dictate the market to consumers - not the other way around.nevarran said:
As well, Steam is a 3rd party. They don't offer distribution for free and thus do take a part of the profits just as any other distribution chain. I personally like going into stores dedicated to gaming thus love brick and mortar stores. It's the same reason why I always find myself in the electronics department of a department store even if I only went there for dog food. I like being in stores that cater to my interests over stores that cater to my needs. Sure, I go grocery shopping but I don't care for it. My time spent in a brick and mortar game store is fun even if I can't buy anything. Even when I know more about the merchandise than the people who work there. There is something about stepping into a place with that many games. Browsing is much easier letting my eyes gaze over them without having to click through it. As well, you can find games you had totally forgot about. I can see more games with my eyes scanning a wall than I can clicking "next page" on steam.
Finally, the money isn't going to the developers, it is going to investors. Investors that don't give a crap about gaming, they care about money. They are looking for a place to put there money with a high chance of seeing big returns and EA wants this because it will secure some stock stability. Ridding the market of used games won't "help the industry" - a term many people think means "better games" - so much as it will "help publishers make more money" which isn't the same. Activision pulls in crazy amounts of money every year and they actually openly stated they aren't interested in making games that they can't milk with tons of sequels. Publishers getting more money doesn't mean anything. The market losing used games means losing a large part of ownership of your games you buy. Killing Gamestop doesn't help development studios, it helps some guy out there who has stock in EA, Activision, 2k, etc.