Developers standing up to gamestop ?

[betan]

I'm sorry, but did you not read the thread? Gamestop is like a parasite on the gaming industry.

How do you think the auto industry would feel if customers looking to buy a new car had salesmen trying to sell them used cars instead?

I'm confused. If Gamestop was a used game only shop, would it be OK for them to sell used games?

I mean, the question is why people assume used game market is bad for the industry, not Gamestop's questionable business practices (which I don't find questionable at all).

 

[betan]

it's pretty simple realy... game stop makes about $5 on a new game and upward of $25 for used. it's not rocket science to figure that's where their revenue stream comes from and that the one copy resold over and over to new end users does not find an extra dime into the devs pockets.

IOW, they ONLY exist due to the used market and for the used market.

Who the hell knows how much of that revenue would enter to developer's pocket otherwise?
More importantly how many people would buy a new $60 game if they knew they couldn't sell it.
This is a value added to the product, part of the economy.

 

[specwarGP2]

I'm confused. If Gamestop was a used game only shop, would it be OK for them to sell used games?

I mean, the question is why people assume used game market is bad for the industry, not Gamestop's questionable business practices (which I don't find questionable at all).

Yes it would be ok if gamestop was used only. The beef with gamestop is that it uses new games to draw people in and instead sells them a used copy of the game instead. It's like a bait and switch.

 

[obonicus]

Who the hell knows how much of that revenue would enter to developer's pocket otherwise?
More importantly how many people would buy a new $60 game if they knew they couldn't sell it.
This is a value added to the product, part of the economy.

Right. It's the argument people use for piracy and it doesn't work there either -- a used sale doesn't translate to a new sale. And in fact, the credit may even be used for a new sale. I'm not a fan of gamestop, I do think there's a conflict of interest with the way they push used content. But what's most amusing about this is that everyone's taking the publisher's side. The publisher doesn't have our best interests at heart either; their intentions are similar to those of the companies that make up the RIAA, and those are vilified.

 

[BRiT]

The beef with gamestop is that it uses new games to draw people in and instead sells them a used copy of the game instead. It's like a bait and switch.

Let me get this straight, GameStop holds a gun to the consumer's head and forces them to buy used instead of new? Do they instantly hypnotize the consumers the moment they walk into the store to buy used instead of new? Are they running blipverts on their displays to get consumers to buy used instead of new?

 

[specwarGP2]

Right. It's the argument people use for piracy and it doesn't work there either -- a used sale doesn't translate to a new sale. And in fact, the credit may even be used for a new sale. I'm not a fan of gamestop, I do think there's a conflict of interest with the way they push used content. But what's most amusing about this is that everyone's taking the publisher's side. The publisher doesn't have our best interests at heart either; their intentions are similar to those of the companies that make up the RIAA, and those are vilified.

I strongly disgaree. Claims of losses due to piracy are dubious because there is no conclusive proof the person who pirated would have actually paid for the game/movie/music if the free version wasn't available. I'd argue that if someone was willing to pay $55 for a used game, that same person would pay $5 more for a new copy if a used one was not available.

Furthermore, why should anyone take Gamestop's side? Almost every store I've been to, the people who work there are rude, incompetent and have attitude. This is on top of their already questionable business policies.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Right. It's the argument people use for piracy and it doesn't work there either -- a used sale doesn't translate to a new sale. And in fact, the credit may even be used for a new sale. I'm not a fan of gamestop, I do think there's a conflict of interest with the way they push used content. But what's most amusing about this is that everyone's taking the publisher's side. The publisher doesn't have our best interests at heart either; their intentions are similar to those of the companies that make up the RIAA, and those are vilified.

I see just as many people against the publisher. Their ultimate dream seems to be to DRM the consumers up the wazoo so that each purchase it tied to that consumer only.

Despite industry attempts to the contrary (ie trying to circumvent consumer law with contract law), it is not illegal for someone to buy something, and then sell it on when they are done with it, no matter how much the publishers and developers don't like it.

What other industry in the world sells you something but then tries to take away all your ownership rights?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But what's most amusing about this is that everyone's taking the publisher's side.

I think the difference in fiscal performance favours the publishers. Lots struggle to turn a decent profit, with 7/10 games supposedly failing to break even. If that can be attributed to people buying used instead of new, that's unfair on the creators. If every publisher was turning billions in profit but still complaining, I think attitudes would be different.

As has been said though, does anyone really know the economic impact of used game sales? How many used-purchases would be translated into new purchases if there was no new market? Arguments can be made for both sides, but is anyone presenting supportive evidence?

 

[Tap In]

... The publisher doesn't have our best interests at heart either; their intentions are similar to those of the companies that make up the RIAA, and those are vilified.

this just in... Everyone in business is in it to make money.... they do not have our best interests at heart other than to how it impacts revenue. Period.

 

[Tap In]

if someone was willing to pay $55 for a used game, that same person would pay $5 more for a new copy if a used one was not available.

exactly. the argument that it wouldn't translate into new sales is dubious at best. Of course you would not get ALL of these sales but common sense dictates that you would get a reasonable percentage. Not to mention perhaps Pubs could start dropping prices incrementally over time on new.

My personal experience is that I do not buy many used games... but what I would miss is trading in my old games for the new ones which I do quite frequently. I rarely buy used but I do take advantage of trade in values.

 

[betan]

exactly. the argument that it wouldn't translate into new sales is dubious at best. Of course you would not get ALL of these sales but common sense dictates that you would get a reasonable percentage. Not to mention perhaps Pubs could start dropping prices incrementally over time on new.

My personal experience is that I do not buy many used games... but what I would miss is trading in my old games for the new ones which I do quite frequently. I rarely buy used but I do take advantage of trade in values.

Would you buy as many new games if you couldn't trade them in?

Dubious at best, huh?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Would the publishers lose more in current New-game customers buying less because they can't trade in, versus current Used-game customers buying newbecause there is no used-game option?

 

[betan]

Would the publishers lose more in current New-game customers buying less because they can't trade in, versus current Used-game customers buying newbecause there is no used-game option?

The point that's been ignored is that it's not a black and white picture.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The point that's been ignored is that it's not a black and white picture.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1227544&postcount=68

 

[Tap In]

Would you buy as many new games if you couldn't trade them in?

good question and I'm not advocating putting GS out of business for that reason alone (selfish).

But, I can see why some pubs are attaching these freebies to new games only. all I'm saying is I don't blame them.

 

[aselto]

Would the publishers lose more in current New-game customers buying less because they can't trade in, versus current Used-game customers buying newbecause there is no used-game option?

I imagine they want to kill used games market even if it means less day 1 sales. Basically money is circulating between customers and gamestop with publishers seeing nothing of that. It's reasonable to assume that people who are actively buying new releases would still do that as they are avid gamers, some of them would cut down on a number of games purchased a bit while others would complain but buy the same amount of games and effectively spend more money then earlier (that's win number 1). The second positive aspect is that people who are buying used games would have to buy a new game in this situation because they'd have no other choice. Finally, games could longer stay at their initial pricepoint as there wouldn't be a bunch of copies laying in the used games section in Gamestop at a much lower price three days after release. So I think the net gain for publishers would be huge - they would get majority of the money Gamespot is making on their used games business and probably effectively force customers to spend more money than they are now in new and used sections combined.

As for myself? I already buy a significant amount of games either on XBLA or Steam and I sell my disc games only if I don't like them, which is maybe 20-30% of them. I buy only new games (i.e. not used), but I rarely buy them day 1, usually wait for a price drop. I don't think I would lose all that much money.
But I guess if I were actually buying more than one game a month, I would be reselling more games as well... Luckily it's more of a time issue for me and my games hobby isn't too straining for my budget.

 

[obonicus]

I think the difference in fiscal performance favours the publishers. Lots struggle to turn a decent profit, with 7/10 games supposedly failing to break even. If that can be attributed to people buying used instead of new, that's unfair on the creators.

Why exactly? Isn't it more unfair to the customer to not to be able to sell something they legitimately bought? Why are we talking about the sale of used games like it's piracy? That's my biggest problem; we're behaving as if the publishers need defending, we're cheering for them, we're considering this a 2-way battle when it's actually a 3-way battle. And there's certainly no multi-billion corporation looking out for our interests.

If every publisher was turning billions in profit but still complaining, I think attitudes would be different.

Why aren't there any other game-only stores out there? The story I've heard is that the profits aren't that great on software to begin with, and that the used game market is what keeps them afloat. Gamestop has probably pushed this a too far, though, and I think there certainly are dubious practices, but I don't think there's anything wrong with selling used games.

 

[specwarGP2]

Would the publishers lose more in current New-game customers buying less because they can't trade in, versus current Used-game customers buying newbecause there is no used-game option?

I'd say that the overall effect that the used games have is neutral at best and typically detrimental in terms of overall revenue.

For example. Recent popular games have a trade in value of ~$25-$35? You need to trade in two used games to buy a new game. So pubs get that one new sale but potentially lose two new sales because two used games were introduced back into the supply.

I've personally traded games in, and its almost always been a 1:1 deal where I use the credit and pay the balance off in cash, so my effect there is neutral.

 

[obonicus]

I strongly disgaree. Claims of losses due to piracy are dubious because there is no conclusive proof the person who pirated would have actually paid for the game/movie/music if the free version wasn't available. I'd argue that if someone was willing to pay $55 for a used game, that same person would pay $5 more for a new copy if a used one was not available.

Claim of losses are dubious if anyone claims that there's a 1:1 loss there, but hardly anyone does that either. Do you think there's a 1:1 loss between used and new? Because there's no conclusive proof there either, if that's your criteria.

And are we only talking about gamestop's practice of selling new games at nearly full retail value or are we talking about people buying used games in general? On Gamestop's site, GTA4 retails used for $39.99 and $59.99 new. Halo 3 is $50, vs. $60. Even on the more extreme cases, will someone on a budget really consider $5 to be nothing?

Furthermore, why should anyone take Gamestop's side? Almost every store I've been to, the people who work there are rude, incompetent and have attitude. This is on top of their already questionable business policies.

No one should, in fact. No one should take any side but their own, was my poorly-put point.

 

[specwarGP2]

Claim of losses are dubious if anyone claims that there's a 1:1 loss there, but hardly anyone does that either. Do you think there's a 1:1 loss between used and new? Because there's no conclusive proof there either, if that's your criteria.

And are we only talking about gamestop's practice of selling new games at nearly full retail value or are we talking about people buying used games in general? On Gamestop's site, GTA4 retails used for $39.99 and $59.99 new. Halo 3 is $50, vs. $60. Even on the more extreme cases, will someone on a budget really consider $5 to be nothing?

For newly released games, I do think there is a 1:1 loss between new and used. I find it difficult to believe that someone who is willing to spend $55 for a game would rather pass on the game if was $60. $5 cant even buy you a super value meal at mcdonalds.

I'm not all against buying and selling games. I don't think anyone is. My beef is with Gamestop selling used games for $5 less than new, and pushing that used game over the new one. Those are sales that rightfully belong to the publisher.