GIB:Ru Weerasuriya on fighting back against used games, and why he's launching The Order 1886 exclusively on PS4
Well,i'm all in favor of people being able to trade for cash/store credit..I don't feel the publisher should be paid twice.The exchange deal for used goods should be kept between the buyer and seller.
just use EBAY ... how is the retailer who made used games sales convenient the bad guy... if gamestop dissapears, two others will take its place... Hell I would open "Gameshop" if I thought it would make money.
yea people dont realize they can get a much better return on their used games from ebay than they ever could from gamestop
Or as Nintendo have said...make your game so much fun people don't want to trade it in. That fits me perfectly. I buy games I know I will like (infamous, uncharted, elder scrolls) and keep them forever. Its the crappy ho him 5 hour games that I feel cheated for spending 60 bucks on that get traded in. Besides, the crappy games I do buy goes right towards paying off my ps4. Hell I've been scooping up boxes of old games at yard sales for 1-2 bucks and walking in to GameStop and getting 20-30 trade in credit. I put 100 bucks down on ps4 and its almost paid off due to me trading stuff in.
great post, and what you said about making games fun can be expanded by saying that coop and multiplayer options make a game pretty much untradeable unless you are DONE with it... like totally done. For instance look at fallout and borderlands. Fallout is far superior in terms of story and gameplay in my opinion, but my copy of fallout new vegas? Long gone ... Borderlands? still go online to mess around with DLC with my friends... because it has co-op, it was a rare game that my friend and I couldn't share on 360 we each needed the copy to play together. developers should see that... I'm not saying SP should die, just that developers should consider co-op options as a way to make a group of friends all buy a game simultaneously...
I'm fine with developers not getting paid twice. But, I'm not fine with GameStop employees trying to sell a used game when a person specifically asks for a new one. I'm also against GameStop's policy of opening every copy of the game they have. That's why I never shop there. GameStop goes out of their way to make sure they get paid before the developers. That's not helping anything when they're making so much money as it is.
OMG, I'm glad that somebody said that. I hate that they open every single copy. That is exactly why I don't ever buy anything from them.
yea i bought one of the "gutted" copies before...the case was slightly damaged but i still had to pay full price anything they open should go for the used game value rather than new. because the games we open are immediately used
Those are the only two policies of theirs that really irk me. Asking if a customer wants new or used is one thing, but to go on about how used is better is just wrong, and particularly when someone asks for it new. I understand why they do it, but it's still not right. At the same time though, I do believe that game shops in general should see a larger return on the products they sell for the industry. Reports say $1-2 and upwards of $12 per game sold new, which to me is a pitifully low mark up for a retailer to accept given the cost to run a retail establishment. So in that case I think the two sides seem to be working mostly against one another, instead of finding a happy common ground which is beneficial to all. I really believe that if retail markup was closer to normal(50-100%) you would see much less of a push of these companies to recoup investment from the used game market. Gutting games is just annoying, and in my opinion unnecessary. It is entirely possible to have a display case without opening an original. I believe the policy only exists today to serve their employee rental program, and it should be changed, along with throwing away used boxes only to put them in generic boxes(pet peeve on PSP games). Any other company that requires "gutting" a product" for display always sells the last item at a discount...they're called "floor models". Realistically though enough people are ok with it, so it's not likely to change. Otherwise, what joecanada said above holds true, if it weren't GameStop, it would just be someone else. I believe no company should be allowed to charge twice for one product, and it's incredibly entitled of developers who believe they deserve that money where no other industry in the world benefits from it. I think if developers want to benefit from the used game market, maybe they should buy back the games themselves, and burden the risk of investment on those copies...which is exactly what GameStop does to make a profit. In the end, this guy is like all the other devs/pubs stating things like this. Not a single fact or data set to show how it really effects them. Saying, "I don't want to get rid of used games" doesn't make what he says any less arrogant.
What pisses me off about GameStop is that they will sell you a gutted copy as *new*, but they sure as hell won't take a gutted copy in return! I'm mixed about developers double dipping as in getting a cut every time the game is sold. I hear it on both sides and the problem really is that profit margin of used games is over double of new games. We are talking (if I remember correctly) 23% for new and 49% for used. The incentive is there for GameStop to push old copies. This suggest that games are too expensive, but when Square Enix tells us Tomb Raider didn't hit projections at 3 million sold, we have a huge problem within the industry. The solution is to widen the market and lower the price. Only way to do that is appeal the console to more than just core gamers like the Wii did. The gaming industry is the only industry I know of that has (or used to have) several major national used game store chains. No other industry has this to the same extent. Why doesn't the movie or music industry have something like this? This is likely due to the high price tag and thus room for high profit margin, the replayability of a game and the tendency of used game buyers to be younger is my guess.
wow I do agree with some posters here , gamestop has some stupid policies, opening all the copies??!! that's just wrong. I guess EBgames in Canada is a bit different because I have never noticed them pushing used that heavily... and I go to Play n Trade too which is another different store...
I'd rather have Gamestop in business rather than no Gamestop and M$'s DRM.
With MS solution, you would have set the standard for digital games to have trade-in, lending/sharing, and gifting. Something nobody else has right now! Publishers, developers and GameStop would all still exist and the profit would be more balanced. One could argue that the gamer gets screwed, after all they have to check-in every 24-hour, but the benefit would mean instant game collection sharing among family and friends. On top of that, if you trade your game in, you still have 24-hours to play it if you keep your console disconnected. In my opinion, that is far superior to getting a physical disc that I cannot maximize the use i.e. it has to be physically handed to your friend before he can play, whereas digital is instant!
Does Ford get a cut of the money when I re-sell my used car ? No? So do publishers think they are entitled to this? I sold furniture at a garage sale, Do I have to pay a fee to Art Van ? I don't think so.
2 key phrases concerning this dicy subject. Continued functionality and continued support. A car works when you buy it and that functionaloty is mainedtained freely no subscription to enginestart monthly is needed. The manufacturer other then spare parts see nofurther input or requirments to it even if sold on (ignore warrennty for this) A game often Has continued support . This is acrive by the dev for all copies in the form of patches matchmaking servers or aditional content. This support costs them money to maintain . And is maintained even if the game is sold so they do lose out. If you buy a game and keep it forever. They made thwre initial money and support it. If you buy it used they lose that initial money and still have to suporrt it. All other "but x doesnt get paid twice" falls into functionality bracket Much as I hate it they do have legitimate grounds for a grievance
every one knows that it is not only game stop where you can buy and sell used games. ebay, amazon, best buy, there are a few small local stores that do it in my area, CL and you can sell it to your buddy. now if you sell a game to your friend how much is fair that you send back to the developer. the devs have to start to realize that not every one can afford to pay top dollar for games, and buying it used is the only way for them to get it. so the alternative for some people is not playing the game at all, should some one be excluded just because they dont have a lot of cash to spend. which leads to my next point, some times you buy a used game on the cheap and become a huge fan of that game or that developer and you buy some dlc for that game, than you buy their next game right away, plus we are all advertisers for the gaming community we go out and talk about games with people and sometimes you convince some one to buy a game they didnt even know was out, how much of that sale should i get when i tell 5 people about a game they never heard of and 2 of them go buy it
I think the biggest complaint the guy had was that the GameStop employee pushed the used sale, even after the guy said he wanted new. It's OK, I believe to ask the customer which they want, but used should not be pushed over a new product. At least from a developer's standpoint. From a retail standpoint, I completely understand why they do it. Otherwise, all the other stuff he said is no different than any other dev/pub who feels justified in getting paid twice for one product.
I wouldn't be surprised if some devs started taking the risk of selling their games digitally only, while being very risky, it would ensure they make money off of every sale. Games like Mine Craft and State of Emergency prove it possible. While MS or Sony cant give Gamestop the finger because they need to sell consoles and accessories, devs and publishers can.
Although I do agree gamers should be able to keep trading in games we no longer want, and others should be able to buy cheaper used games. But the issue I see here is some people will only buy games used to save the few dollar difference. Meanwhile, there are tons of printed new games sitting on store shelves needing to be purchased. This is a very touchy subject with gamers it seems. But honestly, the more money the developer and publisher can make, the better. So why is everyone arguing that they shouldn't get a cut from a game they made? Even if they made profit on a game and outsold their costs 2 times over, they still deserve a portion of the money for the game they created. Whether or not it was bought second hand is useless information. It's not like it'd hurt us. Games, used or new, would cost all the same, the developer/publisher would just make more money. Which is good if you're a gamer who loves games.
I would like to see MS and Sony come out with their own used/new game store line. One that is fair to gamers with trade in. This is where Gamestop fail super duper hard. They give you penny's on the dollar for your used gear. Then turn around and resell it at a 95% mark up. That is pure bs and everyone knows it. Yet, some fall for it anyway....
I dont think this is true what they say about gamestop at all. They have to put up alot of money to give out credit for games taht are not guaranteed to sell again. But hey if its such a lucrative industry and soooo easy to make tons of cash, why dont we see publishers and devs buying and selling used games???? Ohh because it is a very risky business and is pretty damn hard to be successful. Gamestop only is successful because of how huge they are and all the new games/consoles they sell. Seriously, if they hate it so much why dont activision give me 30$ off their yearly COD if I send them in last years copy???? Id rather have gamestop making money off my used games by selling them then have the developers get a cut for doing nothing. I bought a used honda, honda didnt get any money for that sale nor did they disable my AC unit until I paid them a fee. Every single industry out there seems to understand that you have to be in the business of BUYING and selling used if you want money for it. Videogame publishers and developers must think they are special or something.
I used to be a manager at gamestop and we sold some games back and forth over thirty times. Some games less some more. I am talking about the same copy as well not other ones as you can follow the games history pretty easy as most of the games traded back in used to us usually still had the used price tags from before. Some gamestops dont even bother to pull off the uses tags and you will see several tags under the top one..
Just give am incentive to buy new. For example, free "premium" pass for the future DLC, instead of expecting to nickle and dime for every bit of content added.
There should be zero support by the developer for second hand owners. I do not care if its just a comment added to the code.
If they would focus more on making AAA titles versus 6 hour campaign mode games for $60, this problem would not exist, also keep supporting games or allow mods like pc games do. The last thing is quit crying over Ganestop, you don't see Ford our Chevy crying because use car lots sell use cars. You want to destroy Ganestop, lower the prices of your games, or make bigger, better games that's actually worth us to hold on to.
Props to this guy for saying it. Used game market is a total farce.
So is devs charging $60 for a 5 hour game. Or in a recent case, charging $40 for Crazy Birds Star Wars 2 for consoles... If you don't want people buying games used, make sure it has a price that fits the content of it and it's not buggy as hell.
There's no such thing as 'price fits content', if a game is crap it's not worth paying ANY money for, regardless of whether it's 20 hours long or 20 years long.
See, this I can get behind. Gaming needs a new pricing structure. Price games based on the content. Single Player = $49/$39 Multiplayer (Co-op or Competitive) = $29 Then bundle them together (if the game features both) for the standard $59. Then people could choose between what content they want, and can stop complaining when a Single Player game costs full price. When people start wanting games sold based on play time, that's when things will start getting hairy. You'll see 99% games get massive amounts of filler content, and games that are around 5-10 hours long and are absolutely phenomenal games will get shafted because they'll be expected to cost less even tho they deserve more than all those filler games for being more enjoyable.
Car dealerships do not send money back to the manufacturer when they sell a used car, architect's do not get money when a house is re-sold, softare programmers do not get a share of money when someone uses their product to make something. So why should game developers get extra money for a used product if no one else does? This applies to the music and movie industry, they don't get money back for used movies or cd's, never have. "There's no such thing as 'price fits content" Oh but there is. its why prices are dictated in other mediums of entertainment.
True, everything you said is right.
Each industry has its own set of circumstances so comparing across them like that doesn't work. As this guy points out - he walks into Gamestop, asks for a new game and is offered a used copy for £5 cheaper. How is that not a scam? Come on now. Moreover - how much did the person who sold it to Gamestop get? For a £30 game, half that if they're lucky. A total farce. Plus you're getting a grubby used copy someone else has been slobbering all over, covering in fingerprints, doing who knows what with. Disgusting! On price fits content - what I'm saying is there's no calculation whereby £=hours of entertainment. I'll happily pay £40 for an awesome game that's 3 hours long - I wouldn't pay 40p for a terrible game that's 30 hours long. I'm not playing games just to kill hours of my life!
@NioRide None of those have ongoing cost to the maker like a game may have, via online multiplayer (the cost of dedicated servers, which money from used games could help pay for)
That's not a scam, that's pushing your company forward with supply and demand. When you go into a car dealership and ask for a new car what's the first thing they do? "what about a used model, you will save xxx money will have lower payments and we can give you a longer warranty" Because they make a larger profit off of that car. It works like this everywhere, companies try to create the largest profit for themselves. And I see it completely justified. Especially if the person wants to make the purchase. The person had a choice to sell it to gamestop, they could go to a mom & pop shop, they can go to a pawn shop, sell it online or what ever else they would like to do, even local markets. It comes down to how much work you want to do, you want to get rid of it fast, gamestops your answer, you want to make as much as possible sell it online, or locally through a website like craigslist. Hours/$ Ahh but there are people who do. I tend to just a value of a game based on how much I spent and how many hours I've put into it. I do this with everything, my computer was built entirely on price/performance, my first couple of cars were based on cost/mpg/reliability, Everything in my life is based on a calculation of efficiency. Now not everyone is like this, but if game companies want a part of used sells they need to start following more rules, if they make a complete garbage game that is maybe 2-3 hours long, then they should be required to sell the game for $10-20, and fairly as well to other countries. ----------------------------- -------------------- LackaJaKane Consoles hardly ever have "dedicated" servers, they are hosted by the players, and on PC we don't have "hosted" servers by companies, we have dedicated servers by players. (outside of MMO's, which pull in money through cash shops/monthly fees/ads) So this point is thrown out of the window, and UPDATES, should never be counted as a part of the production cost, as those can make/break the product. Its just like a car, if there is a problem with it there is a manufactuer recall and the part is replaced free of charge. ----------------------------- ------ BattleTorn I can tell you have never tried to buy a new car, they will offer you a used car nearly every time, because they will gain a much larger profit. they take a trade in for a low price, turn around and sell it at a higher price with cost of a loan. They don't make very much money off a new car, most of all they gain on the new car is from the loan, not the purchase itself.
Your car dealership annalogy just simply doesn't hold up. Used cars have an entirely different market. People who shop for used cars =/= people you buy new cars. If you go buy a new car, no one stops and offers you an identical, similarly priced used-car each time.
That's the Gamestop outlook. If you can make a large profit on it why not? The article describes it as "living at someone else's expense" - I described it as a scam. A better system involving digital trade in isn't too far away, hopefully!
This. @ From the Beach "As this guy points out - he walks into Gamestop, asks for a new game and is offered a used copy for £5 cheaper. How is that not a scam? Come on now. " Nothing dishonest about it, just someone doing their job. That's like going to Mcdonalds and telling the person off for asking if you want fries with that. You're welcome to reject their offer and you're MORE THAN WELCOME to go somewhere else. " how much did the person who sold it to Gamestop get? For a £30 game, half that if they're lucky. A total farce." And? You lose money to connivence, but sometimes it's a lot harder to get what they're offering out of eBay (listing / Paypal fees), friends, Craigslist or anywhere else. Everything is something of a trickle down logic, which results in those prices being moderately fair for the lack of effort required to sell your game. Look at Soul Sacrifice. Right now it's $30 dollars new, so you ALREADY lost $10 dollars if you paid MSRP. Used (I've heard this comes with an online pass if you buy used too) is $28, so you're pretty much looking at $28 max at the moment. If you used the online pass, then a lot of people are only going to offer $18 max ($10 to buy / obtain the online pass). Since a lot of people would object to paying the GameStop price in the end (Game + Online Pass), they're most likely going to offer you something more like $15 dollars. If you're selling this online, then you can drop that price to $13 dollars (shipping) and probably close to $11.50 after eBay / PP fees. While I don't know what it trade in for at GameStop, it does trade into Bestbuy for $16 dollars, which is a LOT better than dealing with all this hassle. @ LackaJaKane Not every game has online and a LOT of games have dead multiplayers. Singularity, Bodycount, NeverDead, Mindjack, Quantum Theory, Dead Space 2 etc. If anything it might motivate companies to make better single player experiences and add less tacked on multiplayer experiences. @ Battletorn "Used cars have an entirely different market. People who shop for used cars =/= people you buy new cars. " Not really. Most people who buy used know they can't afford / don't want to have that ongoing expense, so it's not like they would sell many used cars there. Anyway, new and used works out in a similar way to GameStop's concept of new / used. You pretty much can NOT obtain a car with 0 miles on it, so even a new car is in some way "used" (similar to how GameStop opens their games). Additionally, if you add any additional miles on it and try to return it, then you're given a HEAFTY penalty (like buying new and trading in shortly after). In either case, the point isn't how similar the markets are, but how no other company gets such treatment. There are reasons for that (like movies get money from far more than the simple sale of it), but it would start a bad precedent.
@NioRide Wrong. I just bough a new car and they never offered me to buy an used car,
Hey, it's not like Gamestop is putting a gun to your head, and making you trade your games in for $5.
Of course, but it's easy to fall into the trap of 'something is better than nothing' and just take it. The good folks at Gamestop aren't exactly generous.
to reply to some of your other comments why is it not the same. if you buy a used car the auto manufacturer should get some of the money based on the used games logic you support. and have you ever heard of overhead a company like game stop cant give you 30$ for a game and then sell it for 30$. and it is obvious that you have a problem with used games, so dont buy or sell yours it is that simple. not everyone shares your opinions though. I often sell games, movies, phones, and other things i have no use for but hardly ever buy used because i would rather have new.
if you beleive taht then I feel sorry for you. youd rather give greedy companies and developers money that they dont deserve for used games. They want to make money off used sales then they need to buy used games from us and sell them themselvs. Gamestop is a business that makes its money by spending money. Greedy devs and publishers think they deserve a cut when they refuse to get into the business. if you made chairs do you think someone should give you a cut if they decide to sell it after buying it from you?
That's why I am getting your game The Order 1886 on Amazon. The last game I am ever getting at Gamestop is GTA5.
"Everything you saw in the trailer was in-game" Hell yeah!
Wait wait wait, he's crying because gamestop not cutting devs in on the profits of used games, but what about the dlc and specific retailer dlc debacle? It's okay to stiff the consumer on having partial games, but it's not okay to stiff developers out of a lucrative used game market? Suck it up
dont care what the haters say. I love GameStop, what gamer wouldn't love a store dedicated to games? I love trading in my games for store credit, discounts, and my GameInformer. GameStop is a business, they are going to make $$ and carry on.
You must not have any other used game retailers around you. GameStop's corporate overhead prevents them from having good trade-in values and resale values. I work at Disc Replay. We give more cash than GameStop gives in-store credit. Our in-store credit is even higher than that! And we don't resell the newer $60 games for $54.99. We sell them at $42.99. That's only one reason to hate GameStop though. The constant pestering about Game Informer and the discount card make it even worse. I know... I used to work there. I quit to work at Disc Replay. I freakin' hated shoving Game Informer and a card down peoples' throats. Even with that discount card, our prices and trade-in values are much better. I still love going in to GameStop to talk to my friends that work there, but there's no reason to buy anything there. Even new stuff like systems or games I reserve and buy at Walmart. While you're waiting in line for the release, you can take a bathroom break or even eat! Why would anyone go to GameStop? Lol.
you provide good info, but you are effectively just anti-gamestop. Your preference of used game store is different, but the used game market is the same at disc replay (although sounds better for the consumer)... you shop at walmart but you could argue that gamestop is the walmart of used game sales. the only way to get them to reduce gouging is to not go there, which I don't go. ebay or kijiji is still the best, all profit to consumer.
Oh, yes. I wasn't disagreeing. I was just saying there are better alternatives to GameStop. :)
How about companies start listening to the people who buy their games, instead of just doing as they damn well please. And this whole "games would sell more if they didn't allow them to be sold used" is just BS. People were blaming used games for the failure of the new tomb raider. It needed 5-10 million to make it profitable. Tomb raider 2 is the highest selling in the series history, and it barely topped the 5 million mark. Everyone of the last TR games barely broke 1 million. Knowing the people you are selling to, and having a budget that fits it is what you need. Companies tend to be retarded for some reason in this aspect.
Although they did an excellent job with God of War for the PSP they need to make the games longer and with more things to do. I bought the games brand new but only played them twice.
The problem known as gamestop would go away if games were 50 dollars again. I dont trade in games anymore nor do i purchase unless i know its worth it. Games such as red dead, last of us, fallout 3,bf3. These games are worth 60.00.
90% Of released games are money grabbers, f12012, grid 2, gears judgment, madden and ncaa, COD. The constant regurgitation is why people can buy used and will. When u release the same damn game every year gamestop devalues the game after its been on the market and sells it cheap. Make consumers want to keep your game, dlc doesnt work unless its a wildly played online shooter. With blu ray these games shouldv had more content, putting dlc on the disk pisses people off.
I love gamestop, I love how they buy me a used game for 3eur and sell it for 20eur...it'so fair! I don't understand how people talk shit about them. Gamestop forever!! ;)
Now, everyone thank Sony for keeping this unnecessary conglomerate relavent in our industry. ---- Now, before everyone hates my comment, hear me out: Just look at how much of Gamestop's net revenue is off of used-game sales. It's something like 42% - or equivalent of 2 billion dollars. http://www.joystiq.com/2009... 2 Billion dollars that goes no where close to the developement or innovation of games, or the industry. It goes directly to the coffers of a *retailer*. There's absolutely no benefit to us, or our beloved industry, except for a $5 saving at the till. Furthuremore, when the industry as a whole has a struggling decline in sales, Gamestop capatilizes on even more used-sales. http://www.forbes.com/sites...
Why should I only thank Sony? Does Nintendo disallow used games too? In fact, Gamestop was always going to be an "authorized" dealer for MS's XB1. Surely you can't be that myopic?
Guy Longworth, Sony's senior vice president in charge of PlayStation brand marketing said "It's clear that the vast majority of the people want to go down to GameStop or Best Buy, they don't want to buy it online right now." http://www.gamesindustry.bi... "Parts of Sony's presentation were obviously put together after Microsoft posted its Xbox One policies prior to E3. Some of SCEA CEO Jack Tretton's remarks were very pointed, aimed at showing the differences between the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 policies." When Microsoft announced they were going for DRM, Sony set to completely counter it. If they had followed MS, GameStop's stock would've died - unlike how it actually increased after Sony's annoucement. Which sparked the slew of articles titled "Did Sony just save GameStop?" http://www.dailyfinance.com... And then again, when Microsoft did their reversal: "GameStop Jumps as Microsoft Changes" http://www.bloomberg.com/ne... I'm not trying to say Microsoft's DRM was perfect (not in the least) - but I do think they were doing us a huge favor in trying to squeeze GameStop out of business. And on that note, that Sony did a disservice keeping GameStop so prevalent. I also believe that Sony made their policies antagonistic to Micronsoft's DRM based on what they had to gain, and not what was truly good for consumers.
You still didn't address Nintendo. Should I summarily dismiss one of the big 3 because they don't fall under the pretense of your argument? Also you think GS's stock wouldn't have received a similar spike when MS announced Gamestop as an authorized re-seller? Aside from Best Buy what other brick & mortar retailer could they possibly choose? Quite honestly, I would disagree with Guy Longworth too since judging by Amazon's revenue quite a few gamers are happy to buy online. Either way, bubbles to you good sir for responding in a civil manner. I love spirited debates!
I do tend to think of Nintendo as another camp. Mainly due to how much 3rd-party support matters to me personally. Nintendo simply won't have many of this generation's biggest 3rd-party games. (It's already showing with EA withdrawing support - http://www.geek.com/games/e... ) Does Nintendo need 3rd-party to survive? I'd say: nope, they've already proved that. So to answer your question: Should I dismiss one of the big 3? Only if you want to - Nintendo satifies some gamer's needs to every degree. I bought a Wii U primarily for ZombiU, and in hopes for superior 3rd-party versions of 2013's blockbusters. (that didn't happen) I think Nintendo has proved that, as much as I hate this statement, they don't need to concern themselves with what the competition does. And they demonstrated that by choosing not to even have a E3 conference. --- And to your second question: I do think GS's stock would've also risen to MS announcing them as a authorized seller. But perhaps not as much. I'm happy you liked my response, either way!!
Hog wash, research the amount of profit the industry made in 2012.
They aren't doing "us" a favour by shutting down Gamestop.. "Us" for better or worse, go to gamestop and drop millions there. I personally agree with many of your points but "us" is the majority, and the majority have made gamestop a viable, profitable business...
Totally! We have made GameStop the size they are - myself included, I'll call Gamestop to check prices before buying anything digital. I don't think we can blame any consumer for choosing the $5-less(or more) version of a new game, when it's offered. We are all individuals, looking out for our own best deal. GameStop without a doubt as offered to each of us, individually, an deal we can't refuse. But I do think they have dupped us in a way. Say yes to a cheaper copy of game seems like such a no-brainer to the consumer, and like such a miniscule decision to make - but it's the accumilation of these that hurt those who are making/publishing our games.
I agree that GameStop is not some benevolent entity that is trying to do anything more than make money. But, that is what businesses are made to do. This is an OPTION for gamers. Believe me. IF the industry wanted to get rid of GameStop, it would have already have been gone. When MS made it's announcement about DRM, the stock started to take a dive. So, why hasn't the industry rebelled against it? The same money that they "hate" is the same money that they need/want. Many people use GameStop as a way to actually get their next NEW by trading older games. No, that money doesn't go to the same publisher/dev. But, it generates cash flow for the entire industry.
You're right. And you know what? That is perfectly fine. That is the way capitalism works. Games are a retail product, and can be brought and sold like all retail products. The game industry wants to do business in this market, they have to accept the things that don't benefit them. If they want to control the market, well then it's not a free market anymore is it? It may suck, but that's the way things are. So would you prefer the industry abide by the free market system, or monopolize it for their benefit? If it's the latter, perhaps you can name one instance of an industry controlling it's market that is beneficial to the consumers. It's also worth pointing out, that that 2 billion doesn't just magically appear. GameStop had to give out cash or store credit to acquire those used products. According to GameStop, 70% of that store credit they give out goes directly to the purchase of another game. So money is getting funneled back into the developers pocket...thus a benefit.
how much store credit did they give out for those games? You know that they dont sell instantly if at all and loose value really quickly. How much of that store credit was spent on new games that would not have otherwise be had by the customer if not for credit. devs should thank gamestop as I dont think they even give cash anymore. All the credit goes toward new and used games and consoles. All I know is I never buy used and often sell games shortly after they come out on amazon. Then I get cash and pretty much never spend that on games. In the small chance I trade something to gamestop(like my 360 a month ago) I ALWAYS spend that credit on NEW games(last of us and credit toward new ps4). I hate used garbage and you can find new games online for cheaper than used often(except used games I sell are in perfect condition and usually come with online pass. Anyone who get one of my used games is a lucky SOB). I dont hate gamestop because they make money on used games. They have to spend alot on buying tons of used games that lose value quickly. They give out credit that is also used on new games. GS is so huge that they create more money for videogames in general by giving out credit for games that would just sit on someone's shelf . There is no doubt in my mind that if gamestop in particular ceased to exist LESS new games would be sold, not more. People wouldnt suddenly just buy more new games, they would be forced to get on renting or just play fewer games. New or used, without the credit from gamestop less games would be bought. also, if devs dont like gamestop then I think they should go all digital and then they could give us a discount...ohh wait they wouldnt give us a discount ever and then just complain about not enough exposure or some bs when their game doesnt sell as good as they thought it should.
Selling a used game for $5 less than the new version for the dev,gamestop is shit
Developers should not get one red cent from a used game sale. Gamestop is a glorified pawn shop. If I make jewelry, someone buys my jewelry then sells it to a pawn shop, should I get a cut when the pawn shop sells my jewelry!? NO!
"Unfortunately, they're not just making a living at the expense of developers but also the consumers because the consumers will see less and less games come out if developers can't get revenue to make more new titles and keep going as a business." LOL, bullspit. Two things we gamers have ALWAYS had: Used games and plenty of games to play.
if companies are really concerned with used games then open some competition. gamestop has dominated for years with no one to stop them. they can easily be beaten if the publishers work together.