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.
They're not technically being paid twice because that person that was could've bought their game new and paid the Developer who made the game instead paid a few bucks less and paid Gamestop for nothing.
From article "I don't think we should stop used games, but we should do something about getting part of the revenue back from GameStop and places like that" That would mean the publishers would collect from both sales of new and used software...That's being paid twice...The dude is clear as day saying they should get some percentage of the money made on used goods..In order for the game to be used someone had to buy it brand new[publisher was already paid for that sale]
^^^ If someone buys their game new then trades it in and someone buys it used then that's two people buying one copy of their game. One being the person who paid the developer and the other who paid Gamestop. So why shouldn't the developer get part of the money for their game?
See the part your missing though is that a new game sale covers not just development but shipping and printing of disc and related materials. After the first sale that stuff and the development costs and marketing are already paid for. What the publishers and puppet developers are asking for is a double dip on the same product. They say they aren't selling enough to break even.. new game sales are higher than they have ever been and grow every year. The problem isn't that people are buying used copies denying the publishers money. The problem is that they spend too much money developing the games and way way too much money marketing them. There are games that sell 5 and 6 million copies and don't break even. Thats why they want used money. They manage their money poorly so they are trying to find every way possible to continue making overpriced games with too much marketing. Games shouldnt cost 100-200+ million dollars, they just shouldn't, that amount doesn't buy extra quality, or guarantee more sales. The publishers think it should but it just doesn't, there are games like dark souls which are profitable with 2-3 million sales, those developers and publishers never complain about used games. Plus dark souls arguably looked nearly as good as tomb raider or bioshock infinite, and one of the best looking games of the generation heavy rain cost about 30 million. There's just no call for it.
Car manufacturers don't make squat on used car sales.... It's the same thing. Chevy, ford, nissan, Toyota etc.. Should collect on every used car sold, because, as you put it, that person who bought used could've bought new.... That's a flawed argument because some people who buy used can't afford new prices, or simply don't want to.... I mostly buy new games myself, but to each there own.... There's a used market for just about everything sold... Why should game publishers be the only ones getting paid for used products?
Agreed w nyc. If I buy something, I should be able to sell it to whoever. Why does the original manufacturer get paid twice? What if its sold again, the corporate gets paid a 3rd time? How bout I also get a cut too? Since I'm the original buyer, when gamestop sell my game they should give me a profit too.
Okay, used games fans. Let's say Naughty Dog sold five million new games and 2 million use games. In order for them to afford supporting a second team, they need to sell seven million games. (which technically, they did) In falling short on their sales goal, that second team would not have existed and we would have not been able to enjoy what has been one of the best games of the year in The Last of Us. I'm all for Consumer Freedom. just understand what the repercussions of your choices can mean. All because you wanted to save $3 and stuff $20 into the pockets of stores like Gamestop.
Games are a product, just like everything else in the different consumer markets. Nobody else gets paid for each time their product get sold in a 2nd hand store. This bullshit over used games is simply an attempt to get paid twice for their product because they think they can do it. Auto makers get paid once for the cars they build, carpenters get paid once for the houses they build, PC manufacturers get paid only once for the PC components they build. NOBODY else gets paid for their used products. Game developers don't deserve, nor are they entitled to a chunk of the used games market.
Why is this only a problem with video games? All sorts of used media are sold every single day. What, I have a collector's edition of a comic book or baseball card and if I sell it for what it is worth, I somehow owe the baseball card company? Used book stores flourish in used book sales, but the publishers don't claim that they deserve the revenue. This is so weird.
Books and cars. Authors are paid by the publisher for their work and then they get paid for each book sold once they hit a certain dynamic. Each author is paid differently based on the demand for their work. Completely different from games. Automobiles cost tens of thousands of dollars. If someone out there was buying cars for half of new prices and selling them for $5 less than new, chances are GM would notice. Still apples to lugnuts though. Software is a consumable experience. We are all licensed to enjoy a game for our single enjoyment for $60. If the license were transferable or made for multiple users we would pay much more than $60. Compare the prices of Mcaffe single and multi-user copies. You will see that you pay more for multiple licenses. We can't have games at $60 and demand we resell the license. Devs are shutting down and the kids are crying about rights that do not exist per the user agreement printed in the user manual of each game we buy. Amazing when devs try to explain used games hurt their ability to make new games they get called greedy. If you are whining devs need to make better games for you to buy new, shut your pie hole. You are not a customer.
When you buy a book or DVD movie and watch it. If you decide to sell it or trade them in for money that's your right. What the person who bought it from you decides to do with it that's their right. The product was already bought. Unless they continue to put one time codes on each disc or make the software LICENSES like Microsoft and digital downloads the data on the disc is mostly transferable. Remember, when people trade/sell their games they aren't pirating them. They aren't stealing or copying the products. What they are doing is liquidating assets they bought and own to get new assets. The product was already bought. What the developers need to do is make the customers hold onto their games longer. This way gamers will want to keep their disc longer minimizing the profit potential of these places buying back games and reselling them. Look it this way, you don't see book companies complaining about FREE libraries that lend out books. It cost less to publish a book or movie but still. How are they going to FIX this problem. I know the answer. What would need done is a balance. First the developers have full control of the games as digital licenses then later they sell the physical copies that require NO internet connections at all. Sell the digital copies first online as digital licenses ONLY! At 80% of the retail value of disc based copies for a short time. This would be about three to six months. In this time period a limited number of cheap really cheap FIRST LAUNCH game disc are also sold. This is the FULL game that contains ALL of the digital download already ON the disc. No frills or game books. It's basically a demo disc until it's digitally unlocked online for your system. The sole purpose is to make the digital licensed copy available to people with poor or restricted internet connections. Here is the kicker. After the game has been out digitally as licensed format for 3-6 months sell the FULL DISC based versions with all the game books and stuff at full price while reducing the digital cost of the online digital copies more. I realize most publishers would want to skip the second step but they'd lose a lot of people if we didn't get the physical copies at all. What they'd need to realize is by the time this is introduced most of the hardcore sells would've died down a bit. It would then open up a second market whee they still gain the upper hand in the digital market over the used sells. The people who want the games at launch would have a choice to buy the digital license first while the people who choose to wait could get the disc based full copies later. Since the first launch disc are sold as cheap digital licenses it would be unprofitable for 3rd parties to resale them because the actual sale is done at the online stores. This demo disc would make the digital copies viable for people with poor/limited internet connections while maintaining the publishers control over distribution. This is basically, the same thing MOVIE theaters are doing. They license the movies to theaters for the first few months to insure box office sales. They then launch the customer based DVDs a few weeks later for people who don't go to theaters. Everyone would win here. The people who want the games NOW and the people who want the physical copies. The people who want Physical FULL copies would need to wait a few months but they'd get their physical disc that they own. The first launch physical demo copies being so CHEAP wouldn't be profitable for third parties to resale.
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.