Top
220°

Party's almost over for GameStop's used games business

Since Microsoft introduced the Xbox One last week, the conversation surrounding it has been about how the company intends to handle trade and resale of used games. The company hasn't made all details public yet, and there is speculation that the final details are still being worked out, but the world's biggest video game retailer, GameStop, stands to lose significantly if there is a change to the status quo.

Read Full Story >>
gamasutra.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Maddens Raiders2496d ago

When I think back to all the years I went into GameStop only to be fleeced for my games, their promos shoved in my face, and their UNIVERSAL (seemingly lock-step_ condescending attitudes and lies toward the PlayStation 3 repeated over and over, I find it really hard to feel sorry for them.

The innocent young employees who are just looking for some extra bucks I feel sorry for, but I know they'll bounce back.

NeverEnding19892496d ago

Lies toward the PS3? Sorry Madden, but Microsoft actually WASN'T paying off Gamestop to harm the PS3.

I know this gen's over, but I hope the Playstation conspiracy theories continue into next gen, they're f'in hilarious!

Thatguy-3102496d ago

Well Xbone is now breaking Pre-order records at Blockbusters. Should we start there?
4>1

porkChop2496d ago

He didn't say that Microsoft paid Gamestop to "harm the PS3".

I know exactly what he's talking about though. During the first 3 or 4 years of this gen, every Gamestop I went to was filled with Xbox fanboy employees that would bash the PS3 and make up lies about the system, trying to convince me to buy a 360.

Rainstorm812496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

It may not be a conspiracy but many GameStop employees didnt have a clue about many things concerning the ps3.

For all the shyt people give GameStop...Many many many people would miss their used games if they were gone...especially since there aren't many options like them

Also if both Sony and MS blocked used games plenty of gamers would stick with the current gen...blocking used games will only hurt the industry as a whole

Majin-vegeta2496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

@Never ending

A gen isn't over until all new consoles come out -_-.

TheSkullkid2496d ago

Except for Wii U because unlike the greedy money grubbing competition, Nintendo is pro business no matter if it's big or small. That's another thing I love about them.

NaAsAr2496d ago

good riddance to their ridiculous used games practice. buying back games just bought a month ago for 20 bucks and selling them for 5 dollars less than the new price :(

pacosanchez882496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

go ahead fellow gamers, take my bubbles away without reading this, but uhhg i get so tired of comments like this. ive worked at gamestop for 7 years now, its a business! jesus people. u realise we only profit 6 or seven dollars when we sell a new game? how do u think they stay in business then? selling used. yes, with enough time and practice u can sell ur games for $40 bucks online, but that might take a week? longer? u go into gamestop and u get imediate money. just like if u sell ur used car, if u trade it in at a dealer, u wont get near as much as if u sell it urself. thats how businesses turn a profit. not only that but as a corperation they have to account for all the games like aliens colonial marines, were we bought dozens of used copies back for $25 and now then just sat there cuz nobody would touch them, now we sell it for $40 soon $30, then $20 and we still wont be able to sell aaaaaall of those copies we already bought for $25 months ago. im not saying they are perfect, hell they really piss me off most of the time, but their trade values arent as outrageous as people make them out to be, thats just how businesses work.

Gamer-Z2496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

As a former GameStop employee i can vouch for this, he's telling the truth about GameStop making very little from selling new copies of games. Also a lot people don't know this but they make absolutely no money from selling a new consoles. I fear though you might be out of a job in he next year or two if DRM becomes mainstream, it's one of the reasons i left GameStop to go back to school.

NaAsAr2494d ago

sorry, but i bought gears of war 3 the day it was released for 59.99. i got tired of the game fast after a week. guess how much gamestop was willing to give me for it? 25 bucks. the message above is not completely accurate. sorry for telling the truth.

i basically sold it to my friend for 35 bucks the same day. :(

hakesterman2496d ago

Glad to see Gamestop is going to have to pay the Game developers a fee to transfer games, that's awesome. Glad they finally buckled down on them.

ShwankyShpanky2496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

Can you explain to me what makes video game developers/publishers unique among all other industries in that they should be entitled to returns from second-hand sales of previously purchased products?

Oschino19072496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

Well considering a majority of games have some sort of online whether it be multiplayer (especially those with dedicated servers) or even just leaderboards. If the pubs/devs are supporting the games after launch and possibly for years into the future shouldn't they have some sort of revenue stream from all those who buy it used whether it be release week or yrs down the road?

Why should pubs/devs/original purchasers pay money so some cheap gamer can continue to play using the online features? And why should gamestop be taking in all of the profit whether its a risk for them or not (obviously they make a killing from it)?

papashango2496d ago

Pretty soon I expect you'll see Sony and M$ going the Valve route of selling you not games but "licenses" to said games. Except in the PC's case. Steam games can be bought for so cheap that nobody really cares.

If you sell someone a license to play a game then this kind of skirts around the issue of doing what you want with owning the game.

throw in the whole "license is non-transferrable blah bla blah unless you pay said fee" and I'm sure you can pretty much figure out how this is going to go down.

ShwankyShpanky2496d ago (Edited 2496d ago )

1) Server cost should be covered in the initial purchase. There is no difference to the server load whether the original buyer plays for four years, or if they play for two years, sell it, and the new user plays for two years.
2) "Majority" is obviously not "all games." And just because a game has online functionality, does not mean that the player is using that functionality.
3) They deserve extra money for leaderboard servers? Really? I'd rather keep the money than the leaderboard access.
4) Dedicated servers are, at least for the moment, not that common for console games.
5) Servers are not THAT expensive.
6) If servers ARE too expensive, give players the means to run their own. Should pubs/devs still get a cut on used sales after they've shut down their MP servers? Or if they'll be shut down in a month after the second-hand sale?
7) I guess MS and Sony should then also get a cut of all second-hand console sales, being that the buyer can use PSN or XBL Silver for free, adding to the Sony/MS server load.

You're basically making an argument for subscription fees to access online features; it in no way justifies them getting a cut of all second-hand sales.

Why should GameStop take the profit? People may not like their prices (paid or asked), but they do provide a service, and they are accepting risk. Where else can you take pretty much any used game at the drop of a hat and in five minutes get cash in hand? I'll also note that GameStop is not the only avenue in the world for used game sales, and if one doesn't like their offered prices, they're welcome to sell their game elsewhere. Yet under these DRM schemes the pub gets cash no matter where it's sold. It's not like you're just taking money from the evil GameSatan and giving it to the publisher; if I sell a game to a buddy, GameStop (/Amazon/eBay/whatever) isn't making anything off of that, and in a direct sale, it's pretty unlikely that the seller will be making any actual profit.

How in the world online gaming ever survived this long without these DRM schemes, one can only imagine.

rainslacker2496d ago

No. It's the consumer which will have to pay those fees. Have no doubt this will either effect the trade-in value, or the sale price of that game. It may indirectly be paid by GameStop and others simply due to having to remain competitive, but with console manufacturers or publishers controlling that cost, competition is removed. This leads to retailers having to compete on their trade-in perks(not unlike they do now), as opposed to their trade in/sale prices.

Here's what you just said with the mirror solely on you.

It's a good thing that I will have to pay the Game developer a fee to transfer games, that's awesome. Glad they finally buckled down on ME.

Not so pretty when you're the victim is it?

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.