SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Well, I can personally say that my local Gamestop always bugged me about buying a used copy. "Are you sure you dont want to buy used? Its cheaper! We will throw in some store credit! Go on, theres no draw back!"
But that could be my personal experience. I do know for a fact though that employees at Game were told to always, always always do everything within their power to sell a used copy over a new one. That goes for all stores across the UK. If you didnt do it, you could get into a bit of trouble.
Ah, that may be I am speaking from Midwest USA. I haven't ever been hassled over it. They may have done a follow-up question here and there of "Are you sure?" But it would have had to have been more of a formality because I honestly can't even remember if they have even done so much as that, personally.
I am not saying you haven't experienced that but whenever I read someone put that they "push" used over new, personal experience of 8 years dealing with them on a regular basis proves otherwise. I am aware though that I have only dealt with stores across central USA. However, I am drawing from a large sample vs. a couple particular locations.
Savagezion said:
We're getting screwed because the publisher sees us as the problem. Publishers of all people know that the consumer practices matter more than the business ethics. What Gamestop does could be much worse. What if used games cost $15 less than new? That would encourage even more people to buy used. $5 isn't enough for many people to care about. They could be really undercutting the publishers and making a much bigger impact against the industry. It's funny that EA has already began to make amends with the new owners of GAME. As well, if this was hurting the industry so bad, why don't they just refuse to supply Gamestop with new games?
Dont you think Gamestop would drop the price by 15 bucks if they could make more money that way? If you think retailers are holding back to keep good relations with publishers you dont know shit about the industry.
Not necessarily. They actually do have Buy 2, Get 1 free sales 3 times a year to move back stock. This equates to up to 33% off. That's up to almost $20 off $55 titles. But if they sold them for that regularly, they would run out of used stock. What they do is instead use the $5 off price point and let back stock build up, then throw that sale at certain parts of the year to move it. They can't order more used games so it is more important to them to maintain control over the flow of it and capitalize on that.
If you take Skyrim back and get $40, they are now invested in that copy for $40 so if nobody buys that copy before the new copy comes down to $40 they are risking loss. Their prices for trade ins are based on what they are willing to risk for that title sitting on the shelf and not selling. People say they are ripping them off offering trade ins on Infamous at only $5 when they will sell it for $15. What they forget is Infamous is an old game and the game doesn't necessarily sell the same week it is traded in. Skyrim might so they are willing to risk $40 on it. They don't get a profit on it until it sells. They are simply offering a price that offers a safety zone from money lost on their part.
They aren't doing it to keep good relations to publishers, they are doing it to provide a service to the market that they can make money on. They win and we win, the publisher isn't involved here - nor should they be. They obviously got a sale out of someone who wasn't interested. That means the market already bought more supply than there was demand. The publishers already won by this transaction even being able to take place. Economic law: Strong used market indicates a strong primary market.
I have tried games I would never have tried as a new title by getting them used for cheap. Some of them were garbage, but I had $5-10 and wanted to try something new so I played "video game roulette" with the bargain bin knowing I would probably lose. Sending money to the devs on purchases like this would only serve to send the wrong message; that I was interested in the game. Actually, it just that I had nothing better to do and $5-10 to blow. If project $10 had been there, I would've just got a couple burgers or a dvd or something. IF the game simply was not there to look at (as being proposed) I definitely would have opted for the burgers or movie because they game would have never crossed my mind.
