Is Gamestop really to blame ?

[Savagezion]

TC, if gamestop was to blame for all of this, why are publishers so eager to have exclusive Gamestop DLC with them?

Are they? Are they "eager" to have these exclusive pre-order "bonuses"? Or they know they have to make them, otherwise it's bottom shelf for their game?

This is something Total Bisquit needs to prove in his stance. Gamestop doesn't demand it, they pay for it. Just like Best Buy, Amazon, or Steam. It is something the retailer BUYS from the developer as an advantage to pull as many "new" sales their way to get the lions share of customers. If I only make $5 off every new copy I sell, of course I need to make sure that most customers will buy the game from ME and not other retailers. I honestly believe that now many publishers are having devs actually build "pre-order kits" ahead of time to sell to any retailers interested. Dishonored's pre-order plan screamed of a model like this. What was there like 6 or 7 pre-order bonuses based on where you bought it? That could net a nice portion publishers initial investment in the game back.
I am highly skeptical that Gamestop has enough weight to say "give us pre-order material for free or we wont sell your game." I think that is on the fringes of conspiracy theories.

 

[nevarran]

I am highly skeptical that Gamestop has enough weight to say "give us pre-order material for free or we wont sell your game." I think that is on the fringes of conspiracy theories.

Sure, I don't think they are doing that either. But maybe if you sell them a pre-order stuff, you get a better place in the store, posters on the windows, trailers playing on the screens and whatnot...

 

[Auron]

I disagree, Gamestop is a business and they do what they have to do to make money.If game publishers/developers hate working with Gamestop then they should start their own used game market to compete with them.The only reason they won't do that is because they feel entitled to money that is not theirs to begin with.If people hate trading games in at Gamestop then they should try selling them online but don't blame Gamestop for the game industry being in a bloat where they feel they should dictate what people do with their product because they are greedy.

Aren't you basically saying "It's a free market and they're exploiting it, it's ethical, devs dislike it but instead of compete they're competing by making it extinct." it sounds legit to me, it's probably not very wise to annoy half your customers and if I had a console I'd potentially be pissed(though we're not sure about values or even if it's really truth yet.) but it does sound like a valid strategy, they are making the content after all. Gamestop seems to me(as a foreigner) to be a parasitical business model that hurts the industry quite a bit to be fair, not that the solution is much better of course.

Well I can't wait to see the legal battles Microsoft are going to be in when the Xbone is released.PC games to my knowledge are mostly digital unlike console games so the used game market for consoles is a free market that corporate greed can't control.But what happens when Gamestop and the used game marktet is put out of business and the game developers/publishers who bitched about them find out it has'nt changed a damn thing?Do you honestly think they won't find a new scapegoat for their uncontrollable bloat that's making them sink?

Who knows they might target the PC market next or retailers and would claim they are stealing money that THEY deserve.Greed is a insatiable beast and it is ruining the game industry.

PC games are digital now and some people(as escapist leads me to believe.) still buy them retail, slowly but steady since 98 we haven't been able to trade PC games due to cd keys, multiplayer being locked to them and general DRM that emerged, it's just "capitalism at work" far as I'm aware, Your liberal stance seems to fail when it inconveniences you. I do miss the 90's creative DRM and shareware models though.

 

[FalloutJack]

Can you guys tell me what exactly this guy is trying to say ? Is he correct? Is Gamestop to blame for why MS(and possibly Sony) are implementing used games DRM in their next generation consoles ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQUBnqcFEM

The game is called 'Competitive Marketing and Business', and some companies aren't smart enough to play.

 

[Dryk]

Can you guys tell me what exactly this guy is trying to say ? Is he correct? Is Gamestop to blame for why MS(and possibly Sony) are implementing used games DRM in their next generation consoles ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQUBnqcFEM

Considering the profit margins they're made to run under I'd say it's not entirely fair. It's like blaming a movie theatre's high concession stand prices on greed.

 

[Savagezion]

I am highly skeptical that Gamestop has enough weight to say "give us pre-order material for free or we wont sell your game." I think that is on the fringes of conspiracy theories.

Sure, I don't think they are doing that either. But maybe if you sell them a pre-order stuff, you get a better place in the store, posters on the windows, trailers playing on the screens and whatnot...

Well, that would mean that publishers should in fact be eager to sell these pre-order bonuses. As it would mean free advertisement on top of it; meaning they are actually getting more in trade for this content than they are actually selling it for. Paying me to advertise MY product in exchange for a dinky exclusive side mission/skin I can later sell as DLC? SOLD! Where is the downside exactly? The 20 hours or so it takes for my devs to whip something up?

 

[nevarran]

Well, that would mean that publishers should in fact be eager to sell these pre-order bonuses. As it would mean free advertisement on top of it; meaning they are actually getting more in trade for this content than they are actually selling it for. Paying me to advertise MY product in exchange for a dinky exclusive side mission/skin I can later sell as DLC? SOLD! Where is the downside exactly? The 20 hours or so it takes for my devs to whip something up?

Well, I'm not so sure it's fair. Most of the shops would do this without payment. Selling your product is their business after all.
I see your point tho'. I just think Gamestop and all other retailers are the "third man", and not having them would be for the better.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

No the issue is quite simple, really. It's greed. It's always been greed.

 

[Savagezion]

Well, that would mean that publishers should in fact be eager to sell these pre-order bonuses. As it would mean free advertisement on top of it; meaning they are actually getting more in trade for this content than they are actually selling it for. Paying me to advertise MY product in exchange for a dinky exclusive side mission/skin I can later sell as DLC? SOLD! Where is the downside exactly? The 20 hours or so it takes for my devs to whip something up?

Well, I'm not so sure it's fair. Most of the shops would do this without payment. Selling your product is their business after all.
I see your point tho'. I just think Gamestop and all other retailers are the "third man", and not having them would be for the better.

Honestly, Gamestop has no reason to snub your game either way. They really are no different and actually stand to lose money if they don't do it moreso than say Best Buy. Gamestop being a game specialty store benefits from trying to make EVERY game look like a good investment as that is the only thing they sell. They can't make it up by selling car stereos or refrigerators. It just means they sell less copies thus losing out on that $5 per copy for themselves. I doubt their business model favors avoiding $5 a copy to be vindictive for not getting pre-order DLC on a game. Sometimes people forget that business is business, it isn't personal. We hold personal stake in it because for us it tends to be more personal transaction as we a single entity buying a product but Gamestop and publishers are businesses that must look at the big picture over individual sales. Many people out there try to paint Gamestop as some evil entity out to suck the blood from the industry but all arguments can be deconstructed logically and even more easily when you look at Gamestops sales data and learn that they make more net profit every year off of new merchandise than used merchandise or at worst break even. Last time I checked it was around 30% more a couple years ago during the whole "used games are killing the industry" debacle. So of every 10m they made back then, about 6-7m of it was off of new merchandise. This was when people were crying for Gamestops head on a stick and vowing to boycott. You can look at the used market as a safety net for them that the publishers want to remove and take for themselves, but should not have the right to do so. I don't have a problem with them doing it TOO. As in, competition, but they aren't doing that. They are trying to figure out wa way to control the entire market. They are the ones after the monopoly. By controlling both the new and used market, publishers would dictate the market to consumers - not the other way around.

As well, Steam is a 3rd party. They don't offer distribution for free and thus do take a part of the profits just as any other distribution chain. I personally like going into stores dedicated to gaming thus love brick and mortar stores. It's the same reason why I always find myself in the electronics department of a department store even if I only went there for dog food. I like being in stores that cater to my interests over stores that cater to my needs. Sure, I go grocery shopping but I don't care for it. My time spent in a brick and mortar game store is fun even if I can't buy anything. Even when I know more about the merchandise than the people who work there. There is something about stepping into a place with that many games. Browsing is much easier letting my eyes gaze over them without having to click through it. As well, you can find games you had totally forgot about. I can see more games with my eyes scanning a wall than I can clicking "next page" on steam.

Finally, the money isn't going to the developers, it is going to investors. Investors that don't give a crap about gaming, they care about money. They are looking for a place to put there money with a high chance of seeing big returns and EA wants this because it will secure some stock stability. Ridding the market of used games won't "help the industry" - a term many people think means "better games" - so much as it will "help publishers make more money" which isn't the same. Activision pulls in crazy amounts of money every year and they actually openly stated they aren't interested in making games that they can't milk with tons of sequels. Publishers getting more money doesn't mean anything. The market losing used games means losing a large part of ownership of your games you buy. Killing Gamestop doesn't help development studios, it helps some guy out there who has stock in EA, Activision, 2k, etc.

 

[sanquin]

Ah the used games debate again, and big companies trying to blame it on used games sales and the stores that push/sell them. While I think it's wrong to PUSH used games on customers, selling them is just...normal imo.

Here is a video that explains it far better than I ever could. It's from a guy that works in the industry.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Well, that would mean that publishers should in fact be eager to sell these pre-order bonuses. As it would mean free advertisement on top of it; meaning they are actually getting more in trade for this content than they are actually selling it for. Paying me to advertise MY product in exchange for a dinky exclusive side mission/skin I can later sell as DLC? SOLD! Where is the downside exactly? The 20 hours or so it takes for my devs to whip something up?

Well, I'm not so sure it's fair. Most of the shops would do this without payment. Selling your product is their business after all.
I see your point tho'. I just think Gamestop and all other retailers are the "third man", and not having them would be for the better.

As someone who has worked in a supermarket for 6 months, I guarantee you that shops don't do that for free.
There are always shelves reserved for those who pay for product placement. The shelf on your eye height and the one below are being bought. If you don't pay the store, you get a lower shelf.

Shops that don't have this practice are few and rather so small that they distributor doesn't care about them.

Gaming companies compete with each other not only over costumers, but also over the product placement. It's same for everything that sells. But publisher seem to be either too retarded to understand that or they simply know they can brainwash the costumer and push the blame on GS and other retails when their mediocre games with bought reviews don't sell well.

GS has to place some products on the better shelves, there is no avoiding it. So why wouldn't they do it for the one who is willing to give them some extra?

GS isn't forcing publisher on anything. The market is.
If we remove used games, games won't drop in price. There is no used games market on the PC and I don't see lower prices for games.
Hell, there is no licencing and I see almost the same prices as on consoles. And guess who picks the prices.

This is capitalism. Publisher want to make as much money as possible. They won't give up some of their potential profit because of good will. They won't lower their prices after they have no competition. Used games are competing against new games. Removing used games could even have a negative impact on the prices because the publisher could increase the price. You won't have a choice of buying used. And since we know that the average game can't wait for even a day to buy the game, they will still buy it even at $70.

GS does have the power to influence publisher. They can stop selling EA games for example. But lets be honest here. If GS stops selling EA and Activision games, they will go under. And I doubt that GS would want to hurt EA at the price of going bankrupt.

 

[Requia]

Well I can't wait to see the legal battles Microsoft are going to be in when the Xbone is released.PC games to my knowledge are mostly digital unlike console games so the used game market for consoles is a free market that corporate greed can't control.But what happens when Gamestop and the used game marktet is put out of business and the game developers/publishers who bitched about them find out it has'nt changed a damn thing?Do you honestly think they won't find a new scapegoat for their uncontrollable bloat that's making them sink?

Who knows they might target the PC market next or retailers and would claim they are stealing money that THEY deserve.Greed is a insatiable beast and it is ruining the game industry.

There can't be any legal battles that will stick. Steam doesn't allow you to resell physical copies of third-party games at all. Germany are the only country to have challenged them on that (well also the EU) and they haven't succeeded yet. By all accounts we've heard so far, the Microsoft system is going to be far more lenient than the Steam system

Uh, yes there can, First Sale Doctrine in the US is the *result* of lawsuits (congress backing it came later). The tricky part is getting enough harm (in a legal sense, which mostly means lost money) to justify the lawsuit (class action won't work because you can't deomnstrate who would and wouldn't have wanted to sell their game). But if the last rumor on used games is true, that only people who agree to give MS a cut of the sale can be a used game retailer, then the exact same retailers making the deal can sue for all the money they turn over to MS.

 

[BrotherRool]

Uh, yes there can, First Sale Doctrine in the US is the *result* of lawsuits (congress backing it came later). The tricky part is getting enough harm (in a legal sense, which mostly means lost money) to justify the lawsuit (class action won't work because you can't deomnstrate who would and wouldn't have wanted to sell their game). But if the last rumor on used games is true, that only people who agree to give MS a cut of the sale can be a used game retailer, then the exact same retailers making the deal can sue for all the money they turn over to MS.

Then why haven't people sued Valve for doing it for years or Blizzard or Origin? Germany/the EU is but I haven't seen anyone build up a case in the US. And what they're doing is a bigger violation

 

[Requia]

Uh, yes there can, First Sale Doctrine in the US is the *result* of lawsuits (congress backing it came later). The tricky part is getting enough harm (in a legal sense, which mostly means lost money) to justify the lawsuit (class action won't work because you can't deomnstrate who would and wouldn't have wanted to sell their game). But if the last rumor on used games is true, that only people who agree to give MS a cut of the sale can be a used game retailer, then the exact same retailers making the deal can sue for all the money they turn over to MS.

Then why haven't people sued Valve for doing it for years or Blizzard or Origin? Germany/the EU is but I haven't seen anyone build up a case in the US. And what they're doing is a bigger violation

Please actually read my posts before responding.

 

[nevarran]

As someone who has worked in a supermarket for 6 months, I guarantee you that shops don't do that for free.

Well, I'll take your word for it then. Truth is, I never thought much about how it works. I made sense to me, that you put the product with the biggest selling potential to your best shelves. But then again, it may sell well even from your basement, so... I don't know.

I'll disagree with you on the game prices. Just because the used games are not the only option.
I've never bought a used game, yet I rarely pay full price for games.
I purchased Borderlands 2 for 14 buck a few weeks ago. There's a pre-order for Total War Rome II on amazon.co.uk for 35 euro. There's Alan Wake for 3 bucks on Steam. And tons of other offers flying around the net, and I don't think the used games are the reason for their existence.
Granted, I'm a patient gamer and I don't feel the need to play every game on day 1. But that's the same with used games, you can buy a used game during the first days of the release, right?

 

[BrotherRool]

Please actually read my posts before responding.

Now I'm even more confused, why did you respond to me saying 'you can't do this' with a post that said 'I disagree. You can't do this?' Did you think I meant that legally it was impossible? Because I was talking about practical

 

[mavkiel]

Yes gamestop is to blame. Its a barnacle on the side of every other retailer not to mention publisher.

Trading in games is essentially legal piracy. Multiple people get the full enjoyment of a product, and the people who made the game, or are actually trying to sell new ones get screwed. Take a hard look at gamestop, most of their revenues come from used games that *deny* the publisher any profits.

Now before people start throwing out comparisons of used book sales or cars.. They don't fit.

Books - If you had a bookstore in every mall that made its primary focus trading in used books, we might have a similar issue. The shear numbers of gamestop is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Furthermore, the used book industry is undergoing its own revolution, with invention of ebooks.

Cars - Used cars are just that, used. People are willing to pay a premium in order to ensure their car is in perfect working order. For a used game? An old one is just as good as a new. Baring scratches.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, we know two things:

1) Publishers get no cut of Used Game sales
2) Retailers get a very small cut of New Game sales

It is logically impossible for Gamestop or any Used Game entity, to not shoulder at least some of the blame; at the very least half of it. But at the same time, discounting the publisher's involvement and pinning the blame solely on Gamestop is foolish.

Considering that there have always been major retailer monoliths (Walmart) who don't fleece Used Games that the publishers could sell to this whole time (and prevent arbitrage via supply contracting), I am not inclined to feel sorry for them when they bed the people they supposedly hate.

In the end, it does not matter who the consumer blames because they are going to pay for it all the same.
The shift to service-only is a cost to the consumer. Always-Online is a cost. This is the future the publishers want whether you like it or not.

And it is for that reason I am glad I am not buying another console or doing business with those companies anymore.