Is Gamestop really to blame ?
- Thread starter mohit9206
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeap, pretty much.mohit9206 said:
Think, selling and buying used games, PC or consoles, have always been around, and publishers and developers were fine with that, as stores didn't make it a focus.
Then Gamestop started pushing it, very aggressively for that matter, for the past decade or more. And various reports of the past couple years show it accounts for almost 1/4 of their profit. How would you feel if the largest retailer, seller of your game was stiffing you for 25% of possible revenue and skewing sale numbers?
And at the same time, because they're the largest seller, also strong-arming you into copy-protection schemes, pre-order bonuses, forcing digital distributed titles to be the same price - otherwise they simply won't carry your game, so you're losing out on like 50% or more of your possible sales?
Yeah, studios don't like them at all because it means extra work and fragmenting the player base, as well as having to provide servers to host the content and support issues. That and the retailers do pay for the stuff, which admittedly does help for funding the project.nevarran said:
I doubt they have that much power. Unless it switches to a purely digital distribution model, a console that blocked used games or whatever would still be reliant on retail sales of games.
If these anti-used game measures were a way to get back at Gamestop and its ilk, they wouldn't even sell the consoles or new games at all.
If these anti-used game measures were a way to get back at Gamestop and its ilk, they wouldn't even sell the consoles or new games at all.
Yes, he's pretty much dead on. The issue is not used games, the issue is the parasitic GameStop model of selling used games.
Well, actually, he's wrong about one thing. He states that those who buy used at GameStop are getting said games for reasonably reduced sale prices. This, quite simply, is not the case at least at any GameStop/EB I've ever been to. The standard saving is only about $5. Sure it's a lower price than a new copy, but that's hardly major savings (and, frankly, if a $5 saving on a $60 item means that much to you, maybe you should consider that buying a game probably isn't in your best financial interests).
Well, actually, he's wrong about one thing. He states that those who buy used at GameStop are getting said games for reasonably reduced sale prices. This, quite simply, is not the case at least at any GameStop/EB I've ever been to. The standard saving is only about $5. Sure it's a lower price than a new copy, but that's hardly major savings (and, frankly, if a $5 saving on a $60 item means that much to you, maybe you should consider that buying a game probably isn't in your best financial interests).
I disagree Microsoft are a businees and they do what they 'have' to do to make money. By implementing anti-used games DRM.the hidden eagle said:
If you disavow Gamestop of moral responsibility for hard pushing used games sales over new retail sales, how can you then make Microsoft morally responsible for anti-used game DRM which they're fully within they're rights to do and are doing for the same reason that Gamestop sells pushes used games despite it screwing over developers and publishers, because they want to make money
EDIT: Incidentally in response to the 'set up their own used game market'. The reason used games are cheap is because you don't have to pay the publisher or developer (or console manufacturer) any money for them. If Microsoft were to compete it would also involve not paying publishers or developers for the games they're selling, else the margins would have to be higher. That's the point, they have higher margins because it doesn't involve paying any royalties to the people who made the games.
They really can though, and it's not as though it's new. PC games have been dictating whether you can sell them used for years. But what I mean is all 'it's capitalism at work' arguments end up splitting just the same for Microsoft.the hidden eagle said:
EDIT: Actually I think Germany are still trying to sue Valve, so if that comes off then they can't do it. Else that's pretty much universal acceptance that companies have the right to do this
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 systemthe hidden eagle said:
They have far more to worry about than the fact they are trying to block used games.Because if the rumors are true then Kinect 2.0 will be watching and collecting data on you and your family whenever they use the Xbone.So not only can your privacy be breached but that information can be used to steal your identity since it copies your face.[/quote]the hidden eagle said:
Again Germany and the EU might sue them, but they're the only country/organisation that care about this thing. They're the only country that have tussled with Facebook or Google over privacy issues. The Kinect has a physical offswitch that you press to turn it off completely at any time (they confirmed this a while back) so it's not really any worse than the fact that smartphones record their owners physical locations every second of the day, or Microsoft and Google dipping into the worlds email addresses etc. Someone might try, but with that offswitch, I dont see a case. They'll probably make people agree to the most disgusting awful and amoral user agreement ever as soon as they turn the thing on and after that people can switch it off or suck it up.
It's not even going to discourage people's spending habits. That's the worst thing. Everyone will buy it anyway
