Is Gamestop really to blame ?

[PoisonTaco]

You can't just pin the blame on one party. I'd say that everyone involved has contributed to the problem revolving around used games. Publishers, retailers and consumers are all responsible.

I personally don't like used games. I like having something new. I don't like buying a box that's been opened before. That and I really don't like trading in my games. We've created a culture where we buy games and when we're done with them we go and trade them in so we can buy the new ones. Part of it is because publishers pump out games more than ever before, part of it is because companies like Gamestop foster this idea of recycling games. Want the latest Call of Duty? Well trade in 3 of your other games and you can get it.

Publishers need to make games worth caring about more than a month after their release. You don't need DLC or constant updates to keep it "alive" after it's out. Just make an awesome game that's worth having in my library. Retailers need to stop being so damn pushy when it comes to trade-ins. Maybe having stores that specialize in the sale of video games is a bad idea. The Walmarts of the world don't give a damn about used games. If we all just bought games at department stores or places that don't rely so much on the sale of used games I think we'd be in a better place. Lastly, people need to stop being so damn wasteful when it comes to buying games. If you constantly buy and trade in games, then services such as Gamefly will work really well for you.

People love throwing blame around. If you want to buy a used game do it on ebay, or find someone locally. If you're going to buy a video game you don't need to do it at Gamestop.

Whatever happened to buying games and keeping them?

 

[Baldr]

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.

Money from game sales goes back into funding new games. If a game sells well, it may be the catalyst for a publisher to make 1-3 more games. If a game does not, it tends to kill development. More sales that go back to the publishers means a more diverse and robust game market. Less game sales goes to less diverse and more of a play it safe game market.

 

[Colt47]

Whatever happened to buying games and keeping them?

Well, publishers started paying to market games to a broader audience, resulting in people who really had no interest in the games being advertised buying them due to hype, while developers tried expanding niche titles to appeal to a general audience and made the games too easy or too short.

 

[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.

-Snip-

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.

Money from game sales goes back into funding new games. If a game sells well, it may be the catalyst for a publisher to make 1-3 more games. If a game does not, it tends to kill development. More sales that go back to the publishers means a more diverse and robust game market. Less game sales goes to less diverse and more of a play it safe game market.

Check out the relevant part to that response. CoD MW2 had earned $1 billion in sales in two months and every release of CoD after that has earned them $1 billion in one month or less. Black Ops 2 earned them $1 billion in 15 days. Ghosts could easily earn them $1 billion in a week's time. So, I ask you where are my "risky" Activision games? Pokemon-esque Skylanders? The movie based games? Where is the risky stuff? Hell, they dropped Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters because they were "too risky".*** Actually they dropped them because:

"[Those games] don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises. ... I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus... on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we'll be working on them 10 years from now." -Bobby Kotick in response to dropping Ghostbusters and Brutal Legend.

Words of arguably the most successful chair in the industry. He is playing the "money game". However, risk is - at its heart, a "passion project". The "money game" and "passion projects" don't coincide. You can have a lot of money to dump into a passion project, like Spore, but it is still a risk. A risk that people trying to make money don't like. They don't even want to risk putting a woman on the cover, and you think they want to risk the entire game's potential? I have to disagree with you.

Additionally, money from used games goes into buying new games. The argument you make means that perhaps publishers should start actually knowing something about games and perhaps using better test audiences or test audiences at all if they don't want to fiddle with it. Activision makes a ridiculous amount of money now and their library has gotten much less diverse and robust as their stock went up. Look at their library from the '90s and it was way more diverse.

(All numbers rounded down to nearest .5)
Brutal Legend sold 1.5m copies. Made on a $20m budget. Assuming every copy sold for $30 bucks average, that is $45m earnings with a $25m profit.
Ghostbusters sold 2m copies on the major platforms. It had a $20m budget. (rounded up) Assuming every copy sold for $30 bucks average, it sold for $60m earnings with a $40m profit.

These were not lucrative enough. I don't buy someone claiming poor when they actually turn down titles like this that were both anticipated titles because they can't exploit them. It's like a begger turning down my $20 bill because he 'needs' $100. I am not going to buy your poor if you do that.

 

[Colt47]

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.

-Snip-

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.

Money from game sales goes back into funding new games. If a game sells well, it may be the catalyst for a publisher to make 1-3 more games. If a game does not, it tends to kill development. More sales that go back to the publishers means a more diverse and robust game market. Less game sales goes to less diverse and more of a play it safe game market.

Check out the relevant part to that response. CoD MW2 had earned $1 billion in sales in two months and every release of CoD after that has earned them $1 billion in one month or less. Black Ops 2 earned them $1 billion in 15 days. Ghosts could easily earn them $1 billion in a week's time. So, I ask you where are my "risky" Activision games? Pokemon-esque Skylanders? The movie based games? Where is the risky stuff? Hell, they dropped Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters because they were "too risky". Actually they dropped them because:

"[Those games] don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises. ... I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus... on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we'll be working on them 10 years from now." -Bobby Kotick in response to dropping Ghostbusters and Brutal Legend.

Words of arguably the most successful chair in the industry. He is playing the "money game". However, risk is - at its heart, a "passion project". The "money game" and "passion projects" don't coincide. You can have a lot of money to dump into a passion project, like Spore, but it is still a risk. A risk that people trying to make money don't like. They don't even want to risk putting a woman on the cover, and you think they want to risk the entire game's potential? I have to disagree with you.

Additionally, money from used games goes into buying new games. The argument you make means that perhaps publishers should start actually knowing something about games and perhaps using better test audiences or test audiences at all if they don't want to fiddle with it. Activision makes a ridiculous amount of money now and their library has gotten much less diverse and robust as their stock went up. Look at their library from the '90s and it was way more diverse.

Activision is the most risk averse company out of all of the AAA developers and are putting a lot of their eggs now into building up the E-Sports business.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Yea, I'd say Gamestop is mostly to blame. Used games have been around since the 70s, nobody complained (neither consumers nor the publishers) until gamestop gouged the used game market.

Gamestop: we can easily exploit the used game market by getting a near monopoly and gouging the used game prices to near new prices.

Sony/MS/EA: hey, they're exploiting the used game market and making a lot of money off our customers. We should be making all that money; lets make it ours.

 

[Savagezion]

Activision is the most risk averse company out of all of the AAA developers and are putting a lot of their eggs now into building up the E-Sports business.

I could also swap to EA doing similar stuff as their stock plummets. A safe bet is a safe bet, and publishers prefer safe over risk. Giving them more money won't change this. EA does it as they go broke, and Activision does it sitting at the top. They simply always will. I see no point in laying blame with a consumer (who must take risks on purchases) and taking away a part of the market that helps them cut their losses when buying games - so that the publishers can have less risk. They are the business, the risk does rest with them. It's how business works, and why not every business works.

The largest umbrellas are the most risk averse companies. Small publishers have nothing to lose, so rolling the dice is what they like to do. Once a publisher gains financial wealth, they like to maintain it which means rolling the dice less often. It's smart business. But it makes success synonymous with a bland library.

EDIT: If EA continues to have its value go down, we will probably see them take a few gambits and roll the dice more frequently as they would have little to nothing to lose.

 

[Toxic Sniper]

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

Yes they do. They are physical property that can be bought or sold.

Oh, it hurts the game industry more? That's the reason you think used games are bad? Allow me to give you the response of a certain NeoGaf poster who had it right on the money.

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

 

[Gatx]

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).

For a recent game, yeah, but I guess that's also when the selling of used games "hurt" the publisher's sales. The savings are much better when you're looking for those "cult classic" games that have doubled or even tripled in value when you look on eBay or Amazon since most Gamestop games drop down to around a $19.99 area no matter what if it's a good game.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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 ?

Kind of, but not the way he's selling it.

Gamestop are at fault because they didn't stomp all over Half Life 2. Cast your mind back to 2004, Steam hasn't launched, PC games can still be bought second hand, Online distribution and Always on DRM aren't a thing yet. Valve's new groundbreaking FPS will introduce all of those upon anyone who buys the game, but to get the game they still need to go to a store.

Gamestop/Game/Other retailers had a golden opportunity then, Valve/Sierra were trying to cut them out of the loop and they let it happen. The press saw it coming, everyone thought Steam was a huge disaster waiting happen. Had they turned round and refused to carry the game, problem solved, Microsoft didn't think the concept would be workable for at least another decade, Valve would have had to go back on itself or face financial destruction right there. Of course that would mean calling the developer and publisher's bluff on the biggest FPS ever released, no retailer had the balls to go first and possibly miss out.

As it is, they carried the game, they helped spread the system, nine years later they're no longer a worthwhile force in PC games and used PC games pretty much aren't a thing anymore. Everyone's got Steam, because it got a 12million user jump start courtesy of game stores.

Now they're just expanding that concept into the console world. They already know from Online pass and Always on Systems that they can do pretty much what they like and people will still trot out to buy it.

You can't really blame customers either, there is so much misinformation and FUD spread that average users can't possibly know the capabilities of what they're buying (Steam was all about stopping piracy remember, direct sales and remote control of player's games? Never mentioned). Way back in 2004 I had no idea what Steam was or what it really did, it was just the thing that came with Half Life 2 and Counter Strike.

Unfortunately it's too late now, internet sales (as in Ebay/Amazon) and major retailers like Walmart have more or less destroyed Gamestop's grip on the retail market. They have to take what the publisher will give them, if they don't there's a dozen other ways to sell people consoles. The opportunity is gone, DRM, direct sales and always online will be with us all next gen and people will march out and buy it.

Frankly, that sucks and it's (mostly) Gamestop's fault.

 

[Something Amyss]

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



Gamestop has nothing to do with it, it's just greed.

To be fair, the answer to your question could simply be "short-sightedness." There's plenty of that in the biz.

 

[IronMit]

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

helllllll nooo

I like this guy but he is really simplifying the issue.
If Gamestop was so bad publishers just wouldn't use them. The fact is they need them or they won't sell nowhere near as any games...but there's a problem..Gamestop still only makes about 10% margin on new games. So after paying for running costs they can't really stay open. Hence pre-owned games.

The exclusive content kicks in because gamestop needs to compete with amazon, supermarkets etc..these guys don't need to make a massive margin....games are not their primary trade. They make their money on everything else.

If gamestop goes under..publishers lose their highstreet advertising place. mum's won't buy impulse presents while walking past stores etc.

Gamestop is a symptom not the cause

 

[Comocat]

The is absolutely NO evidence that the used game market has a negative affect on new game sales. Microsoft just wants more money and doesn't care who they inconvenience to get it.

In contrast, look at Nintendo. They have never complained about used games, and they published the ten best selling games ever.

I think this is worth emphasizing. Say a game sells 5 million copies new then in the next few months they sell 1 million new copies at a reduced price and 4 million people buy the game used. I'm not sure its fair to say that those all 4 million people that didn't buy the game did it solely to screw the developer out of their share of the pie. Simply put if there wasn't a used copy of the game, they probably would not have bought it.

Does it suck to have somebody use your work without paying for it? Definitely. Is it worth building your business model around screwing everyone because some people don't care about your product, probably not. Department stores lose tons of money everyday to people stealing stuff, they don't strip search every person coming in and out of their store. I think video game developers could take a few lessons from companies like that.

 

[Negatempest]

The is absolutely NO evidence that the used game market has a negative affect on new game sales. Microsoft just wants more money and doesn't care who they inconvenience to get it.

In contrast, look at Nintendo. They have never complained about used games, and they published the ten best selling games ever.

I think this is worth emphasizing. Say a game sells 5 million copies new then in the next few months they sell 1 million new copies at a reduced price and 4 million people buy the game used. I'm not sure its fair to say that those all 4 million people that didn't buy the game did it solely to screw the developer out of their share of the pie. Simply put if there wasn't a used copy of the game, they probably would not have bought it.

Does it suck to have somebody use your work without paying for it? Definitely. Is it worth building your business model around screwing everyone because some people don't care about your product, probably not. Department stores lose tons of money everyday to people stealing stuff, they don't strip search every person coming in and out of their store. I think video game developers could take a few lessons from companies like that.

Oh, another guy who noticed that a customer is either going to buy a game new or not at all if there was no used game market.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Killing the used game market only gives consumers less money to buy new games with. However, the industry has spent this entire generation shooting itself in the foot with anti-consumer practices and I expect that to continue until it either crashes or shrinks a great deal.