Poll: Online Pass: Have the Consumers become the whipping boy of the retailers?

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

For me, it depends whether it's content that's been cut from the game (eg, multiplayer) or new content (eg, bonus missions).
I have no problems at all with the latter, as we clearly benefit from having this extra stuff, it costs more to produce, and you don't lose anything by not having it. Whereas to complete a game entirely, then mark a section as "Only for people who pay us directly" is only detrimental.
Of course, there are grey areas - the Catwoman sections in Arkham City, for example. Bonus content, or cut game sections?

Plus I've yet to see Online passes or DLC that are game breaking if you don't have them.

At one time we had yet to see Day One DLC. At that time people swore they would never defend that if it happened.

Well...here we are.

Since I am not one of those people, I do not suffer from foot in mouth disease.

OT: Also, the gaming industry will survive this. I wonder how many of you have ever dealt with the old school copy protections that were WAY more a hassle than just paying full price for a game...

 

[natster43]

Really it only bothers me because my brother and I use different hard drives so one of us would have to pay extra to play it online on our own accounts. I know it is a stupid complaint, but it bothers me that I can't play stuff on my account because of it.

 

[Epona]

For me, it depends whether it's content that's been cut from the game (eg, multiplayer) or new content (eg, bonus missions).
I have no problems at all with the latter, as we clearly benefit from having this extra stuff, it costs more to produce, and you don't lose anything by not having it. Whereas to complete a game entirely, then mark a section as "Only for people who pay us directly" is only detrimental.
Of course, there are grey areas - the Catwoman sections in Arkham City, for example. Bonus content, or cut game sections?

Plus I've yet to see Online passes or DLC that are game breaking if you don't have them.

At one time we had yet to see Day One DLC. At that time people swore they would never defend that if it happened.

Well...here we are.

Since I am not one of those people, I do not suffer from foot in mouth disease.

I understand your confusion but that's not what I meant. I am saying that what you think won't happen, could happen.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

For me, it depends whether it's content that's been cut from the game (eg, multiplayer) or new content (eg, bonus missions).
I have no problems at all with the latter, as we clearly benefit from having this extra stuff, it costs more to produce, and you don't lose anything by not having it. Whereas to complete a game entirely, then mark a section as "Only for people who pay us directly" is only detrimental.
Of course, there are grey areas - the Catwoman sections in Arkham City, for example. Bonus content, or cut game sections?

Plus I've yet to see Online passes or DLC that are game breaking if you don't have them.

At one time we had yet to see Day One DLC. At that time people swore they would never defend that if it happened.

Well...here we are.

Since I am not one of those people, I do not suffer from foot in mouth disease.

I understand your confusion but that's not what I meant. I am saying that what you think won't happen, could happen.

Maybe, but if a company cripples a game purposely to extract money things might not turn out well for that game's sales. Also, you're late to the party with people defending day 1 DLC. See Portal 2. Oh right, I forgot Valve is infallible, like the pope.

 

[NiPah]

Used game sellers have made a market impact selling used games, this cuts into the profit of the publishers but the game industry still needs them. Its obvious the game industry still needs them because they could easily be cut out: if they had a single use code ie product key for game activation it would deny the sale of used games. The technology is there, just like the unlockable disk based DLC, if the game industry wanted to cut out used game sales it would have already been done.

Why isn't used game shops cut out of the loop? Because they are also selling a huge amount of new games and making more profit for the game developers/publishers then they are taking via used game sales.

Project 10 dollar and the like are simply additional ways for game publishers to make more money off their products. This is supply and demand, if you are ok with paying for a product then most likely you are ok with paying for an additional add-on.

The game company develops a product.

You as a consumer either buy the product because you feel it is worth the price point the developer has set, or do not buy it because you do not.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Online pass only punishes those who want to pay $5 less for a game from the evil corporation of GameStop. I have no love lost for those people.

Seriously though, if you pay $55 for a Used copy of a game when you could just as easily buy it brand new for $60, then I just don't know what to say. You deserve to be charged for online pass.

&

Let's all admit it. Online passes don't really harm us. If I buy a game used (I never do) I can play it. However if there is some content that is there as DLC that was free if I had bought the game then I might get that once I am sure that I like the game. You can whine all you want about companies being greedy for wanting to make profit, but do you think GameStop sells used games because they want us to be happy? Do you buy used games to secure GameStop's happiness?
Everyone puts their own needs over the others. The food industry, the music industry, the movie industry. Name me one industry that doesn't seek for personal gain.

I think you're missing the point of the original post. The consumer has actually been put in a position where we have very little control over what's avaialble.
In every Gamestop I've ever been to (and I'll admit that I don't shop there anymore) you can only buy a new game from them if you have pre-ordered it. So they have put the consumer in the position of either paying some of the money upfront (for a game that nobody knows is any good yet) or buying a used copy.
So that is why I resent publishers putting the onus on the consumer; the consumer has pretty much been pushed in a corner and is getting screwed by Gamestop. Then is also screwed by the publisher for shopping at gamestop.
If the publisher is really losing that much money because of gamestop, they should just screw gamestop rather than their customers.

Hmm I don't really find it that much of a pain since I never buy second hand games. I would rather the money go to the devs than the retailer.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

The problem is that the money doesn't go to the devs. They get the same crappy pay and long hours no matter how many units get moved or how many online passes are sold. The only ones who make money off online passes are the dbags at the publisher who come up with shitty schemes like online pass.
If the money actually did go to the devs, I think there would be fewer people who have problems with it.

It's not the publisher nor the developer's fault that GameStop doesn't sell new games. You call it a shady tactic to use DLC to scavenge money from used sales. Isn't it just as shady for a retailer to only sell used products in order to maximize their profits?

Yes. I think that Gamestop is the most shady element in the situation. Which begs the question, why dont the publishers do something about Gamestop? Instead everything they have done to try and make the situation more profitable for them is screwing over their legitimate consumers.
I'm not defending gamestop (I think it's a huge shit-stain on the whole gaming industry), I'm defending my fellow gamers here. We're getting shit on for things that aren't our fault and I'm getting tired of it.

The publisher can't do anything about GameStop. There is no law against what they're doing no matter how badly it screw both the publisher or the consumer over. GameStop got a shady tactic to make profit, but it wouldn't work if it wasn't for the consumer letting it happen. We buy from GameStop regardless of how they have put us in a bad situation, we let them do their thing and then in turn we blame the publisher because GameStop doesn't give us the option to buy new.

Of course they can do something about gamestop. They can't sue them or anything but the publishers can really cut into gamestop's market share if they're clever about it and especially if they band together (which they seem to have already done on the online pass thing).
You mean to say that you're not insulted by the fact that they have all banded together against gamers rather than banding together against gamestop which is the element causing the problem for them AND the consumers?

'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

They do kind of force us to buy used. If you don't pre-order a new game, they will only sell you a used copy.
As for things the publishers can do: they can have their own trade in programs and have much more direct control over used disc saturation and or make the profit from the used sale. But that's not practical. What surprises me is that they (either all together or one of the big publishers) never tried a takeover; once again, they make all that profit and have control over saturation. It wouldn't improve the prices but the prices at gamestop can't exactly get worse, can they? If they don't want to do anything too drastic, they can go back to offering normal things as pre-order bonuses again, rather than making it swathes of gameplay content. The thing is that publishers think(know?) that gamers are such pushovers that most will just hand over money any time they're asked for it.

 

[boag]

Online pass only punishes those who want to pay $5 less for a game from the evil corporation of GameStop. I have no love lost for those people.

Seriously though, if you pay $55 for a Used copy of a game when you could just as easily buy it brand new for $60, then I just don't know what to say. You deserve to be charged for online pass.

Before you pass judgement, maybe you should know what you are talking about. If you have the Power Up card you get 10% off which brings the price down to $49.50. That's $10.50 less than the new copy. Plus it may be $10 less than that if you opt out of buying the online pass. That's a nice savings.

And if you bought it at wallmart a month afterwards you could get it for 20 bucks less than what Gamestop is charging, and it would be brand new and not used.

Only if you're lucky, that's not consistent, it would have to be a sale Wal Mart is having otherwise the MSRP would drop across the board, including new games sold by Gamestop. In that case Gamestop would obviously drop used prices to be lower than new prices.

HA! Gamestop doesnt ever drop prices, you can go check for yourself right now.

go look for what have you Skyrim or Mass Effect and compare prices.

Ok, you're just making this up as you go aren't you? Of course Gamestop drops prices. Skyrim is still $55 because it's still $60 new, even at Wal Mart. Mass Effect 1 is $20 used, it's out of print so you can't buy it new.

Seriously, where are you digging this shit up?

ok then you dont like those examples, you give me one, Ill go look it up and post the price on Gamestop and the Price on other places, no jokes no tricks, pick any title you want.

You want me to go find examples to make your point? No.

Dude, I give you examples and you dismiss them because they make my point, I ask you to pick examples that you think would make your point so I can disprove it and you reply with that?

Seems to me you already agree with me that Gamestop doesnt lower its prices.

Alright, I'll play your game.

Dragon Ball Z: Raging Blast 2: 39.99
Final Fantasy XIII: 16.99
Disgaea 4: 29.99

Disgaea and DBZ came out late last year. What was that about "never drops price" again?


Welp, I could only find FF13 cheaper somewhere else, good show, I retract my statement, I guess GS can have cheaper items, even after shopping around. It was stupid of me to GENERALIZE wasnt it.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The vast majority of people pissed at GameStop are solely pissed because they feel the SUPER AWESOME game they traded in should of gotten more, even though they had 40 copies of that EXACT game sitting on the shelf.


I agree

I don't recall the music industry ever pissed at Sam Goody. I don't remember the book industry declaring Borders to be evil. Maybe it's because the publishers are greedy fuck nuggets?

Yes, I certainly agree with that statement as well.

 

[Epona]

For me, it depends whether it's content that's been cut from the game (eg, multiplayer) or new content (eg, bonus missions).
I have no problems at all with the latter, as we clearly benefit from having this extra stuff, it costs more to produce, and you don't lose anything by not having it. Whereas to complete a game entirely, then mark a section as "Only for people who pay us directly" is only detrimental.
Of course, there are grey areas - the Catwoman sections in Arkham City, for example. Bonus content, or cut game sections?

Plus I've yet to see Online passes or DLC that are game breaking if you don't have them.

At one time we had yet to see Day One DLC. At that time people swore they would never defend that if it happened.

Well...here we are.

Since I am not one of those people, I do not suffer from foot in mouth disease.

I understand your confusion but that's not what I meant. I am saying that what you think won't happen, could happen.

Maybe, but if a company cripples a game purposely to extract money things might not turn out well for that game's sales. Also, you're late to the party with people defending day 1 DLC. See Portal 2. Oh right, I forgot Valve is infallible, like the pope.

Oh wow

- I am not late to the party. We can talk about this now regardless of which game was first with day one DLC.

- I never said Valve was infallible, don't assume so much

 

[Epona]

They do kind of force us to buy used. If you don't pre-order a new game, they will only sell you a used copy.

BS! Go into any Gamestop and try to buy a recent release new (like Skyrim), chances are good they will have some.

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/89141

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

For me, it depends whether it's content that's been cut from the game (eg, multiplayer) or new content (eg, bonus missions).
I have no problems at all with the latter, as we clearly benefit from having this extra stuff, it costs more to produce, and you don't lose anything by not having it. Whereas to complete a game entirely, then mark a section as "Only for people who pay us directly" is only detrimental.
Of course, there are grey areas - the Catwoman sections in Arkham City, for example. Bonus content, or cut game sections?

Plus I've yet to see Online passes or DLC that are game breaking if you don't have them.

At one time we had yet to see Day One DLC. At that time people swore they would never defend that if it happened.

Well...here we are.

Since I am not one of those people, I do not suffer from foot in mouth disease.

I understand your confusion but that's not what I meant. I am saying that what you think won't happen, could happen.

Maybe, but if a company cripples a game purposely to extract money things might not turn out well for that game's sales. Also, you're late to the party with people defending day 1 DLC. See Portal 2. Oh right, I forgot Valve is infallible, like the pope.

Oh wow

- I am not late to the party. We can talk about this now regardless of which game was first with day one DLC.

- I never said Valve was infallible, don't assume so much

1. The vALVE comment was directed at people who defended vALVE's day 1 DLC for Portal 2 but still say everyone else is wrong for doing it. Not necessarily you.
2. Your first response made it seem as if Day 1 DLC hadn't happened yet and people hadn't defended it.

 

[Epona]

Online pass only punishes those who want to pay $5 less for a game from the evil corporation of GameStop. I have no love lost for those people.

Seriously though, if you pay $55 for a Used copy of a game when you could just as easily buy it brand new for $60, then I just don't know what to say. You deserve to be charged for online pass.

&

Let's all admit it. Online passes don't really harm us. If I buy a game used (I never do) I can play it. However if there is some content that is there as DLC that was free if I had bought the game then I might get that once I am sure that I like the game. You can whine all you want about companies being greedy for wanting to make profit, but do you think GameStop sells used games because they want us to be happy? Do you buy used games to secure GameStop's happiness?
Everyone puts their own needs over the others. The food industry, the music industry, the movie industry. Name me one industry that doesn't seek for personal gain.

I think you're missing the point of the original post. The consumer has actually been put in a position where we have very little control over what's avaialble.
In every Gamestop I've ever been to (and I'll admit that I don't shop there anymore) you can only buy a new game from them if you have pre-ordered it. So they have put the consumer in the position of either paying some of the money upfront (for a game that nobody knows is any good yet) or buying a used copy.
So that is why I resent publishers putting the onus on the consumer; the consumer has pretty much been pushed in a corner and is getting screwed by Gamestop. Then is also screwed by the publisher for shopping at gamestop.
If the publisher is really losing that much money because of gamestop, they should just screw gamestop rather than their customers.

Hmm I don't really find it that much of a pain since I never buy second hand games. I would rather the money go to the devs than the retailer.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

The problem is that the money doesn't go to the devs. They get the same crappy pay and long hours no matter how many units get moved or how many online passes are sold. The only ones who make money off online passes are the dbags at the publisher who come up with shitty schemes like online pass.
If the money actually did go to the devs, I think there would be fewer people who have problems with it.

It's not the publisher nor the developer's fault that GameStop doesn't sell new games. You call it a shady tactic to use DLC to scavenge money from used sales. Isn't it just as shady for a retailer to only sell used products in order to maximize their profits?

Yes. I think that Gamestop is the most shady element in the situation. Which begs the question, why dont the publishers do something about Gamestop? Instead everything they have done to try and make the situation more profitable for them is screwing over their legitimate consumers.
I'm not defending gamestop (I think it's a huge shit-stain on the whole gaming industry), I'm defending my fellow gamers here. We're getting shit on for things that aren't our fault and I'm getting tired of it.

The publisher can't do anything about GameStop. There is no law against what they're doing no matter how badly it screw both the publisher or the consumer over. GameStop got a shady tactic to make profit, but it wouldn't work if it wasn't for the consumer letting it happen. We buy from GameStop regardless of how they have put us in a bad situation, we let them do their thing and then in turn we blame the publisher because GameStop doesn't give us the option to buy new.

Of course they can do something about gamestop. They can't sue them or anything but the publishers can really cut into gamestop's market share if they're clever about it and especially if they band together (which they seem to have already done on the online pass thing).
You mean to say that you're not insulted by the fact that they have all banded together against gamers rather than banding together against gamestop which is the element causing the problem for them AND the consumers?

'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

They do kind of force us to buy used. If you don't pre-order a new game, they will only sell you a used copy.
As for things the publishers can do: they can have their own trade in programs and have much more direct control over used disc saturation and or make the profit from the used sale. But that's not practical. What surprises me is that they (either all together or one of the big publishers) never tried a takeover; once again, they make all that profit and have control over saturation. It wouldn't improve the prices but the prices at gamestop can't exactly get worse, can they? If they don't want to do anything too drastic, they can go back to offering normal things as pre-order bonuses again, rather than making it swathes of gameplay content. The thing is that publishers think(know?) that gamers are such pushovers that most will just hand over money any time they're asked for it.

What kind of backwards stores do you have? There are tons of new and used copies on the shelves here in Portland, Oregon.

Every Gamestop sells new games, people are just making shit up because they hate Gamestop.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

I was reading this thread, and then wanted to reply to the poll, but then I realized your poll is fucking stupid and biased, so oh well.

For the tl;dr take on this WHOLE issue; buy your games new, and you'll be fine.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Really it only bothers me because my brother and I use different hard drives so one of us would have to pay extra to play it online on our own accounts. I know it is a stupid complaint, but it bothers me that I can't play stuff on my account because of it.

If you're talking about your Xbox, having the same hard drive wouldn't mean that one online pass would work for both of you...

 

[natster43]

Really it only bothers me because my brother and I use different hard drives so one of us would have to pay extra to play it online on our own accounts. I know it is a stupid complaint, but it bothers me that I can't play stuff on my account because of it.

If you're talking about your Xbox, having the same hard drive wouldn't mean that one online pass would work for both of you...

so even if we had the same hard drive, we wouldn't be able to use our own accounts to play online without buying another online pass?

 

[Yopaz]

Online pass only punishes those who want to pay $5 less for a game from the evil corporation of GameStop. I have no love lost for those people.

Seriously though, if you pay $55 for a Used copy of a game when you could just as easily buy it brand new for $60, then I just don't know what to say. You deserve to be charged for online pass.

&

Let's all admit it. Online passes don't really harm us. If I buy a game used (I never do) I can play it. However if there is some content that is there as DLC that was free if I had bought the game then I might get that once I am sure that I like the game. You can whine all you want about companies being greedy for wanting to make profit, but do you think GameStop sells used games because they want us to be happy? Do you buy used games to secure GameStop's happiness?
Everyone puts their own needs over the others. The food industry, the music industry, the movie industry. Name me one industry that doesn't seek for personal gain.

I think you're missing the point of the original post. The consumer has actually been put in a position where we have very little control over what's avaialble.
In every Gamestop I've ever been to (and I'll admit that I don't shop there anymore) you can only buy a new game from them if you have pre-ordered it. So they have put the consumer in the position of either paying some of the money upfront (for a game that nobody knows is any good yet) or buying a used copy.
So that is why I resent publishers putting the onus on the consumer; the consumer has pretty much been pushed in a corner and is getting screwed by Gamestop. Then is also screwed by the publisher for shopping at gamestop.
If the publisher is really losing that much money because of gamestop, they should just screw gamestop rather than their customers.

Hmm I don't really find it that much of a pain since I never buy second hand games. I would rather the money go to the devs than the retailer.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

The problem is that the money doesn't go to the devs. They get the same crappy pay and long hours no matter how many units get moved or how many online passes are sold. The only ones who make money off online passes are the dbags at the publisher who come up with shitty schemes like online pass.
If the money actually did go to the devs, I think there would be fewer people who have problems with it.

It's not the publisher nor the developer's fault that GameStop doesn't sell new games. You call it a shady tactic to use DLC to scavenge money from used sales. Isn't it just as shady for a retailer to only sell used products in order to maximize their profits?

Yes. I think that Gamestop is the most shady element in the situation. Which begs the question, why dont the publishers do something about Gamestop? Instead everything they have done to try and make the situation more profitable for them is screwing over their legitimate consumers.
I'm not defending gamestop (I think it's a huge shit-stain on the whole gaming industry), I'm defending my fellow gamers here. We're getting shit on for things that aren't our fault and I'm getting tired of it.

Snip

Snip 2: Electric Bugaloo

'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

Well, for starters, they can stop incentivising GameStop so much. If GameStop is such a problem, why give them so much business? Humans are creatures of routine. If you keep making the best place to buy something the guy you hate, guess where they're more likely to go shopping? And since GameStop has their employees rabidly push used sales before new, they are fueling the very thing they claim to be killing them, and then blaming the consumer for it.

Let me ask you, what do you mean when you say the publisher gives GameStop so much business? Do you mean the fact that they supply them with games or the fact that they get exclusive pre-order deals?
If you stop supplying games then GameStop will sue the publisher in question because there's an illegal boycott. If they stop offering pre-order deals people lose the reason to pre-order it and thus the publisher loses the guarantee that they will get cash from it. They may also get the customers into thinking that they should wait a week and get it used. So by not giving them business as you call it they get sued or they may lose sales. If you think you have figured out a loophole that any lawyer from EA hasn't found I can assure you that you have not.

Online pass only punishes those who want to pay $5 less for a game from the evil corporation of GameStop. I have no love lost for those people.

Seriously though, if you pay $55 for a Used copy of a game when you could just as easily buy it brand new for $60, then I just don't know what to say. You deserve to be charged for online pass.

&

Let's all admit it. Online passes don't really harm us. If I buy a game used (I never do) I can play it. However if there is some content that is there as DLC that was free if I had bought the game then I might get that once I am sure that I like the game. You can whine all you want about companies being greedy for wanting to make profit, but do you think GameStop sells used games because they want us to be happy? Do you buy used games to secure GameStop's happiness?
Everyone puts their own needs over the others. The food industry, the music industry, the movie industry. Name me one industry that doesn't seek for personal gain.

I think you're missing the point of the original post. The consumer has actually been put in a position where we have very little control over what's avaialble.
In every Gamestop I've ever been to (and I'll admit that I don't shop there anymore) you can only buy a new game from them if you have pre-ordered it. So they have put the consumer in the position of either paying some of the money upfront (for a game that nobody knows is any good yet) or buying a used copy.
So that is why I resent publishers putting the onus on the consumer; the consumer has pretty much been pushed in a corner and is getting screwed by Gamestop. Then is also screwed by the publisher for shopping at gamestop.
If the publisher is really losing that much money because of gamestop, they should just screw gamestop rather than their customers.

Hmm I don't really find it that much of a pain since I never buy second hand games. I would rather the money go to the devs than the retailer.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

The problem is that the money doesn't go to the devs. They get the same crappy pay and long hours no matter how many units get moved or how many online passes are sold. The only ones who make money off online passes are the dbags at the publisher who come up with shitty schemes like online pass.
If the money actually did go to the devs, I think there would be fewer people who have problems with it.

It's not the publisher nor the developer's fault that GameStop doesn't sell new games. You call it a shady tactic to use DLC to scavenge money from used sales. Isn't it just as shady for a retailer to only sell used products in order to maximize their profits?

Yes. I think that Gamestop is the most shady element in the situation. Which begs the question, why dont the publishers do something about Gamestop? Instead everything they have done to try and make the situation more profitable for them is screwing over their legitimate consumers.
I'm not defending gamestop (I think it's a huge shit-stain on the whole gaming industry), I'm defending my fellow gamers here. We're getting shit on for things that aren't our fault and I'm getting tired of it.

The publisher can't do anything about GameStop. There is no law against what they're doing no matter how badly it screw both the publisher or the consumer over. GameStop got a shady tactic to make profit, but it wouldn't work if it wasn't for the consumer letting it happen. We buy from GameStop regardless of how they have put us in a bad situation, we let them do their thing and then in turn we blame the publisher because GameStop doesn't give us the option to buy new.

Of course they can do something about gamestop. They can't sue them or anything but the publishers can really cut into gamestop's market share if they're clever about it and especially if they band together (which they seem to have already done on the online pass thing).
You mean to say that you're not insulted by the fact that they have all banded together against gamers rather than banding together against gamestop which is the element causing the problem for them AND the consumers?

'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

They do kind of force us to buy used. If you don't pre-order a new game, they will only sell you a used copy.
As for things the publishers can do: they can have their own trade in programs and have much more direct control over used disc saturation and or make the profit from the used sale. But that's not practical. What surprises me is that they (either all together or one of the big publishers) never tried a takeover; once again, they make all that profit and have control over saturation. It wouldn't improve the prices but the prices at gamestop can't exactly get worse, can they? If they don't want to do anything too drastic, they can go back to offering normal things as pre-order bonuses again, rather than making it swathes of gameplay content. The thing is that publishers think(know?) that gamers are such pushovers that most will just hand over money any time they're asked for it.

The thing you just said is the reason. It's just not practical. Take over GameStop... GameStop is almost a global chain. There are a few countries without GameStop and across the world there are thousands of GameStops. Do you think it would be easy to take over that? Do you think it would be instantly profitable?
Pre-order deals, well you know what? That increases the number of people who buy it on release day. Not the number who buy it used a week later when they have heard good things about it. Hence the online passes.

Well, they convince people to buy their new games from gamestop.
Yeah they make money with it, but since it's gamestop who sells the most used games they should try and weaken gamestop. (When gamestop has less money, means they can affort less shops, means they can sell less used games).
They could make the same money they make with their new games sales at gamestop by just making amazon or another another shop the one with the most preorder bonuses and give gamestop no preorder bonuses at all.
This way they would still get the money and would weaken gamestop and the used games market.
So the way they are doing it now, by encouraging people to buy their used and new games at gamestop (gamestop gets the most and best preorder bonuses), they ARE supporting gamestop and shooting themselves in the food.

You are again wrong. GameStop is a popular chain and if they stop giving pre-order deals to GameStop then people will still buy from GameStop, except they'll have no reason to pre-order it. Some are for weird reason not comfortable buying online and they want the physical copy in their hand. They may be helping GameStop somewhat when they give them these deals, but they do promote their own game using GameStop's advertising so they get free marketing out of it. They increase numbers of pre-orders versus the number of second hand sales. GameStop makes more from used sales than new sales and that's why it's pointless to remove pre-order deals. They give GameStop pre-order deals because GameStop is the biggest in used sales. That's where they need to get their customers. Trying to convince someone who already buys new to buy new is simply redundant.

 

[Amaror]

You are again wrong. GameStop is a popular chain and if they stop giving pre-order deals to GameStop then people will still buy from GameStop, except they'll have no reason to pre-order it. Some are for weird reason not comfortable buying online and they want the physical copy in their hand. They may be helping GameStop somewhat when they give them these deals, but they do promote their own game using GameStop's advertising so they get free marketing out of it. They increase numbers of pre-orders versus the number of second hand sales. GameStop makes more from used sales than new sales and that's why it's pointless to remove pre-order deals. They give GameStop pre-order deals because GameStop is the biggest in used sales. That's where they need to get their customers. Trying to convince someone who already buys new to buy new is simply redundant.

Ok i get that, what i don't get is why gamestop not only always gets preorder bonuses, but always gets the best preorder bonuses.
If someone wants to preorder they will do it at gamestop, because they get the best bonuses.
They could just give gamestop preorder bonuses, but give another store better preorder bonuses. This way customers who just buy from gamestop will still be pushed towards preordering the game, but people who don't care about what shop they buy, will not buy from gamestop, and then gamestop gets less business, which is good for the publishers.

 

[wintercoat]

Well, for starters, they can stop incentivising GameStop so much. If GameStop is such a problem, why give them so much business? Humans are creatures of routine. If you keep making the best place to buy something the guy you hate, guess where they're more likely to go shopping? And since GameStop has their employees rabidly push used sales before new, they are fueling the very thing they claim to be killing them, and then blaming the consumer for it.

Let me ask you, what do you mean when you say the publisher gives GameStop so much business? Do you mean the fact that they supply them with games or the fact that they get exclusive pre-order deals?
If you stop supplying games then GameStop will sue the publisher in question because there's an illegal boycott. If they stop offering pre-order deals people lose the reason to pre-order it and thus the publisher loses the guarantee that they will get cash from it. They may also get the customers into thinking that they should wait a week and get it used. So by not giving them business as you call it they get sued or they may lose sales. If you think you have figured out a loophole that any lawyer from EA hasn't found I can assure you that you have not.

Holy shit that was a mess of a quote to rummage through!

Anyways...it's not just that they have pre-orders at GameStop, it's that publishers give GameStop more bonuses than other retailers get. Look at Skyrim. Until release, they seemed to be coming out with a new preorder bonus unique to GameStop every week or two. How about they stop that and give those bonuses to another retailer, maybe one that doesn't take quite as large a cut, like Amazon. Incentivise shopping elsewhere instead of complaining that GameStop is killing the industry while handing it the chainsaw.