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

[Eddie the head]

Judging by what some are saying, it seems that the U.S. chain (GameStop) sells new and used equally. However, the U.K. chain (GAME) hides its new copies to maximize profits. If that's the case, then they can go fuck themselves. That's deceptive business practices.

In my limited experience they will be fine with it if you want to buy new to support a new IP they say that is a good thing at my local one. But if they are doing that at the U.K chain I can see why people are pissed off. That just might be my local gamestop though. It's kind of new so that might have something to do with it.

 

[Gunner 51]

Yes, and it's a huge load of horse shit. Consumers are entitled to buy and sell used products, and unless the original company puts further effort into that exact copy, they're entitled to exactly 0.00 of the proceeds. They're claiming entitlement to money they're not entitled to and throwing quite a ***** fit over a normal factor of being in the industry of selling things.

You, my good man have just won the internet.
No matter what a product is, once it has been sold - the original owner loses all rights to any further money from it.

If a gamer wants to sell his game on (and it's his game because he purchased it) - that is his right. And if he chooses to sell it back to a retailer, he isn't entitled to any of the money the retailer makes off his game.

The publishers are the ones who are twisting the arms of developers and gamers, they are the ones in the wrong.

 

[Gunner 51]

It's a shame so few use logic when discussing this topic. They somehow end up believing game publishers are somehow entitled to money no other industry is entitled to despite doing exactly nothing to earn a cent of it, and they'll spend days trying to insist they're right.

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

 

[Something Amyss]

I see very simplified poll options that don't really cover the full gauntlet.

The consumer has not become the whipping boy because of retailer practices. they have become the whipping boy of corporate practices. Practices specific to the publishers.

 

[Sonicron]

I don't give a flying fuck about multiplayer in 99% of cases (and most of those are usually ?5 rentals where I just want to blaze through the campaign once), and in the rare 1% of cases where I actually do care about multiplayer I buy the game in question new anyway. No company will ever see a single cent from me purchasing an online pass.
Plus, buying used games at big retail chains is beyond retarded, considering the usual asking prices; I'll stick to the small, independent second-hand store I can trust, where folks are nice and courteous and the price for a used game stays within the ?30 limit.

 

[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.

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.

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

 

[Epona]

It's a shame so few use logic when discussing this topic. They somehow end up believing game publishers are somehow entitled to money no other industry is entitled to despite doing exactly nothing to earn a cent of it, and they'll spend days trying to insist they're right.

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned.

 

[Yopaz]

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

You've got one problem right off the bat there. Making publishers act together. Those things never work out. You got companies with varying degrees of success and various resources. Getting the weaker companies to join in and share the success of the more successful would be great for them, but that would mean a loss for those who have success.

You think it will be profitable, but when will they start making profits? How much money do you think it takes to buy a global chain? How much will they earn in a year? Maybe enough to cover their expences, but most likely not. It will take time for this to be profitable, they will have legal and financial issues to work out between the publishers. This means a lot of legal expences, probably some money will go to lawsuits over violations of market rules and hostile takeover. The European Union will bring them to court for violation of the rules of monopolizing an industry according to the European trade law.

Now explain to me. Do you think you have more economical knowledge than all the people who work in an industry? Do you think you got more legal knowledge than all the lawyers of the same industry? Do you believe that companies will settle for something which resembles communism just to cover some losses over used sales? If you think you have a good idea on this matter I can assure you do not. Their are lots of people with degrees in economy and lawyers being paid to find a solution to these problems. If there was a way one of those would have found it by now.

 

[Tayh]

Where's the "No, I'm a PC gamer" option?

 

[Epona]

It's a shame so few use logic when discussing this topic. They somehow end up believing game publishers are somehow entitled to money no other industry is entitled to despite doing exactly nothing to earn a cent of it, and they'll spend days trying to insist they're right.

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned.

square peg round hole much. Your the problem with society. Stuck in thinking about things a certain way.

Data isn't a tangible thing, it needs its own laws regarding it. Instead of trying to force it down a system which is just doesn't work as.

LOL Ok.I am the problem with society and software needs special laws. Maybe everything needs special laws.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

You've got one problem right off the bat there. Making publishers act together. Those things never work out. You got companies with varying degrees of success and various resources. Getting the weaker companies to join in and share the success of the more successful would be great for them, but that would mean a loss for those who have success.

You think it will be profitable, but when will they start making profits? How much money do you think it takes to buy a global chain? How much will they earn in a year? Maybe enough to cover their expences, but most likely not. It will take time for this to be profitable, they will have legal and financial issues to work out between the publishers. This means a lot of legal expences, probably some money will go to lawsuits over violations of market rules and hostile takeover. The European Union will bring them to court for violation of the rules of monopolizing an industry according to the European trade law.

Now explain to me. Do you think you have more economical knowledge than all the people who work in an industry? Do you think you got more legal knowledge than all the lawyers of the same industry? Do you believe that companies will settle for something which resembles communism just to cover some losses over used sales? If you think you have a good idea on this matter I can assure you do not. Their are lots of people with degrees in economy and lawyers being paid to find a solution to these problems. If there was a way one of those would have found it by now.

Sure not every publisher would go in on it but I think there are enough that would make it work. And once again, if it's sever separate companies working together, they can get around a lot of the anti-trust issues. And of course they can work together. They have in the past. That's how the ESRB got started and the ESA.
The thing is that the people who do economics for the people in the industry don't have any concern for the long term growth of the game industry. They want to just squeeze as much money as they can out of it immediately because (while they are with that company; because that way they get the credit and can move on to something else) that is all that matters. Just because their business people may be smarter than me (though sometimes that's hard to believe), doesn't mean that they always make the decision that is best for the industry. They make the best decision for those shareholders who are holding the stock right now.
If it was GE or GM or something like that doing the takeover, it would be more expensive and would take longer to make profitable but for the game industry, they would start making profits after a short while; maybe even a quarter or two. They already have a lot of what's needed in place and have been involved in it already.

 

[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...

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?

Unfortunately, the Online Pass system is attached to the account, not the hard drive or the console.

 

[Gunner 51]

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

Games also sell a thousand times better than games, so I guess it all balances out at some point.

Cars also have retailers that operate very similarly to places like Game and Gamestation - while they make a small profit on the cars they sell to us. Most of the money is made in buying the customer's previous car and selling that on. (Because most of us simply wouldn't throw the complete asking price at the car dealer.)

Game and Gamestation sell their games in very much the same way. International travel and farming are two different things, but the relationship as business practices between publisher and retailer in gaming are comparible to how cars are sold by first and second hand car dealerships.

So the question why are the Games publishers acting like bullies? I don't see any other industry with a second hand industry within it doing the same.

Chrono 1973 is also very, very correct when he said "How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned." No matter what product gets sold, the First Sale doctrine is and should remain sacrosanct.

 

[Gunner 51]

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

Just because games may be provide a different product doesn't mean to say that it should preferential treatment. It is still an industry like any other, and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, games have post release downloadable content, online passes, spin-off books, merchandising and even it's own licensing via intellectual property. That's a lot of other sources of money as a result of their creation and distribution.

Games make a lot more money than we think - but it's the publishers who hoard it all never sharing it with the developers who thought of and made the game.

I maintain that the publishers are firmly in the wrong, they need to change far more than the retailers do. I can only hope that digital distribution will scare them into treating their development teams and the paying public better. I also hope that it allows the developers more independence from the publishers who pretty much got them by the short'n'curlies. But it is something that I won't hold out much hope for.

 

[targren]

Uhhh... okay. That still doesn't negate the fact that you're taking money away from the developer (who makes the games you love) to give larger profit margins to one of the seediest corporations out there. You're essentially paying GameStop to rip you off.

I have no love for Gamestop and won't sell them any games because I can get far more selling directly to the next owner through Amazon, but "one of the seediest corporations out there"? Seriously? Gamestop has its flaws, its employees tend to be only marginally more intelligent than a puddle of piss, and its management usually makes Dilbert's boss look like a particle physicist, but they've never been anything but up front about their business model.

I mean, really. Even ignoring for a second every company that ever got a US Federal Government contract, it's easier to find much seedier companies... like, for example, the same fucking companies who want to remove YOUR rights for the sake of money they have no right to, for starters. The same ones who started this stupid "Gamestop is teh ebil!!!1!" drivel that gets shat out all over these forums every 3 hours.

DRM is NOT a reaction to Gamestop. Look up the word "scapegoat," and think for 30 seconds. DRM has been around longer than probably most of the users on this site have been alive (Personally, I have firsthand experience going all the way back to the Commodore 64). What has made DRM so drastically more despicable over the past 5 years is NOT Gamestop. It's widespread adoption of internet access. To think that we wouldn't be dealing with this crap if Gamestop went out of business is naive at best, and deluding yourself at worst.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a secondhand market, ethically NOR legally. All the bullshit equivocations like "digital content doesn't wear out" are just that. It's a blatant money grab no different than the RIAA wanting to forbid customers from singing to themselves in public, and the only reason they get away with it is because of people who swallow their propaganda and apparently don't apply even a moment's worth of critical thinking before swallowing it.

I mean, geez, OP. Could you have made that stupid poll a little more biased? I think you forgot the option where Gamestop murders puppies and rapes Jesus.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Uhhh... okay. That still doesn't negate the fact that you're taking money away from the developer (who makes the games you love) to give larger profit margins to one of the seediest corporations out there. You're essentially paying GameStop to rip you off.

I have no love for Gamestop and won't sell them any games because I can get far more selling directly to the next owner through Amazon, but "one of the seediest corporations out there"? Seriously? Gamestop has its flaws, its employees tend to be only marginally more intelligent than a puddle of piss, and its management usually makes Dilbert's boss look like a particle physicist, but they've never been anything but up front about their business model.

I mean, really. Even ignoring for a second every company that ever got a US Federal Government contract, it's easier to find much seedier companies... like, for example, the same fucking companies who want to remove YOUR rights for the sake of money they have no right to, for starters. The same ones who started this stupid "Gamestop is teh ebil!!!1!" drivel that gets shat out all over these forums every 3 hours.

DRM is NOT a reaction to Gamestop. Look up the word "scapegoat," and think for 30 seconds. DRM has been around longer than probably most of the users on this site have been alive (Personally, I have firsthand experience going all the way back to the Commodore 64). What has made DRM so drastically more despicable over the past 5 years is NOT Gamestop. It's widespread adoption of internet access. To think that we wouldn't be dealing with this crap if Gamestop went out of business is naive at best, and deluding yourself at worst.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a secondhand market, ethically NOR legally. All the bullshit equivocations like "digital content doesn't wear out" are just that. It's a blatant money grab no different than the RIAA wanting to forbid customers from singing to themselves in public, and the only reason they get away with it is because of people who swallow their propaganda and apparently don't apply even a moment's worth of critical thinking before swallowing it.

I mean, geez, OP. Could you have made that stupid poll a little more biased? I think you forgot the option where Gamestop murders puppies and rapes Jesus.

Biased, really?
Yea, all my polls are a little bit biased and also a little bit goofy but I get the feeling you missed this option:
No, they have every right to blame us for stunted sales.
I personally don't think they do because every time I did try (and I haven't been to a Gamestop since the last time someone got me a giftcard from there) buying a new game at gamestop, they ask me if I pre-ordered and since I didn't they only offer me a used copy at $2 savings from new. I have no problem with the used game market in general (obviously) but it appears to me that gamestop rapes both the consumer and the publisher and the publisher takes it out on the consumer.
BTW-Love your avatar. Did they really make a Rincewind stamp?