Sorry, but in listening to that video it seems like MovieBob has become a total corperate tool trying to speak in the guise of one of us. Oh, it probably isn't true, but that is how it sounds.
Let's be honest here, used games are not the "enemy" here, nor is Gamestop. As far as we have an enemy it's the game industry itself which treats us like a moronic group of cash bags while we keep buying their product no matter what they do, or how they treat us.
Used games have been around for a ridiculously long time, but have only become an issue recently because corperate bean counters figure "OMG, I see a way we could be squeezing more money out of those moronic cash bags! Imagine if we not only had our growing, multi-billion dollar industry, but also get those used game sales!".
Understand also, anyone who tells you that game developers are hurt by used game sales is lying to you, pure and simple. Game developers get paid salaries and wages like other employees. Their money comes from the game's development budget, that is what all that money is for, a chunk goes towards equipment and office space, but the lion's share is all human resources. I frequently talk about how much these guys make, but that's another discussion entirely. The bottom line is that by the time the game is released, the guys actually making the game have already been paid.
The guys who have a direct financial stake in this are the producers. These are the guys who have all the money and are the ones hiring the developers. It can work in a lot of differant ways of course. Sometimes the developers borrow the money to make a game themselves, but most frequently someone comes to them and offers the developers money (like an investment) to produce a game that they can see bigger returns on than what they put in. In other cases of course you have corperations that are both producers AND developers, but in that case the expense is what they are paying their people, the guys doing the work are paid in wages and salaries and the guy from the central corperation comes down and tells the guys in whatever division what they are going to work on making.
Over the years magazines like "Game Informer" and various websites have done articles explaining a bit about how the industry works, and the developer/producer relationship and the way it breaks down. The bottom line though is that the guys developing the game made their money during the time it was under construction. The only time a developer is likely to have a financial stake in the success of a game is if they borrowed the money themselves, in which case they are hoping to be able to not only make back what they paid themselves and cover their debt and it's interest, but make money on top of that.
If you look at things like the Duke Nukem Forever scandal, it sort of sheds some light on this, and the risks. We have some dude who shelled out like 30 million dollars for a game the developers never produced (yet paid themselves apparently using that money). Good luck getting that back.
Like in any business companies come and go, and risks don't pay off. Overall though the game industry is flourishing as a multi-billion dollar industry with nothing but overall growth projected. People are willing to invest money in making games becayse of the potential returns, and it's by no means slowing down.
If you want to criticize someone for the lack of innovation in the game industry, well that is where things get more interesting, and also nastier. One of the big problems with the game industry is that it operates as a cartel. It does all of the things that get the gas companies in trouble and under periodic federal investigation, it's just not big enough, and has not warrented enough complaints, for Uncle Sam to seriously pay attention. The game industry does things like set prices so all games cost the same thing, and arrange release schedules so nobody has to compete directly... a big game is going to be released, and everyone pushes their titles up. With the game industry you do not see big titles actually going head to head with simultaneous releases with the competitors lowering their prices and increasing their quality/perks to attract the customers.
You'll notice right now that games cost the same thing irregardless of how much they actually cost to make, and how much time was spent on them. A new game is $60 for a console, accross the board. The game that cost $12 million and the one that cost $100 million both go for the same exact price.
If everyone is charging $60 for a game, then of course people are less likely to want to get experimental with that lower budget title with the cool ideas. If some of those "lesser" titles were sold for less money when brand new, maybe it would correct the problem. While some games DO break away on price (rarely) most don't, because the advantages to holding ranks, discouraging competition, and charging the same prices outweigh the down side for the moment.
While prices are being kept high that way, one also has to look at the bit that I talk about (mentioned earlier) about what game developers are actually getting paid. In recent years we've been being told that games NEED these hundred million dollar budgets, yet somehow despite similar numbers of people being involved, also need to charge us more money for admission than a movie (which you could typically see twice in a theater and own on DVD for less money than a game costs). Also when I hear the term "Need" related to something where the primary cost is human resources (coders, artists, etc...) I immediatly have to ask how much these guys are getting paid for their work, we constantly hear how developers and code monkeys are not making great money, but I hardly believe it. Given the similar budgets involved consider that for the cost of some of these games, Hollywood could have made an action movie with actual stunt people doing dangerous stuff, cars exploding for real (under controlled conditions), CGI, and all kinds of other stuff. Yet the game developers are getting that money for sitting at desks programming....
At any rate, this long tirade is to basically point out that the Game Industry are the ones who actually cost us the most as gamers, it's their policies that are hampering game development, not used games or Gamestop.
What's more I will say right now that Gamestop is both arguably our best friend (for all the annoyance) and the Industry's greatest enemy for reasons that have nothing to do with used games.
The big push for the game industry right now is towards digital distribution, which really has little advantage for us as consumers. We lose control over our own media, and wind up paying for the word of a company that they will continue to provide access to what we paid for. If any of those businesses go out of business, they take our games with them, where if we had a disc we have the game as long as we own the physical storage media.
The industry likes Digital Distribution not only because of the control it gives them, and how it makes piracy nearly impossible (as well as ending the whole used games "issue"), but because it also saves them money on things like printing, packaging, and distribution. Manufacturing all those discs, putting them into boxes, having the boxes put on trucks, and then shipped to warehouses where they get put on more trucks to be taken to stores is VERY expensive. If overseas delivery gets involved add planes and boats to the equasion. With digital distribution it cuts their costs, which of course means more profit for them, since as we've seen, digital distribution doesn't exactly lower the price on new titles.
Gamestop, and the demand for it, is what is helping to keep physical media alive. If we ever DID hurt the brick and mortar game stores or drive them out of business, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, and opening the way to the game industry "utopia" of them being able to hike game prices to the sky without having to worry about a good portion of the current costs to actually produce a product.
Monopolies are always bad, but so are Cartels. While not perfect, I think that Gamestop and most importantly the fact that so many people keep on using it to obtain physical media has been insturmental in fighting off the spectre of digital downloads. Mom and Pops stores just dont have the prescence or the numbers to operate on the same level. If Gamestop went down I do not think the indie game stores could hold off a changeover to digital.
A big part of why I'm skeptical about Bob and his statements is because to me it seems like what he's advocating would actually hurt gamers. A weaker Gamestop is not in our best interests.
Now don't get me wrong, gamers as consumers have no advocacy, which means we get it every which way from Sunday, and stomped on by everyone. The industry, Gamestop, they all pretty much gouge us left and right due to the fact that we take it and keep coming back for more.
Truthfully, if you REALLY want to strike a blow for gamers, then don't buy a few of the big titles from companies like Activision. Let "Black Ops" crash and burn, it would say a lot about how much we're willing to take from the companies if we caused that to happen a few times. We might see a great reduction in DLC gouging and the like in the long run if the game developers became a bit more wary about customer reactions to their policies, as opposed to them being able to rely on us lining up with our wallets for whatever they do.
The bottom line is Gamestop isn't exactly good, but it's foolish to bite the hand that feeds you when it's monolithic size is so far what seems to be keeping physical media in our hands.
