GameStop Exploiting Devs And Consumers

[Jaer44]

It's just like if you made a painting or something. You get one sale. That's it. It's going to be curculating for a long time and you are not entitled to those transactions. Make some new shit and sell some more shit and shut the fuck up... Easy as that.

Going to play devils advocate here:
When you make a painting/book/traditional work (even movies/music) you don't have to continue to support that piece of work. That painting you refer to doesn't need additional patches or updates to maybe fix something found after sale/release, you also don't have to pay for additional back-end (servers for multiplayer for instance). That's where your argument falls apart.

 

[kbrickley]

It's just like if you made a painting or something. You get one sale. That's it. It's going to be curculating for a long time and you are not entitled to those transactions. Make some new shit and sell some more shit and shut the fuck up... Easy as that.

Or go digital where there is no possibility of resale ... PC physical media is on death's door and I think this will be the last generation of physical media on the consoles ... once they are 100% digital this whole argument is academic

 

[Krenum]

"Call of Doody 17 : new dubstep, new gun attachments, 3 maps on release for 70 bucks, full game available after 3 separate 25 dollar "map pack" upgrades." Or "Madden five hundred and ninety eight : Look at how you can now see the filament in the lights on their helmets, and the drunk chick in the crowd"

Its funny because its true.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

The fact that people are so delusional they actually buy the argument that game developers deserve a cut of used sales is mind blowing. The early comparisons to rentals were so bad they were actually hysterical. Seriously, game developers are a bunch of self entitled whiners.

 

[Krenum]

Cars deteriorate over time; video games do not. Not a valid comparison.

DVD / Blu Ray does infact have a shelf life.
http://utonsite.com/why-blu-rays-only-have-a-limited-shelf-life/

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

I had expected Microsoft and/or Sony to try and counteract Gamestop on thier new consoles, but not the way they did.

What I think would have worked would have been a market on the console, run by MS and Sony on their respective consoles, where you could sell your license directly to them for say $20 and they could then sell the "used" license as a digital download for $5-10 less then a new disk.

Basically this would allow MS/Sony to cut out the middle man and cut into Gamestop's used game market without needing to add a ton of B&M stores.

An added benifit, to the devs and themselves, would be that they could have made digital download purchases non-transferable so basically you could using their store games could only be sold back once.

It wouldn't kill GS, but it could shift a large chunk of cash from GS's account to MS and/or Sonys.

 

[Ashbringer]

People only sell games that have no value. Some people sell them cause the game sucked, or because they have no interest in playing it twice. That means your game wasn't worth $60. As much as you graphics team and coders worked so hard and spent millions to make.

I'm playing Metro Last Light, and it sucks. Sucks in graphics, in animation, in gameplay. What gameplay? The game hand holds me the entire time. You want $60 for this? Hell no.

Just cause you can have digital downloaded content, doesn't mean you have the right to stop people from selling games. No publisher or developers has the right to do so. It's their hubris that makes them believe they can.

There is a much easier solution ... stop selling physical media if that is your concern ... sell it on Steam/GOG/Amazon if you are PC or one of the console download services if you are console ... without physical media there is no resale so no need to try and manage the royalties for resale

I assure you that a law will be introduced to allow the resale of digital goods. This will be at best a temporary solution.

Deal with it.

^This

 

[Fix Me]

Going to play devils advocate here:
When you make a painting/book/traditional work (even movies/music) you don't have to continue to support that piece of work. That painting you refer to doesn't need additional patches or updates to maybe fix something found after sale/release, you also don't have to pay for additional back-end (servers for multiplayer for instance). That's where your argument falls apart.

How long does this support usually last? Generally, not that long. Maybe a year or two if you're lucky. There are exceptions, of course. And games like GTA IV and Skyrim offer some DLC that are more like expansion packs that should help with those costs. I'll never understand why game developers feel they should be paid every time a used copy of their game is sold. They already got paid for that copy of their game.

 

[Krenum]

People only sell games that have no value.

 

[Ashbringer]

Going to play devils advocate here:
When you make a painting/book/traditional work (even movies/music) you don't have to continue to support that piece of work. That painting you refer to doesn't need additional patches or updates to maybe fix something found after sale/release, you also don't have to pay for additional back-end (servers for multiplayer for instance). That's where your argument falls apart.

Back in the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo era, they didn't have patches or servers either. They made a game, tested the crap out of it, and then released it. Unlike today where they make a game, release it, players test it, and release a patch well after you got stuck somewhere you can't progress because of a bug. Probably as a result you lost interest in finishing the game as well.

Also, last I checked Xbox Live subscription already pays for that server back-end stuff. Soon PS4 will also require you to pay. On the PC League of Legends is free, and they don't even ask you to pay for the server end. SWTOR is totally free, and it's an MMO game. Plus any game that wasn't built to be a multiplayer game from the ground up, will suck at it. I don't mean games like Dead Space 3 co-op style multiplayer, cause you all know that game sucked at everything. Multiplayer and single player.

 

[dandirk]

This guy breaks it down for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tcrkKGKIAg

Wow he discovered something new, a deep and dark secret... that has been true for basically 100s of years. 100% mark up is nothing new to resale markets and retailers, just because the product are games doesn't make it any different.

Try taking your game to a pawn shop, probably get a worse deal.

Just like with EVERYTHING else selling yourself will get you more money, BIG surprise there. There is nothing unusual about GameStop's business model, except that they basically sell a digital product that does not "break" like other physical items.

As someone else mentioned, they have rent, employee's taxes and if the used copy doesn't sell, they still have to mark it down just like any other inventory based retail shop.

It is amazing how people complain about something that is standard practice. It would be one thing if it was a general complaint about the practice but most cases people think their "market" is somehow special.


I am not against used games sales, I think it is funny that devs are complaining about it. The market is growing, many reports say faster then other entertainment markets. Growing despite the fact of used game sales. They want to tell you somehow this is a new issue but there have been used game sales since NES (funcoland anyone).

Cry me a river, if you want me to switch give me value add, like offer it one steam (and all the other digital distro's so the user can choose). Support it longer then 6 mo...

 

[Krenum]

Back in the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo era, they didn't have patches or servers either. They made a game, tested the crap out of it, and then released it. Unlike today where they make a game, release it, players test it, and release a patch well after you got stuck somewhere you can't progress because of a bug. Probably as a result you lost interest in finishing the game as well.

Yes, I often think about this too. Essentially game developers today release Beta's at full price or specifically leave content out only to add it as a patch or DLC months after initial release.

 

[Dreaz]

Going to play devils advocate here:
When you make a painting/book/traditional work (even movies/music) you don't have to continue to support that piece of work. That painting you refer to doesn't need additional patches or updates to maybe fix something found after sale/release, you also don't have to pay for additional back-end (servers for multiplayer for instance). That's where your argument falls apart.

Then that's a problem with the business model, not the medium.

 

[Disposed]

Yes, continue being screwed by GameStop, don't support the devs and watch the flawed system move along in its broken state. Sit back, relax and get your popcorn while you "deal with it." Brilliant solution. Meanwhile, other people will be trying to make a change in how things work. Which you, in turn, can deal with.

Since you clearly have not a single clue how the gaming industry works let me help you. Those royalties would go to the publisher...

This ignorant bleeding heart help the poor devs mentality only makes the publisher more money.

The problem is not used game sales that's the distraction, the real problem is publishers bleeding us and the devs then trying to pull shit like this on top of it.

So go ahead and take up your cause to fix the broken system. If you win consumers once again get nothing and the publishers can make some more money and still continue to fuck over the devs like usual.

 

[Fantasyalive]

Cars deteriorate over time; video games do not. Not a valid comparison.

Except games still devalue over time, despite the liac of physical deterioriation. Also the time period that Devs are actually interested in controlling and they bring up in every argument is within the first year of a release often even sooner then that, so even if there was physical deterioration it wouldn't have a major impact in that time segment.

 

[Snowdog]

Going to play devils advocate here:
When you make a painting/book/traditional work (even movies/music) you don't have to continue to support that piece of work. That painting you refer to doesn't need additional patches or updates to maybe fix something found after sale/release, you also don't have to pay for additional back-end (servers for multiplayer for instance). That's where your argument falls apart.

It doesn't matter if I the original buyer, keep using the game, or if I sell it and someone else uses. You are still only supporting 1 copy of the game.

So this argument is nothing but empty rhetoric. Bullshit in other words.

 

[kbrickley]

I assure you that a law will be introduced to allow the resale of digital goods. This will be at best a temporary solution.

Except most digital purchases occur through specific digital stores ... to resell the item (if that is allowed ... since it is not allowed currently) you still need to use the digital store you bought it from and that gives the stores, developers, and publishers enormous control over the resale process and proceeds that they do not currently have ... either way the problem gets solved through digital (either by blocking second hand sales completely or by controlling the process )

 

[jstnomega]

I'm sure he consumes only new cars & resides only in newly built homes.

 

[ZodaEX]

I'm sure he consumes only new cars & resides only in newly built homes.

It would be an unsustainable way of life if everybody lived that way, therefore he shouldn't be pushing his way of living onto other people.

#1 To each their own.
#2 What ever floats your boat
#3 Think

 

[DocFaustus]

Fuck this guy. He take take the first sale and shut the fuck up about the rest. He is unable to recognize the consumers' rights. You want to limit second hand sales? Give the customer a reason to keep your product.

Video games depreciate very fast. Like a movie almost all of the sales are in the first few weeks or month. After that, the game starts heading to bargain bin pricing. If you make your game good enough that I don't want to sell it in the first two months, you will solve your own problem.

My right: First-Sale Doctrine

Here is a solution: You try to steal my First-Sale Doctrine, I will encourage people to steal all of your sales.

 

[webdev511]

I can see that very few people commenting in this thread are likely to have ever participated in content creation.

If the game studios/devs want to make sure they get compensated for the second sale of a game, just make sure that there's an "extra" in the first sale box that can't be traded or re-used by the second purchaser. A code for a piece of gear or level that enhances the gameplay / story, but doesn't completely kill the game if it's not present.

IMHO Game Stop is the worst of the bunch when it comes to reselling console games. Knocking $5 of retail isn't enough of an incentive for me to buy used over new. GameFly & Amazon have done better with used game pricing, sometimes better than Glyde, but in the end this is about the used game market that GS plays all to well via it's dominate position.

 

[ZodaEX]

Fuck this guy. He take take the first sale and shut the fuck up about the rest. He is unable to recognize the consumers' rights. You want to limit second hand sales? Give the customer a reason to keep your product.

Video games depreciate very fast. Like a movie almost all of the sales are in the first few weeks or month. After that, the game starts heading to bargain bin pricing. If you make your game good enough that I don't want to sell it in the first two months, you will solve your own problem.

My right: First-Sale Doctrine

Here is a solution: You try to steal my First-Sale Doctrine, I will encourage people to steal all of your sales.

I NEVER sell videogames I like. Always find myself wanting to come back to games I know i'll enjoy.

 

[ballistic90]

Yes, continue being screwed by GameStop, don't support the devs and watch the flawed system move along in its broken state. Sit back, relax and get your popcorn while you "deal with it." Brilliant solution. Meanwhile, other people will be trying to make a change in how things work. Which you, in turn, can deal with.

You're pretty stupid. Games are not unique pieces of work that deserve special protection. The prices are already inflated to absorb second hand market "losses", and by removing or messing with the used game market, you're forcing people to either keep games they don't want forever, or force them into dealing with game sales directly through "approved" used game retailers, allowing them to keep the used game prices up even more. I'm not giving up my right to sell my game through Craigslist or to lend a game to a friend just because you want more money out of me.

And don't tell me for a damn second that game developers are blameless. How many shitty games are put on the market to try to maximize profit from consumers? Shitty sequels, terrible licensed games, paid-for reviews and, in some cases, plain lying are often employed by some publishers and developers to try and push trash out the door for a quick buck. Once a consumer buys a game that was shit to begin with, all they can do it sell it or trade it in. Demos are becoming more and more rare, so it's not exactly easy to "try before you buy" anymore. Want someone to blame for the used game market? Blame EA, Ubisoft, Activision, anyone that's ever sold shitty licensed games or turned a game franchise into a "release a new one every year and shut down the servers every few years to force them to upgrade."

 

[ballistic90]

I NEVER sell videogames I like. Always find myself wanting to come back to games I know i'll enjoy.

Hell, Nintendo's method of combating the second-hand game market? Make the game good so they won't want to sell it. If people sell the game, you probably made some kind of mistake.

 

[Spire3660]

Semantics. If you buy a game for $60, take it home and beat it in a couple days, then trade it back in, you've essentially rented it.

You know who sells movies? College kids who need to pay rent. People who have a DVD collection that they don't need any more because they upgraded to Blu Ray. It's not a thriving industry. And you can't just go spend 8% less to see a brand new movie while it's in the theater somewhere else like you can with a brand new game within a week, if not a day, of it launching.

WRONG. Renting and owning are two very different legal concepts. When you BUY it from the store in physical form, a whole slew of legal rights are activated related to its physicality that dont exist when you rent. I understand what you are trying ot say, but considering the nature of this conversation, i thought it important to point out.

 

[Ashbringer]

Except most digital purchases occur through specific digital stores ... to resell the item (if that is allowed ... since it is not allowed currently) you still need to use the digital store you bought it from and that gives the stores, developers, and publishers enormous control over the resale process and proceeds that they do not currently have ... either way the problem gets solved through digital (either by blocking second hand sales completely or by controlling the process )

They could do that, but publishers want their cake and eat it too. Why offer the ability to resale digital games when you could prevent it all together, and destroy the used game market?

 

[Jaer44]

Back in the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo era, they didn't have patches or servers either. They made a game, tested the crap out of it, and then released it. Unlike today where they make a game, release it, players test it, and release a patch well after you got stuck somewhere you can't progress because of a bug. Probably as a result you lost interest in finishing the game as well.

Also, last I checked Xbox Live subscription already pays for that server back-end stuff. Soon PS4 will also require you to pay. On the PC League of Legends is free, and they don't even ask you to pay for the server end. SWTOR is totally free, and it's an MMO game. Plus any game that wasn't built to be a multiplayer game from the ground up, will suck at it. I don't mean games like Dead Space 3 co-op style multiplayer, cause you all know that game sucked at everything. Multiplayer and single player.

SWTOR relies on micro transactions in addition to subscriptions to pay for infrastructure.
LoL also has micro transactions that bring in revenue, in which most people happily pay.



Older games were also far more simplified compared to current titles, plus as you already stated, there's no requirement to further support the game after release in those days other than basic telephone/mail services.

 

[kbrickley]

They could do that, but publishers want their cake and eat it too. Why offer the ability to resale digital games when you could prevent it all together, and destroy the used game market?

As you said, the law may require they support the resale requirement eventually ... however, the product will still be sold within the confines of the digital store it was bought in (Steam, Origin, UPlay, XBox Live, Playstation, etc) ... even stores like GOG and Amazon might become more restrictive, if they had to support resale ... as you said, their first goal will be to ban resale (and in the USA the law has supported that so far) ... the EU is anyone's guess though ... they may push this forward first and then we will see how it gets implemented and controlled

 

[Burticus]

Bring back the CD codes and make them 1 use. If a code is already used or missing, sell me another code for $1 or $2. Each time the game is traded it generates another $1 or $2. That would add up for the developers fast.

Kind of the same thing with the online pass, but they want $10 for those which is just insane... and they regularly sell for $5 or more on fleabay. $2 or under is the key. People will buy anything as long as it doesn't cost more than $2.

 

[Diseaseboy]

Getting rid of Gamestop is not going to solve the problem. Ask the recording industry how getting rid of Napster worked out for them. . People buy and sell used anything because of price, whether it be automobiles or video games. Make good quality games that are not rushed out the door to make money and lower the price- people will then not have an incentive to buy or sell a used game. I blame the developers as much as the consumers- when you keep releasing crap like Duke Nukem Forever and Medal of Honor Warfighter, what the heck to they expect.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Except he doesn't bother to say that ebay is going to take 30%+ from you.

No, they don't... please don't spout complete bullox to try to puff up your supposed point. Ebay has a flat fee of 10%, and paypal has a 2.9% fee. It's a bit high for more expensive items, but they do provide a service. It's up to you whether you have some better way of doing it, or if you choose to use them. For me it's generally worth just using Ebay.

 

[GoldenTiger]

$2 or under is the key. People will buy anything as long as it doesn't cost more than $2.

(Looks at rampant software piracy on smartphones and tablets, and piracy of 99-cent songs from amazon) Nope.

 

[Disposed]

Bring back the CD codes and make them 1 use. If a code is already used or missing, sell me another code for $1 or $2. Each time the game is traded it generates another $1 or $2. That would add up for the developers fast.

Kind of the same thing with the online pass, but they want $10 for those which is just insane... and they regularly sell for $5 or more on fleabay. $2 or under is the key. People will buy anything as long as it doesn't cost more than $2.

Fuck all of that.

A) No, do not want.
B) Fuck developers they can fend for themselves.
C) Developers wouldnt get shit it would all go to the publisher anyway.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can come up with so many bullshit ideas that hurt the consumer for the benefit of the companies selling the games. Unless you own a publishing company suggesting they make us pay more is really just stupid.

I am so sick of the bleeding heart bullshit that we as consumers are responsible for fixing the situation for the developers. Its not our responsibility.

 

[BBA]

Using this logic: If I buy a used car, then sell it at a profit, should I send a check to the vehicle manufacturer?

I mean, is bad enough they charge for access to even play the damn games online in the first place, they get enough of a cut from that business.

 

[ZodaEX]

No, they don't... please don't spout complete bullox to try to puff up your supposed point. Ebay has a flat fee of 10%, and paypal has a 2.9% fee. It's a bit high for more expensive items, but they do provide a service. It's up to you whether you have some better way of doing it, or if you choose to use them. For me it's generally worth just using Ebay.

No kidding. I hate when people talk out of their ass like that.

 

[Kogan]

The primary problem here is used game retailers. They're middle-men who are taking a portion of the profits and therefore increasing prices for consumers and reducing the profits of developers while adding very little value to the product.

If used game sellers went away, developers wouldn't suddenly start charging everyone $60 for substandard games. They will do what any other content creator does and start the price high and lower it over time so as many people as possible will purchase the game at the price point the customer wants to pay. Bad games that don't sell well will lower in price quickly and good games will stay more expensive quicker.

This is currently happening, but the process will be quickened because of the removal of the middle-men.

And people should stop treating games like physical items. The disc you buy is worth a few cents. What you bought is the content (digital media), which has no physical value. You've bought the right to participate in the content (which can currently be transferred). Its sort of like buying a ticket to disney land, but even after using the ticket, you're able to sell it to someone else and that person can also use it.

Some developers are angry because they don't want to admit that people don't want to pay $60 for their substandard game that only provides 8 hours of content. They've been taking out their anger on software pirates for a while and have recently been shifting it towards used game retailers. Some developers don't have this problem since they make good games or games that are priced reasonably.

I could care less what actually happens as the market balances itself (unless the government gets involved). Whether used games sales stop or not isn't going to affect the prices consumers pay all that much. What I don't like is middle-men taking money and providing little-to-no value or developers blaming other people for a lack of sales.

 

[Diseaseboy]

The primary problem here is used game retailers. They're middle-men who are taking a portion of the profits and therefore increasing prices for consumers and reducing the profits of developers while adding very little value to the product.

.

Your logic still doesn't make sense. I guess then you then have to get rid of Ebay, Carmax, local garage sales etc...Everyone makes profits off of a used product.

 

[pxc]

He can go Xbone himself.

 

[kbrickley]

Your logic still doesn't make sense. I guess then you then have to get rid of Ebay, Carmax, local garage sales etc...Everyone makes profits off of a used product.

Except he noted the difference ... software is not the physical medium (like a car) ... you cannot continue to use the car after you sold it because then the new person would not be able to use it ... software/music doesn't have that restriction (causing some of the problems with misuse of copyrighted material ... aka piracy) ... this is why PCs will go digital, which eliminates this conflict (and resolves the resale question)

Consoles still require the physical media so they would operate like a car (you cannot both use the same media since the media is required for operation) ... as such the developer is just nitpicking ... however, if consoles convert to digital they will also resolve the resale issue ... by the time the next console generation rolls out in about a decade there should be sufficient high speed internet penetration to justify and support this conversion

 

[Croaker]

Ok guys I am a developer myself and I want to cover some points that most people don't realize. Big games cost 30 to 100 million to make. Not including marketing costs etc. developers normally have to make dev cost plus marketing costs which is upwards of 40 to 60% (which is completely out of the devs control). Lets use 50% for example. As example a40 million dollar game actually needs 60 million to break even. Devs don't get money until that happens. Here is how you get to those final numbers. A $60 game. 30% of that goes to the retailer. So we are at 42 dollars. The console manufacturer gets 9-10 per. So we are down to 32 dollars. That means said game needs to sell around 2000000 units to break even. Foreign sales work differently becuase the foreign rhq keeps the marjority of the money and the money sent over is used for breakeven so that is a hell of a lot less in contribution.

A lot of games don't sell that big and then people don't understand why a game they liked doesn't get a seqel.

Devs themselves are back of the bus getting money. That is why there is interest in sharing revenue. They get screwed. Gamestop makes money. The publisher gets money and the ev gets screwed.

Even worse there are majors pubswho do what i call indentured servetude contracts. Day one dollar one royalties. But the royalty is what is used to calculate breakeven. So that wonderful 20% royalty actually takes 5 times as long to break even. My previous example is if a publisher wants to get made whole asap so the devs might get money. This servitude contract is to force them to take the next gig probably with not as good terms.

What he is talking about is hope.y getting devs get some money at the endof the day.

So you know i launched the digital distribution games for psn when i was at sony. I believe it is in the future whn the US infrastructure can support it. According to the last round of US numbers a lot of people are still in the 4megabit and below range because they live in places where they have very little choice i isps. That makes digital a problem. I've got 30 down and it still was a long time to download Uncharted 3. So with 4 down which works out to 512k actual down a 30 gig download just isn't practicle. And that is even with planning on actually getting all the banwidth.

I've been doing this for 23 years. They devs are always the one getting the short end of the stick. The greedy SOBs at the publisher see money and the greedy SOBs at retail see money and all to oftem devs get screwed.

Cheers