GameStop Wants to Sell... Pre-Owned Software Keys?

[bigdragon]

[citation][nom]balister[/nom]Or you can wait a few months, pick the game up on sale from Steam for $10 or less and both you and the developer benefit.[/citation]
That works for single player games. It does not work well for multiplayer games. By the time they go on sale like that the product is irrelevant. I'm not going to pay $15 today to find out if I like Borderlands when everyone I know who bugged me to buy it hasn't played in months. Furthermore, the developers and publisher have a huge impact on the longevity of a game. I'm much more willing to wait for a Steam sale to give some Valve or indie game a try. If I have to wait for a sale for an EA title I'll forget about it by the time the sale rolls around. Used keys could only help lesser companies like EA.

 

[demize]

Sounds like gamestop is proactively thinking. Once physical media dies gamestop dies. Besides how is digital media considered used? How do you resell something that is not tangible? There is no wrapper, no wear and tear, makes no sense. If gamestop does find a way to do it I bet steam will sell the new version for cheaper than gamestops used one.

 

[nebun]

it's not going to happen...the US government will not allow it...a lot of lost revenue is lost of people start buying used games at a fraction of the cost of new software....therefore taxes will be lower

 

[nkawtg]

I still can not conceive of why people defend the current model the software companies push on us. A game is no different than music, movie or a book. The European decision aligns itself with common sense, and hopefully the judicial system here in the US isn't bought off by the software companies and follows suit. What would be ideal is a Steam-like company that can act as a clearing house for consumers selling software and keys, either in the gamestop model, or just a Craig'sList type exchange.

 

[JDFan]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]it's not going to happen...the US government will not allow it...a lot of lost revenue is lost of people start buying used games at a fraction of the cost of new software....therefore taxes will be lower[/citation]

Actually they would probably make more as every resale is taxed rather than individuals just swapping the game themselves so every used sale gains them more income as older games continue to be resold instead of sitting on a shelf never being used.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]JDFan[/nom]Actually they would probably make more as every resale is taxed rather than individuals just swapping the game themselves so every used sale gains them more income as older games continue to be resold instead of sitting on a shelf never being used.[/citation]

States get the proceeds from sales tax, not the federal government.

Anyways, your argument makes the assumption that the number of both used and new combined would be more than the number of new software sales if used games were prohibited. That's a pretty big assumption to make. I don't think there is a lot of live models (of switching from no used market to a new and used market or vice versa) that we could base the outcomes on.

Of course there is corporate income tax, but assumptions on that would also require a decent model.

A more realistic reason why the US government won't allow it is that Microsoft and the other large software developers have much more lobbying power than second hand sellers like Gamestop by virtue of size.

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Parasites, sucking the blood out of the gaming industry, they should be forced to give something back to the devs every time the same game is sold[/citation]

I've never understood why people like you exist. You do realize this is a consumer's rights issue right? That consumer being you. When you buy a license to use something that license becomes yours and just like any other property it can be given/sold/ or even traded. If you are against such than the simple act of gifting a brand new game you would be default have to object to as the person who makes the purchase is the one who gets the license right off the bat.

This means if I were to buy a game for my son I would not legally be able to give him that game with the anti-consumer stance you are pushing for. The licenses has to be able to be transferred. In-fact your stance is so flawed not even a store would be able to sell games. Stores buy the games from the publishers, thus the store at the time owns the license, which is then sold to the consumer.
If your against licenses being sold by anyone but the publisher than all brick and mortar stores and online merchants would not be able to sell anymore.

When a game is sold for the first time that is when the publisher (and perhaps the developers but royalties are rare in most cases) make their money. They already cashed in and profited from it.
Just think of licenses like timeshares, if you got a time share at a ski resort there is no way you would keep on to it forever. Nor would it be right to lock you into such when you own the rights to use the facility for the timeshare you bought. It would be absurd to have to pay for the timeshare all over again if you wanted to give it to a family member after you no longer wish to have it. You can agree to that right? Well, video games are the same thing. GameStop is similar to the companies that buy and re-sell timeshares except they do it with video-games.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]I've never understood why people like you exist. You do realize this is a consumer's rights issue right? That consumer being you. When you buy a license to use something that license becomes yours and just like any other property it can be given/sold/ or even traded. If you are against such than the simple act of gifting a brand new game you would be default have to object to as the person who makes the purchase is the one who gets the license right off the bat.This means if I were to buy a game for my son I would not legally be able to give him that game with the anti-consumer stance you are pushing for. The licenses has to be able to be transferred. In-fact your stance is so flawed not even a store would be able to sell games. Stores buy the games from the publishers, thus the store at the time owns the license, which is then sold to the consumer.If your against licenses being sold by anyone but the publisher than all brick and mortar stores and online merchants would not be able to sell anymore. When a game is sold for the first time that is when the publisher (and perhaps the developers but royalties are rare in most cases) make their money. They already cashed in and profited from it. Just think of licenses like timeshares, if you got a time share at a ski resort there is no way you would keep on to it forever. Nor would it be right to lock you into such when you own the rights to use the facility for the timeshare you bought. It would be absurd to have to pay for the timeshare all over again if you wanted to give it to a family member after you no longer wish to have it. You can agree to that right? Well, video games are the same thing. GameStop is similar to the companies that buy and re-sell timeshares except they do it with video-games.[/citation]
Consumer rights my ass, Gamestop is not selling a product to you at some ridiculous knock-down price, they are barely below full retail value, but you save a couple of $$$ if you are lucky. Every time they re-sell it (the same game will come back in the store multiple times) none of that goes back to the publisher. New sales are so high in cost because certain people will never buy the new price and always wait for 1 / 2 weeks and buy the 10% off version from Gamestop. As a consumer you will see no difference and can keep the game or sell it as you see fit. If everyone had to buy their own copy then the price would always be lower, below is some random figures as an example:-
...
$60 per copy
30 million copies sold brand new = $180 million
100 million buyers due to Gamestop multiple re-sells
Enforce 1 copy per person
100 million buyers = 100 million copies sold
Same $180 million = $18 per copy
...
OK not an exact science and there will be some pull up / pull down, if the price was lower more people would buy it, if the price was also lower than Gamestop second hand price sales should actually go up, buy you just want to sell your game afterwards and I don't have a problem with that, but where does Gamestop get off inserting itself into the supply chain and giving nothing back to the publisher?
...
Parasites, games are only $60 because these leeches are holding back revenue from the people that actually make the games you want to play

 

[Guest]

People saying Gamestop is a ripoff? Almost all AAA games are $69.99 SRP. The reason why Steam is (mostly, but not always) cheaper is because you don't need to mass produce cases, game guides, and the CD.


I got DiRT 3 Complete Edition for the XBOX 360 (god forbid mentioning a console!) for 30 bucks NEW. Steam's version is $49.99 last time I checked.

 

[xtc28]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Consumer rights my ass, Gamestop is not selling a product to you at some ridiculous knock-down price, they are barely below full retail value, but you save a couple of $$$ if you are lucky. Every time they re-sell it (the same game will come back in the store multiple times) none of that goes back to the publisher. New sales are so high in cost because certain people will never buy the new price and always wait for 1 / 2 weeks and buy the 10% off version from Gamestop. As a consumer you will see no difference and can keep the game or sell it as you see fit. If everyone had to buy their own copy then the price would always be lower, below is some random figures as
an example:-...$60 per copy30 million copies sold brand new = $180 million100 million buyers due to Gamestop multiple re-sellsEnforce 1 copy per person100 million buyers = 100 million copies soldSame $180 million = $18 per copy...OK not an exact science and there will be some pull up / pull down, if the price was lower more people would buy it, if the price was also lower than Gamestop second hand price sales should actually go up, buy you just want to sell your game afterwards and I don't have a problem with that, but where does Gamestop get off inserting itself into the supply chain and giving nothing back to the publisher?...Parasites, games are only $60 because these leeches are holding back revenue from the people that actually make the games you want to play[/citation]
So in that case Gamestop is acting as a middle man so to speak. Kinda like a a swap meet. The only real difference is the fact that they do all the leg work advertising disk cleaning, refurbishing, have physical real estate space, and so on . I would have to say that it is a service that Gamestop is offering. One in which they acquire all the games for you and through just pick out the ones you want. In a sense it is the service you are paying for. Also by that logic I guess they wouldn't be able to sell used hardware either. You are a moron.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]So in that case Gamestop is acting as a middle man so to speak. Kinda like a a swap meet. The only real difference is the fact that they do all the leg work advertising disk cleaning, refurbishing, have physical real estate space, and so on . I would have to say that it is a service that Gamestop is offering. One in which they acquire all the games for you and through just pick out the ones you want. In a sense it is the service you are paying for. Also by that logic I guess they wouldn't be able to sell used hardware either. You are a moron.[/citation]
A lot of advertising and point of sale promotion is paid for by the publishers and Gamestop has no outlay for, you have no idea how the game distribution system works. Their business is a legitimate one for selling games, it is not legitimate for selling the same games multiple times and keeping the additional money for itself enforcing higher prices for everyone. As far as the hardware business goes that is the same as cars, they can be subject to damage and wear so will always reduce in value - digital data never degrades
...
And thanks for reducing yourself to childish name calling, very grown up, well done, if your ready to have an adult conversation just let me know

 

[rantoc]

Publishers will likely stick with physical media for years to come, but eventually consumers will reach a point where it's easier to purchase and download titles directly to their desktop, console or tablet.

Eventually? Any idea how much of the PC game sales that are digital download already? Steam according to many experts have about 75-80% of the total PC game sales and when the retailers only have the leftovers its not all that surprising the PC only have a few shelves in the stores.

PC game distribution have simply evolved to the future at the expense of looking weak in retail sales charts in the eye of the novice because everyone remotely informed know that Valve refuse to share the sales numbers.

 

[festa_freak]

Isn't this what steam sales are for. Die in a fire gamestop. You took my impulse away from me and screwed up my Oblivion pre-order back in the day. DIE!!!

 

[ubercake]

Good for Gamestop. PC users should also be able to buy off the used market.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Parasites, sucking the blood out of the gaming industry, they should be forced to give something back to the devs every time the same game is sold[/citation]

By the same token, when you sell your car 10% of your proceeds should go to GM or Ford as well, right ?

 

[hoofhearted]

Devs could easily make this work. Instead of selling their titles at bargain prices when they get old, offer a way to re-key for a charge. Simply take the existing key and revoke it, then re-create a new key and charge what they would normally charge for their bargain pricing.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]By the same token, when you sell your car 10% of your proceeds should go to GM or Ford as well, right ?[/citation]
Car analogies, love 'em - you do realise that depreciation on physical items has already been discussed ad-nauseum - try to keep up

 

[back_by_demand]

I realise I am fighting a losing battle here and am obviously not going to change anyone's mind here, but companies like Gamestop and the business model they operate is bad for the games industry, if it keeps going this way the only people that are able to produce games are the big mega-studios and all indie games will be wiped out. Prices will be kept artificially high. Choice will be reduced. All to save you a couple of dollars at the current rate
...
If the re-sell option didn't exist then prices would drop across the board - Steam has proved this
...
By all means disagree with me, but please don't resort to childish name calling, it really shows your immaturity

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I realise I am fighting a losing battle here and am obviously not going to change anyone's mind here, but companies like Gamestop and the business model they operate is bad for the games industry, if it keeps going this way the only people that are able to produce games are the big mega-studios and all indie games will be wiped out. Prices will be kept artificially high. Choice will be reduced. All to save you a couple of dollars at the current rate...If the re-sell option didn't exist then prices would drop across the board - Steam has proved this...By all means disagree with me, but please don't resort to childish name calling, it really shows your immaturity[/citation]

Yeah. Any comments that have any decent arguments have been rated down. In any event, these people will reap what they sow. We've already seen games start moving to pay-to-play or micro transaction models. It's simple economics really. If game developers can't make money, they won't make games. If these people want to ensure that they get "their cut" from reselling used games, then they have no right to complain about how all games are just carbon copies of each other.

I've already outline a number of reasons why games are different than other secondhand markets, even other media, but as you've pointed out, they were ignored.

Gamestop isn't out to help anyone but themselves, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249378212700025.html.

 

[Jprobes]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Consumer rights my ass, Gamestop is not selling a product to you at some ridiculous knock-down price, they are barely below full retail value, but you save a couple of $$$ if you are lucky. Every time they re-sell it (the same game will come back in the store multiple times) none of that goes back to the publisher. New sales are so high in cost because certain people will never buy the new price and always wait for 1 / 2 weeks and buy the 10% off version from Gamestop. As a consumer you will see no difference and can keep the game or sell it as you see fit. If everyone had to buy their own copy then the price would always be lower, below is some random figures as an example:-...$60 per copy30 million copies sold brand new = $180 million100 million buyers due to Gamestop multiple re-sellsEnforce 1 copy per person100 million buyers = 100 million copies soldSame $180 million = $18 per copy...OK not an exact science and there will be some pull up / pull down, if the price was lower more people would buy it, if the price was also lower than Gamestop second hand price sales should actually go up, buy you just want to sell your game afterwards and I don't have a problem with that, but where does Gamestop get off inserting itself into the supply chain and giving nothing back to the publisher?...Parasites, games are only $60 because these leeches are holding back revenue from the people that actually make the games you want to play[/citation]

Not to be a dick but your math is wrong.

30,000,000 x $60 = 1.8 Billion not 180 million.

$180mil = 3,000,000 x $60.

You might want to recheck your logic based on the correct math.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]Not to be a dick but your math is wrong.30,000,000 x $60 = 1.8 Billion not 180 million.$180mil = 3,000,000 x $60.You might want to recheck your logic based on the correct math.[/citation]

He duplicated his math error on the way out. 180 M / 100 M buyers is $1.8. Adjusting for the mistake there, $18 is the right amount.

I also think it'd be 30M new buyers + 100 M used buyers now forced to buy new. 1.8 Billion divided by 130M buyers comes out to $13.84.

But that's also an extremely simple model. I think it's more likely that the behavior we'd see is release prices maybe being $10-$20 cheaper and then game prices dropping in phases as they do now, although the timing of the price drops may differ.

And again, I see a lot of dislikes on various posts but no attempts to refute the arguments. It's so much easier to dislike something because it doesn't agree with your ideology than to evaluate the arguments on merit or provide counter arguments based on logic and research. I'm open to be convinced, but I've yet to see a compelling argument that the used markets for games (we're not talking about other markets here) would benefit all gamers as a whole. Just to clarify, I take the approach that as gamers, we need a diverse range of content at the lowest prices economically possible.

 

[xtc28]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]A lot of advertising and point of sale promotion is paid for by the publishers and Gamestop has no outlay for, you have no idea how the game distribution system works. Their business is a legitimate one for selling games, it is not legitimate for selling the same games multiple times and keeping the additional money for itself enforcing higher prices for everyone. As far as the hardware business goes that is the same as cars, they can be subject to damage and wear so will always reduce in value - digital data never degrades...And thanks for reducing yourself to childish name calling, very grown up, well done, if your ready to have an adult conversation just let me know[/citation]
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The way that digital media degrades is by time and demand for the product. You also have no idea if I know anything about distribution systems games or otherwise. As a matter of a fact I own and operate game store much like Gamestop. I also hold a degree in business. On top of that, I have spent fair amount of time as a game marketing and distribution analyst. Moron Comes to mind because of your flawed logic.

 

[xtc28]

[citation][nom]SDSUMarcus01[/nom]Yeah. Any comments that have any decent arguments have been rated down. In any event, these people will reap what they sow. We've already seen games start moving to pay-to-play or micro transaction models. It's simple economics really. If game developers can't make money, they won't make games. If these people want to ensure that they get "their cut" from reselling used games, then they have no right to complain about how all games are just carbon copies of each other.I've already outline a number of reasons why games are different than other secondhand markets, even other media, but as you've pointed out, they were ignored.Gamestop isn't out to help anyone but themselves, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12 [...] 0025.html.[/citation]
The only reason the game prices drop is for volume sales. More sales at a lower price means more money. companies are there to make money. Period...

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]I'm sorry but you are wrong. The way that digital media degrades is by time and demand for the product. You also have no idea if I know anything about distribution systems games or otherwise. As a matter of a fact I own and operate game store much like Gamestop. I also hold a degree in business. On top of that, I have spent fair amount of time as a game marketing and distribution analyst. Moron Comes to mind because of your flawed logic.[/citation]

Excellent. So if you own and operate a store like Gamestop, would you care to share details (feel free to sterilize them if you wish) about your gross margins on new games and gross margins on used games? Could you also speak to the volume of new games that you sell verse used games (including repeat sales of the same copies)?

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]The only reason the game prices drop is for volume sales. More sales at a lower price means more money. companies are there to make money. Period...[/citation]

That's exactly the point that's being argued. If more new copies were purchased during the initial release weeks, new release prices would drop.

Nobody here is trying to argue that companies aren't out there to make money. What we're trying to argue is that used game sales make it less profitable for game studios to do so.