PDA

View Full Version : EA's been trying to buy Valve for a while



squareking
11-09-2012, 10:42 PM
Says Destructoid (http://www.destructoid.com/ea-allegedly-trying-to-buy-valve-for-years-234696.phtml):


According to faceless know-it-alls chatting to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/technology/valve-a-video-game-maker-with-few-rules.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all), Electronic Arts has tried multiple times to get its hands on Valve (http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/?t=Valve&tab=1), and could have been prepared to part with $1 billion to slip the Steam platform holder in its pocket.

Rather than confirm or deny the report, Valve head Gabe Newell simply said it wouldn't happen -- or at least, that he'd rather Valve disintegrate and send its employees out into the world than sell up to another major publisher.

"It's way more likely we would head in that direction than say, 'Let's find some giant company that wants to cash us out and wait two or three years to have our employment agreements terminate,' " he said.

It's really hardly surprising, given that EA likes to buy hot studios and turn them into hit factories. I hope Valve continues to resist though -- we need more companies like it in this industry, not less.
So that's an alleged thing.

Nalano
11-09-2012, 10:49 PM
It's a private company.

EA doesn't have a pot to piss on.

Kadayi
11-09-2012, 11:21 PM
I don't think there's much incentive for Gabe to sell Valve. The company through steam is extremely profitable. This just sounds like Destructoid fishing for hits.

Splynter
11-09-2012, 11:24 PM
Well, it IS a Jim Sterling piece...

EDIT:

Valve would have to be insane to sell. They're doing ridiculously well as is.

gundato
11-09-2012, 11:26 PM
Of COURSE they are trying to buy Valve. EVERYONE is trying to buy Valve. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if CD Projekt were trying to buy Valve.

But Valve have no incentive to sell and are more financially stable than just about anyone in the industry, so it is pointless.

ado
11-09-2012, 11:34 PM
Or, you know, the person who wrote the post on d-toid could have just read the NYT article and actually find out that there was never an offer from EA, just that they would have valued Valve at 1 billion $ if the talks ever went that far. At this point Valve is valued at around 2.5 Billion.

Furthermore Gabe said that there's more chance of Valve disintegrating than there ever coming to a corporate takeover. Not that he'd rather see this or that.

Also, fuck games journalism.

deano2099
12-09-2012, 02:30 AM
I vaguely remember a similar story a few years ago about MS wanting to buy Valve and when asked for comment Gabe said something like "we're not interested in acquiring Microsoft at this time"...

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 02:48 AM
I don't think EA could afford to buy Valve at this point.

Skalpadda
12-09-2012, 04:21 AM
I vaguely remember a similar story a few years ago about MS wanting to buy Valve and when asked for comment Gabe said something like "we're not interested in acquiring Microsoft at this time"...

I think that was from an interview John Walker did with Gabe Newell where he jokingly said he had a friend who thought MS would buy Valve. It should be somewhere on the site but I'm too lazy to look for it.

vinraith
12-09-2012, 04:23 AM
I think the odds of someone inside the industry buying Valve are pretty low. I think the odds of someone much bigger, who wants an inroad into the industry (say, Amazon) doing so are somewhat greater. I don't think it'll happen while Gabe's still around, though.

qwurp
12-09-2012, 04:47 AM
I don't think EA could afford to buy Valve at this point.

That sums it up well. $1B certainly wouldn't cut it. They'd need to be in the $3-4B range now based on valuations. And Gabe isn't selling. And Valve hasnt even started the hardware game yet...

Cooper
12-09-2012, 05:08 AM
I don't think it'll happen while Gabe's still around, though.Or whilst Valve remain a private company.

God help them if they go listed. The stockholder business model has a great track record in producing safe, boring and shit product when there's a lot of money at stake.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 05:34 AM
Or whilst Valve remain a private company.

God help them if they go listed. The stockholder business model has a great track record in producing safe, boring and shit product when there's a lot of money at stake.
gave worked for microsoft and he knows what it means to answer to shareholders. Furthermore, he is his own boss and does whatever he wants to and if he allows valve to be listed he will have to answer to shareholders even if he hold 50% +1 shares.

even if gabe croaks, there is no risk for valve going public. if rest of top management leaves valve (hard or easy way) then valve going public is very very possible thing. then it can be bought.
that eventuality is years away tough.

frightlever
12-09-2012, 10:00 AM
When Gamestop acquired Impulse I pretty much walked away from the service and the 30-40 games I had on there. Would be harder to do with my 5-600 games if Valve sold out - which is, let's be honest, entirely possible within the next 5-10 years, but less likely in the near future.

Alex Bakke
12-09-2012, 10:13 AM
Wow, what a non-story.

Joseph
12-09-2012, 11:09 AM
What's money compared to being the lead of Steam?

frightlever
12-09-2012, 12:12 PM
What's money compared to being the lead of Steam?

Something about reigning in Hell...

c-Row
12-09-2012, 12:23 PM
EA likes to buy hot studios and turn them into hit factories

I have seen the former happen, yes.

squirrel
12-09-2012, 01:04 PM
A highly profitable private company can never be safe from being taken over. Sometimes people may just want to cash out to enjoy their life while they can, you know. It's just not worth working to the death just to earn the last drop of profit. No one can earn all the wealth he desire, after all. Once you earn what you originally desire, you always want more.

That remains to be seen whether success of EA's proposal works for or against us. A solid DRM requires effort to maintain, while what a publicly listed company like EA seeks is all quick profit. Not just high profitability, but that it must be quick. Fxxk yeah, good night perfect street day protection!

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 01:23 PM
A highly profitable private company can never be safe from being taken over. Sometimes people may just want to cash out to enjoy their life while they can, you know. It's just not worth working to the death just to earn the last drop of profit. No one can earn all the wealth he desire, after all. Once you earn what you originally desire, you always want more.


no company is ever safe from being taken over. unless i guess it is government owned in communist country which is not in risk of regime change in next 20 years. even then i can imagine a situation where a company is going to be taken over.


gabe might want to retire and then can sell of his shares. it all depends on company's constitution but it is possible that gabe could make EA, Activision a shareholder in a privately owned company.
the issue is tough that it is highly unlikely and knowing how volatile the industry is, worrying what may happen in 10 years is just silly in my opinion.

Kadayi
12-09-2012, 01:46 PM
No company is ever safe from being taken over.

It's a private company. It's not a case of they can be 'taken over', it's a case of the shareholders in the company would choose to sell themselves to another firm if they thought the offer was too good to refuse. Short of a serious rival to Steam coming to the fore and all the big studios completely eschewing selling their games through Steam and Valves profitability plummeting I'm not seeing that likely happening anytime soon. However the actual appeal for buying valve lies in Steam tbh. Development wise they're not the big name powerhouse they used to be, especially when it comes to the console space (not helped by a lot of gaben trashtalking tbh).

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 02:04 PM
taken over is not the same as hostile taken over. hostile is when company A buys slowly company B over the period of few years against the wishes of management who cannot do anything against that (shareholders can fight it tough by simply voting a no sale policies if they think company A is getting too much power inside the company. there are other methods too)

a private company can be taken over anytime (unless there is an issue of monopoly) when shareholders agree to do that. it cannot be hostile, but it is 'take over'

deano2099
12-09-2012, 03:37 PM
a private company can be taken over anytime (unless there is an issue of monopoly) when shareholders agree to do that. it cannot be hostile, but it is 'take over'

Only in the same way I takeover oranges when I buy them from the shop.

Does anyone else know if Gabe is the only shareholder? If he does want to retire he can always appoint someone else to run the company while still owning it. It's not an either/or.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 03:58 PM
Only in the same way I takeover oranges when I buy them from the shop.

takeover is perfectly valid legal term which i never heard being applied to oranges. had used it and read about it tough and wrote assignment about it..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-03/kraft-clinches-cadbury-takeover-deal/319688



Does anyone else know if Gabe is the only shareholder?
list of people with nonsense descriptions (although witty)
http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/people.html
no idea to be honest who is second in command. Isn't it faliszek?

If he does want to retire he can always appoint someone else to run the company while still owning it. It's not an either/or.

then he won't retire. he won't be running company on daily basis but as an owner he will have responsibilities. he can keep shares for himself tough and retire from doing anything and having any real responsibility but he would have to get rid of most of his shares in the company... if he is currently main owner of the whole company. without actually seeing their constitution and few other documents its hard to speculate on how likely is for valve to become part of EA or Act in case of Gabe telling everyone to fuck off or in case of his death.

Kadayi
12-09-2012, 04:39 PM
a private company can be taken over anytime (unless there is an issue of monopoly) when shareholders agree to do that. it cannot be hostile, but it is 'take over'


It's called a buy out. A takeover is always viewed as a hostile action.

Nalano
12-09-2012, 04:40 PM
list of people with nonsense descriptions (although witty)
http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/people.html
no idea to be honest who is second in command. Isn't it faliszek?

Gabe owns more than fifty percent (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/03/07/valve-gabe-newell-billionaire/) of the company and the company is not publicly traded. Gabe owns the company. Simple as that.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 05:39 PM
It's called a buy out. A takeover is always viewed as a hostile action.

no.
its hostile takeover. read the article. takeover does not to be hostile.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 05:41 PM
Gabe owns more than fifty percent (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/03/07/valve-gabe-newell-billionaire/) of the company and the company
thx for the article.

is not publicly traded. Gabe owns the company. Simple as that.
we do know that. not sure what your point is. i don't think anyone here questioned the fact that he is the main owner. just how much he owns...

TechnicalBen
12-09-2012, 05:43 PM
The company has no shareholders. It cannot be taken over. Gabe owns it all (or the equivalent of all of it)!

Kadayi
12-09-2012, 05:43 PM
no.
its hostile takeover. read the article. takeover does not to be hostile.

1) Learn to capitalize.

2) Understand the difference between publicly traded companies and privately owned companies.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 05:47 PM
The company has no shareholders. It cannot be taken over. Gabe owns it all (or the equivalent of all of it)!

companies have shareholders. always (well okay. one man business technically and legally does not... in a way. more complicated than that.)

shares is not the same as stock.

and yeah. what i am saying that yes. it can be taken over. because you can sell company. gabe can sell it. if he is sole owner he doesn't need to answer to anyone. but if he is not sole owner even if he has majority of shares, he has to ensure minority is not hurt or put in disadvantage.

and when he sells his shares in a company (not stock. that's different) that will be a takeover (for example EA will buy valve. it will take over Valve)


1) Learn to capitalize.

2) Understand the difference between publicly traded companies and privately owned companies.
I do. As I spent 3 years studying that and I owned my own company, I know the difference. If all takeovers are hostile then there is no reason for a term "hostile takeover" to exist.

Apologies for capitalizing but really? That is your argument?

Barnox
12-09-2012, 05:48 PM
To summarise:

You can't buy/own any of it if they aren't selling any of it.
At the moment, there is no way to own any of Valve.

To the best of my knowledge, Valve are not distributing either shares or stock. Please, point me to sources if I am wrong.
No company needs to sell things publicly. If they are making enough cash without doing that risky business (oh, hello Steam), they have no need to.

Hypernetic
12-09-2012, 05:57 PM
companies have shareholders. always (well okay. one man business technically and legally does not... in a way. more complicated than that.)

shares is not the same as stock.

and yeah. what i am saying that yes. it can be taken over. because you can sell company. gabe can sell it. if he is sole owner he doesn't need to answer to anyone. but if he is not sole owner even if he has majority of shares, he has to ensure minority is not hurt or put in disadvantage.

and when he sells his shares in a company (not stock. that's different) that will be a takeover (for example EA will buy valve. it will take over Valve)


I do. As I spent 3 years studying that and I owned my own company, I know the difference. If all takeovers are hostile then there is no reason for a term "hostile takeover" to exist.

Apologies for capitalizing but really? That is your argument?

That would be a buyout. Yes, the buyer would "take over" control of the company, but no it's not a "take over".

Also this whole discussion is pointless, Gabe isn't selling Valve and EA couldn't afford to buy Valve. Valve is still growing at an impressive rate and they have plans to enter the hardware market. In the next 5-10 years it's entirely possible that Valve will be larger than Activision/Blizzard. In fact it's entirely possible that Valve's total equity is greater than EA's already.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 06:03 PM
That would be a buyout. Yes, the buyer would "take over" control of the company, but no it's not a "take over".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover

apparently in UK the takeover is indeed used solely for public companies (but it does not need to be hostile) for private it is acquisition.
A mistake on my part for assuming we all speak one language. In Australia it is "take over". Acquisition, buy out, same. You can use the term "take over" to discuss how private company was sold off to another party.


Also this whole discussion is pointless, Gabe isn't selling Valve and EA couldn't afford to buy Valve. Valve is still growing at an impressive rate and they have plans to enter the hardware market. In the next 5-10 years it's entirely possible that Valve will be larger than Activision/Blizzard. In fact it's entirely possible that Valve's total equity is greater than EA's already.
I agree. Highly unlikely.

Stense
12-09-2012, 06:12 PM
Valve, I have half a pack of liquorice Allsorts and a a spare change jar with at least 2.39 in that could all be yours if you accept my buy out offer. Interested?

Nalano
12-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Valve, I have half a pack of liquorice Allsorts and a a spare change jar with at least 2.39 in that could all be yours if you accept my buy out offer. Interested?

No, but if you can make a game out of that, they might hire you.

TechnicalBen
12-09-2012, 08:54 PM
Lukaz, but you cannot "take over" a company that is not for sale. We were referring specifically to how EA could not buy into shares, but the same applies to buying of any kind if Gabe is not selling.

Think of a number, add more zeros to it. Then double it. Then times it by the number of starts in the universe and offer it in $$$ to Gabe. He will still say no, because he does not want (or is that need?) the money, but does want to own the company known as Steam. With Gabe out of the picture, then yes, we could expect trading, selling or the entire company to turn into a balloon factory for all it's worth.

Lukasz
13-09-2012, 05:56 AM
Lukaz, but you cannot "take over" a company that is not for sale. We were referring specifically to how EA could not buy into shares, but the same applies to buying of any kind if Gabe is not selling.

of course. but that was not the point. i think we all agree that chance of valve being taken over/acquired/bought out is very slim. we argued whether in case of private company the term is a correct one. In UK it is not according to wiki. in australia it is a correct one.

TechnicalBen
13-09-2012, 08:44 AM
Fine have it your way. :P

"RPS is not safe right now. There is a risk they could be taken over at any moment! Our sources tell us Techy Ben has offered 1 to buy them out in a hostile takeover of the company. More news at 6."

Do you agree with the above statement? If not, the same applies to Valve...

Lukasz
13-09-2012, 09:41 AM
Fine have it your way. :P

"RPS is not safe right now. There is a risk they could be taken over at any moment! Our sources tell us Techy Ben has offered 1 to buy them out in a hostile takeover of the company. More news at 6."

Do you agree with the above statement? If not, the same applies to Valve...
what the hell are you talking about. Yes. Valve, RPS can be bought anytime. thats a fact. Is that likely? with valve not very. With RPS... possible!

TechnicalBen
13-09-2012, 12:54 PM
Really? I'd like to know RPS comment on how they "can be bought anytime". I currently run a business. Can it be bought any time? What is the legality of someone else buying my business when I'm not selling anytime?

So the phrase "can be bought anytime" makes as much sense as saying "the Queens Crown Jewels can be bought any time" or "The Houses or parliament/Sidney Opera House can be bought any time". IE it needs to be for sale first.

Lukasz
13-09-2012, 01:24 PM
Really? I'd like to know RPS comment on how they "can be bought anytime". I currently run a business. Can it be bought any time? What is the legality of someone else buying my business when I'm not selling anytime?

because you can be selling anytime. RPS can be bought anytime because they can sell it anytime.

So the phrase "can be bought anytime" makes as much sense as saying "the Queens Crown Jewels can be bought any time" or "The Houses or parliament/Sidney Opera House can be bought any time". IE it needs to be for sale first.
companies are always available for sale. that's what you don't get. valve, rps is always available for sale because anytime anyone can come to the owner and say they want to purchase it.

it is unlikely that valve is going to be sold because gabe really has no incentive to sale it for many reasons. it is not like a company is behind the counter and simply not available.
if somebody came and offered RPS owners, 500 million American dollars, do you think they would not sale? if someobody offered gabe 50 billion dollars would he not sale it?

so yes. valve is available for sale. is it likely? no. very unlikely at this moment based on what we know.

gunman121
13-09-2012, 01:51 PM
When Gamestop acquired Impulse I pretty much walked away from the service and the 30-40 games I had on there. Would be harder to do with my 5-600 games if Valve sold out - which is, let's be honest, entirely possible within the next 5-10 years, but less likely in the near future.


If you don't mind me asking -- Why?

Gamestop hasn't wrecked it imo. The client system looks pretty nice now. They offer you rewards for buying games and they offer pretty decent deals. I got Darksiders 2 from them a week ago for $30. Steam hasn't even had it that cheap yet. Best of all, just abut all their games activate on Steam.

Sorry I'm not taking part in this "takeover/buyout" thing. Was just curious towards that.

gundato
13-09-2012, 02:16 PM
I can't speak for fright, but I avoid Gamestop on principle.

First: They are hurting the industry and are basically the reason behind all the DRM designed to combat used game sales and artificial DLC (stuff that was already done, but is sold separately anyway). Gamestop's business model is to buy-back a new game for 15 dollars then sell the used copy for 50 (10 dollars cheaper!). That REALLY affects the sales figures for console games (and profits) and is basically why we have Day 1 DLC (it kills resale value).
The best part is that the only thing really "known" about the next generation of consoles is that they will probably have integrated DRM mechanisms to combat resale. So the CEO of Gamestop is repeatedly going on record about how used game sales are good for the industry somehow.
Gamestop also basically killed the PSP Go (Sony's attempt at shifting the market to digital distribution by making a PSP that didn't have a disc drive) by refusing to stock it and have made similar threats any time a publisher wants to go pure digital on a title.
That's right, Gamestop is why we are still paying out the ass on all our games. Because retail has costs that digital doesn't, but distributors get pissed when there is a price discrepancy (why buy retail if Digital is 50% cheaper?) and gamers get pissed when different platforms have different prices.

Second, every Gamestop I have ever gone to is full of assholes. Whether that is teenagers screaming profanities into cell phones while standing in line (a good store tells them to get the hell out. Children don't need to hear how this "african american female dog performed fellatio on you" or this gem of an exchange I had a few years back (before DD took off)
Me: "Hey, do you guys have any copies of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 in stock? It released today, but I don't see any on shelves. Do you have any in the back?"
Counter Guy: "Fuck that shit. Why would you want a faggy game like that? Get Halo instead"
And crap like that was not localized to a single store (that one just sticks in my mind). At least, at the time, Gamestop wanted to "appeal" to gamers by hiring "gamers".


Third, they killed Electronics Boutique/EB. I remember growing up. Gamestop was where you went to get console games. EB actually had more than one shelf of PC games (and said shelf wasn't just Starcraft and Warcraft...). EB and Gamestop merged (not sure who bought who, or if they were always the same company) and EB stores became Gamestop until they just stopped existing.

Fourth. Last November I decided to buy a tablet (ASUS Transformer Prime). After spending most of December calling around to see who had it in stock to pre-order, Gamestop revealed that they could "guarantee" me to receive one on a specific date in early January because they were getting a special shipment and nobody else (not even Amazon) would be getting one until February 1st. Excited (and a bit stupid...) I drove down to place my pre-order. But I was still smart enough to not cancel my Amazon pre-order (that honestly said "Beginning of February" because Amazon gives an upper bound and narrows down). I figured, Amazon has a good returns policy if Gamestop screws up, and I would rather buy from Amazon anyway. And a few weeks later they even updated to something along the lines of "January 20th" while Gamestop was still at January 10th or something.
On January 9th, I called the Gamestop to confirm they were available and still got "Yes, we guaranteed it to you. It will be there"
On January 10th I called before heading over (it was a busy day, but I wanted my toy) and was told they weren't in stock but would be there late next week (hmmm....). I was a bit pissed because the only reason I even placed a pre-order was because they guaranteed it. And every time I asked a question, they hung up on me.
After being treated like garbage (including the people on the phone using fake voices to pretend they were the manager), I finally got a hold of the manager. Said Manager basically said "Oh, the person you talked to was a seasonal employee and she is no longer here" (she was the one who handed the phone to the manager, finally... That is why you take notes on who you talk to. After pressing the Manager on how "guarantee" actually means something, he (after "losing connection" a few times) said she was misinformed. When I asked her who misinformed her, he said the person who was managing her at the time. When I finally snapped and demanded a refund (and was told that I would have to get the refund in person...), he gave the gem of "I've been managing this store for 3 years and I have never had a problem with it", at which point I burst into laughter.
Needless to say, I filed one hell of a complaint with the Better Businesses Bureau after that one and I refuse to ever go back to a Gamestop. I even stopped using Kongregate to goof off with.
Note: The specific dates may be wrong, but the relationships are right (so their actual arrival date was the same as Amazon's).

But I do have to think Gamestop for one thing. They are basically why almost every publisher finds that they make more PC sales on digital platforms than anywhere else, which really led to the rise of Steam. So jokes on them, we win anyway.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 02:41 PM
I can't speak for fright, but I avoid Gamestop on principle.

First: They are hurting the industry and are basically the reason behind all the DRM designed to combat used game sales and artificial DLC (stuff that was already done, but is sold separately anyway). Gamestop's business model is to buy-back a new game for 15 dollars then sell the used copy for 50 (10 dollars cheaper!). That REALLY affects the sales figures for console games (and profits) and is basically why we have Day 1 DLC (it kills resale value).

Why should I as a consumer give a shit as to how the secondary market hurts the profits of publishers? The secondary market is how a lot of gamers kept their gaming budgets within reasonable means.

gundato
13-09-2012, 02:48 PM
Why should I as a consumer give a shit as to how the secondary market hurts the profits of publishers? The secondary market is how a lot of gamers kept their gaming budgets within reasonable means.
Well, for one thing, it has led to the Day 1 DLC and many of the DRM models that people, as consumers, have been bitching about. Everyone is so quick to say DRM doesn't stop piracy and Day 1 DLC is a scam. Well, this is what they have a large impact on.

Second, Gamestop really isn't all that reasonable in the first place. Excluding special sales (and even then...), the price they are asking is still crap. It reminds me of back when I had to buy books for class in college. I could save maybe 10 or 20 bucks (on one of the expensive books. Much less of a price difference on the cheaper ones) in exchange for something that had probably been used to wipe someone's ass.

Of course, I quickly found out: I can pay the "used' price and get a brand new book from Amazon. Which actually mirrors gaming pretty well. You can rely on getting price gouged for used stuff (which profits the retailer MASSIVELY), or you can shop around and find a good deal. And that "shopping around" generally just means checking Amazon's deal of the day every so often.

Although, its worth noting that Gamefly does a rental service and are actually a really good deal if you play a lot of new (console) games.

TechnicalBen
13-09-2012, 05:53 PM
Again Lukaz, I said "make the number as big as you like" say your "500 million dollars". Gabe is not selling. He said "I am never selling, I will close down Valve if need be, but I will not sell it". See the difference? Steam can be sold, it's the store, but the production company called "Valve" is Gabe.

pakoito
13-09-2012, 05:54 PM
GabeN has been sitting atop of the Maslow Pyramid since the mid 00s. No need to sell for him. He has his toy company with his toy employees creating his dreamgames (Dota buyout for remaking? totally GabeN) without the need of external budget. The engine to his dream-fulfilling company is the most important software piece of PC Gaming history, which literally prints money while providing a good service and turning tables against piracy while enhancing user experience.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 05:55 PM
Again Lukaz, I said "make the number as big as you like" say your "500 million dollars". Gabe is not selling. He said "I am never selling, I will close down Valve if need be, but I will not sell it". See the difference? Steam can be sold, it's the store, but the production company called "Valve" is Gabe.

Steam is a Valve creation. Valve can (and won't) sell Steam.
Valve is owned by Gaben. Gaben can (and won't) sell Valve.


Well, for one thing, it has led to the Day 1 DLC and many of the DRM models that people, as consumers, have been bitching about. Everyone is so quick to say DRM doesn't stop piracy and Day 1 DLC is a scam. Well, this is what they have a large impact on.

Piracy is my consumer rights agency.

Also, why are you blaming the brick & mortars - who made their rent by the secondary market - for the decisions of publishers? They're not our friends - neither of them. And their infighting over control of our dollar is a concern of theirs, not ours.

lasikbear
13-09-2012, 06:01 PM
Again Lukaz, I said "make the number as big as you like" say your "500 million dollars". Gabe is not selling. He said "I am never selling, I will close down Valve if need be, but I will not sell it". See the difference? Steam can be sold, it's the store, but the production company called "Valve" is Gabe.

Pretty sure he means "If I was in a situation where to keep the company alive I would have to sell it I would not sell it and the company would close down." EA has the ability to offer him money for his company, but that's it.

gundato
13-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Piracy is my consumer rights agency.

Also, why are you blaming the brick & mortars - who made their rent by the secondary market - for the decisions of publishers? They're not our friends - neither of them. And their infighting over control of our dollar is a concern of theirs, not ours.
Gonna ignore the completely random first sentence. I guess you just aren't yet tired of all the piracy debates

And I blame Gamestop because they made their entire business out of screwing over the customer AND the publisher. And because their actions, at the very least, give publishers an excuse to do some stuff that has had quite a few bad consequences.

Yes, we get it, you hate companies and you think everyone hates gamers and blah blah blah. Fact of the matter is: How do you fight used game sales? You add DLC (free or otherwise) and you make them MP focused. The former I am neutral toward, the latter I don't like.

Now, I know you are going to say "Har har, you just said you hate Gamestop but still called me out on hating companies in general". And that's true.

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/tekken-tag-tournament-2/98618
That game came out this month. Gamestop will apparently give you a 30 dollar trade-in credit (not sure if that is a special online thing or not). They'll sell a used copy for 48 bucks online (55 in stores, it looks like).
So you save 12 dollars if you buy it used: Maybe that is a decent deal, but it is pretty much the same you can get for a new title if you can wait a few weeks for a sale (honestly, sales seem to go a LOT lower these days, but whatever). And then you consider: "What is the day one DLC worth?" and you usually get between 5 and 10 dollars. And if it is Arkham City, that Day 1 DLC is a pretty big part of the game...
So you are saving 5-7 dollars on MSRP by buying used. And Gamestop is making a crapton of profit on each sale (because who knows how little they'll give you if you sell them back a used game. Probably a lot less than 30).
But the people who MADE that game. The people who will decide to make a new game based upon sales, only see one sale, regardless of how many times that game changes hands.

That is QUITE different than "We want to encourage gamers to buy our games new. Let's give them free pre-order incentives (regardless of when said pre-order incentive was complete).

But you are right, this doesn't affect us as PC gamers. Because Gamestop stopped giving a crap about us LONG ago because they can't gouge us. Why? Because almost every game these days has activation model DRM that makes re-selling difficult, at best. But there couldn't possibly be a correlation between the two, could there?
What's that? Sony and MS were considering blocking used games from the consoles? Wow. No idea why.

So it isn't "siding with the evil corporation who only wants to hurt you and is the enemy" as you like to go on about. It is about realizing there is someone whose actions are provably (admittedly, only through trends and empirical data) hurting the industry, and that the industry still makes the shinies we want.

As for Gamefly: I am not huge on them from a customer service standpoint, and they screw publishers in much the same way that Gamestop does, but at least they don't screw the consumer. Gamefly is a very good service if you play a lot of different video games and they have very good rates. So while they might not be great for the industry, they at least overcome that by being a good thing for consumers.

Kaira-
13-09-2012, 09:26 PM
And I blame Gamestop because they made their entire business out of screwing over the customer AND the publisher.

Dont't know about you, but I've found a lot of good deals from Gamestop.


Fact of the matter is: How do you fight used game sales?

Why do you need to fight used sales? Books, albums and movies don't do that, but apparently gaming industry is so fragile that people lending and reselling their games hurts it very very badly.

RobF
13-09-2012, 09:30 PM
But the people who MADE that game. The people who will decide to make a new game based upon sales, only see one sale, regardless of how many times that game changes hands

Tough shit! They've had their money, why should they get more?

Fumarole
13-09-2012, 09:44 PM
I've no love for Gamestop but now that they've acquired Impulse I have a use for those gift cards clueless relatives send me during the holidays.

gundato
13-09-2012, 10:24 PM
Why do you need to fight used sales? Books, albums and movies don't do that, but apparently gaming industry is so fragile that people lending and reselling their games hurts it very very badly.[/COLOR]

Used books are generally restricted to older titles that were out of print, not so much the hardcovers they initially release in. People who buy hardcovers tend to be book lovers who want a pristine copy or people who really want to read the story NOW. That being said: I read on the pooper, and I assume other people do too. I don't want to touch a used book :p

Music and Movies make most of their money (that they "care about") in concerts and theatres.

Games rely on those sales for revenue. And even if we assume they don't "need" the money (let's say enough people buy it new), that is still a HUGE chunk of cash they are missing out on. If you are a manufacturer of something and you see sales statistics suggesting that a third party may be making profits comparable to your own on stuff you made, that raises some red flags.

And that is not even getting into the "isolated cases" of Gamestop managers selling used games as new (because they separate the box and the disc anyway, so it is really hard to tell).

deano2099
13-09-2012, 10:33 PM
Fact of the matter is: How do you fight used game sales?

You make games cheap enough that there is no demand for a second-hand market (see: books, music, DVDs). If that means making shorter games, then fine.

Or, you don't make the margins on new games so small that it's literally impossible for a town-centre shop to make money selling them. Gamestop didn't always do used games, but as the margins on new titles were squeezed and squeezed by the publishers until used games became the only way to make profit.

I won't deny that that they take the piss with the massive difference in sale and purchase price, but it's interesting to note that Gamestop in the US is pretty much an anomaly in that they're filthy rice. GAME do the exactly the same thing in Europe and dying a slow, protracted death.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 10:46 PM
You make games cheap enough that there is no demand for a second-hand market (see: books, music, DVDs). If that means making shorter games, then fine.

Or, you don't make the margins on new games so small that it's literally impossible for a town-centre shop to make money selling them. Gamestop didn't always do used games, but as the margins on new titles were squeezed and squeezed by the publishers until used games became the only way to make profit.

I won't deny that that they take the piss with the massive difference in sale and purchase price, but it's interesting to note that Gamestop in the US is pretty much an anomaly in that they're filthy rice. GAME do the exactly the same thing in Europe and dying a slow, protracted death.

They would lose more money doing that then they would save through eliminating used game sales....

Nalano
13-09-2012, 10:48 PM
but it's interesting to note that Gamestop in the US is pretty much an anomaly in that they're filthy rice.

Wait. What? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/gamestop-profit-tumbles-as-game-consumers-spend-online.html)

gundato
13-09-2012, 11:06 PM
They would lose more money doing that then they would save through eliminating used game sales....
Yeah, I am not saying the publishers are innocent, far from it. But Gamestop is definitely a large part of why we are at this point. They saw a way to increase profits (good for them) and they exploited the living hell out of it AND gamers.

And I still think that their refusal to stock the PSP Go (at least at first, I am not sure if they changed their mind) is one reason why prices are so high. Yes, licensing fees are higher on consoles (well, they EXIST on consoles) so you are always going to have that price that publishers won't get rid of so as to not make people "second class gamers". But you can get rid of a LOT of those distribution expenses if you switch to a primarily digital model. The problem is making the transition.

But fortunately, Gamestop are now selling DLC in the sense that you drive to the store, buy it from them, enter it on their website, and they download it to your XBOX. I am NOT making this up... But hopefully this sheer and utter stupidity will convince people they don't even NEED to go to Gamestop to buy that serial number.

And when your primary source of revenue has "zero cost" (not zero, but you know what I mean), you can even afford to take a hit on alternate ones (brick and mortar) if it means building a userbase. Case in point: Look at Amazon and the Kindles.
So the shift to digital results in cheaper games. Look at how many quality PC titles have launched at the 30 dollar mark in the past few years.


And for the record: Excluding used titles (which are of questionable value once you factor in stuff like Day 1 DLC and the like), I actually get most of my console games through either Amazon sales or hitting up Toys R Us or Target during their sales. I can only think of two or three times that I didn't see a good Gamestop deal mirrored (or better) at one of those three within a few weeks (if not within a few hours). If I were a true denizen of CAG (which means I buy all the copies so I can sell later because that is what everyone on those boards seems to do...) I would care. But I am only getting games for myself and occasional gifts, so I can afford to say "I would rather pay a few more bucks to use Target or Amazon" or "I can wait a few weeks for a better deal".

Its the same logic by which some people say "I am only going to deal with these N digital distribution sites. I don't want to have forty different accounts" and they really don't pay much more so long as at least one of those is Steam :p

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 11:40 PM
Yeah, I am not saying the publishers are innocent, far from it. But Gamestop is definitely a large part of why we are at this point. They saw a way to increase profits (good for them) and they exploited the living hell out of it AND gamers.

And I still think that their refusal to stock the PSP Go (at least at first, I am not sure if they changed their mind) is one reason why prices are so high. Yes, licensing fees are higher on consoles (well, they EXIST on consoles) so you are always going to have that price that publishers won't get rid of so as to not make people "second class gamers". But you can get rid of a LOT of those distribution expenses if you switch to a primarily digital model. The problem is making the transition.

But fortunately, Gamestop are now selling DLC in the sense that you drive to the store, buy it from them, enter it on their website, and they download it to your XBOX. I am NOT making this up... But hopefully this sheer and utter stupidity will convince people they don't even NEED to go to Gamestop to buy that serial number.

And when your primary source of revenue has "zero cost" (not zero, but you know what I mean), you can even afford to take a hit on alternate ones (brick and mortar) if it means building a userbase. Case in point: Look at Amazon and the Kindles.
So the shift to digital results in cheaper games. Look at how many quality PC titles have launched at the 30 dollar mark in the past few years.


And for the record: Excluding used titles (which are of questionable value once you factor in stuff like Day 1 DLC and the like), I actually get most of my console games through either Amazon sales or hitting up Toys R Us or Target during their sales. I can only think of two or three times that I didn't see a good Gamestop deal mirrored (or better) at one of those three within a few weeks (if not within a few hours). If I were a true denizen of CAG (which means I buy all the copies so I can sell later because that is what everyone on those boards seems to do...) I would care. But I am only getting games for myself and occasional gifts, so I can afford to say "I would rather pay a few more bucks to use Target or Amazon" or "I can wait a few weeks for a better deal".

Its the same logic by which some people say "I am only going to deal with these N digital distribution sites. I don't want to have forty different accounts" and they really don't pay much more so long as at least one of those is Steam :p

Gamestop didn't invent the second hand market...

Nalano
13-09-2012, 11:41 PM
Gamestop didn't invent the second hand market...

Look: If it wasn't for those evil developers, there wouldn't be software piracy. HOW DARE THEY MAKE GAMES.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 11:44 PM
Look: If it wasn't for those evil developers, there wouldn't be software piracy. HOW DARE THEY MAKE GAMES.

I know right, and damn those people who sell their houses! They are evil and taking money from hard working home builders/developers!

gundato
14-09-2012, 12:02 AM
Gamestop didn't invent the second hand market...
But they pretty much base their entire model on it and are the "gold standard" by which all other used game programs are seen (in the US, at least).


I know right, and damn those people who sell their houses! They are evil and taking money from hard working home builders/developers!
Which, much like the previously mentioned books example, is nothing like this. The cost of building the house is made back when the house is built (hardcover sales). So all future sales are a different mess entirely.

But please, feel free to keep setting up straw men to knock down.

Finicky
14-09-2012, 12:25 AM
I know right, and damn those people who sell their houses! They are evil and taking money from hard working home builders/developers!

When you sell your house the real estate agent doesn't take 80 percent of the cut...

I think lending games or private selling is great, helps spread the word on games (it's how me and my friends discovered a lot of good games over the years) and the seller gets some of his money back to spend on whatever.

But gamestop (ANY random games shop e.g Game Mania here in belgium is just as bad) basically syphon huge amounts of money out of the gaming market.
Offering people 5-15 bucks for a second hand game, selling it on for double or triple, and whatfor?

They feed off both gamers and the industry and contribute absolutely nothing to it.


People only have so much money to spend on games, and many are giving a large amount of it to gamestop or other stores who contribute nothing to the quality of videogames, and gamestop is not going to go out and buy new games with their moneys to play at home with timmy from next doors.
It's wasted money.

If they took an approriate amount for the service rendered (glorified flea market + having some puberescent dropout get his germs on the manual and box) then it would be a different story, but they don't.

It's far worse than piracy.
If I pirate 10 games and buy one DD game then I spent 40-50 euros on the creation and distribution of video games.
If I don't pirate but spend my 40-50 euros on buying 2-3 second hand games from gamestop or game mania then I spent 0 euros on the creation and distribution of video games.

The optimistic argument that the person who sold his games will spend the money gotten from the buyer on new games doesn't work in this case, because most of the money he got for his game (from the buyer) has gone to gamestop.
Gamestop is not going to donate their money to kickstarter or some publisher or developer.

Not like it matters, people always balk at these facts and stick their fingers in their ears going LALALALALALA (usually in the form of ad hominem arguments, derailing or changing the subject).

Let me reiterate because it's exactly what'll happen.
Gamestop and co syphon bucketloads of money out of the gaming market through the second hand market.

For all you consumerist , advertising loving corporate apologists, you are the placenta of the precious fetus that is the gaming industry, and the second hand market in the form of gamestop is a parasite latching on to the umbellical cord sucking out most of the nutrients that pass through.
Your poor baby is suffering but you turn the other way because of a combination of mixed interests and cognitive dissonance allows you to conveniently retain the moral highground and shift the blame.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 12:32 AM
But they pretty much base their entire model on it and are the "gold standard" by which all other used game programs are seen (in the US, at least).


Which, much like the previously mentioned books example, is nothing like this. The cost of building the house is made back when the house is built (hardcover sales). So all future sales are a different mess entirely.

But please, feel free to keep setting up straw men to knock down.

The cost of making a game is covered by selling the game new too. Unless you think every single game publisher just releases games at a loss all the time and is somehow still in business.


When you sell your house the real estate agent doesn't take 80 percent of the cut...

I think lending games or private selling is great, helps spread the word on games (it's how me and my friends discovered a lot of good games over the years) and the seller gets some of his money back to spend on whatever.

But gamestop (ANY random games shop e.g Game Mania here in belgium is just as bad) basically syphon huge amounts of money out of the gaming market.
Offering people 5-15 bucks for a second hand game, selling it on for double or triple, and whatfor?

They feed off both gamers and the industry and contribute absolutely nothing to it.


People only have so much money to spend on games, and many are giving a large amount of it to gamestop or other stores who contribute nothing to the quality of videogames.
Wasted money.

If they took an approriate amount for the service rendered (glorified flea market + having some puberescent dropout get his germs on the manual and box) then it would be a different story, but they don't.

It's far worse than piracy.
If I pirate 10 games and buy one DD game then I spent 40-50 euros on the creation and distribution of video games.
If I don't pirate but spend my 40-50 euros on buying 2-3 second hand games from gamestop or game mania then I spent 0 euros on the creation and distribution of video games.

The optimistic argument that the person who sold his games will spend the money gotten from the buyer on new games doesn't work in this case, because most of the money he got for his game (from the buyer) has gone to gamestop.
Gamestop is not going to donate their money to kickstarter or some publisher or developer.

Not like it matters, people always balk at these facts and stick their fingers in their ears going LALALALALALA (usually in the form of ad hominem arguments, derailing or changing the subject).

So if I sell a used xbox game on ebay for $35 it's ok, but if gamestop does it they are evil because they contribute nothing to the industry.

P.S. Gamestop does sell new games in addition to used games, pretty crazy I know. Maybe we should focus our efforts on pawn shops instead.

Finicky
14-09-2012, 12:43 AM
So if I sell a used xbox game on ebay for $35 it's ok, but if gamestop does it they are evil because they contribute nothing to the industry.


Exactly... (here comes the cognitive dissonance bit from you...)

Wether or not it's okay is a matter of opinion and is irrelevant to the argument that gamestop is syphoning a large share of money out of the pockets of the market that game developers target and rely upon.
They are by definition a parasite that is taking marketshare from the industry without contributing.



P.S. Gamestop does sell new games in addition to used games, pretty crazy I know. Maybe we should focus our efforts on pawn shops instead.
Why bring this up? This has nothing to do with anything at all. They distribute games for publishers yes, and?

May I suggest you read this? : http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/reading-comp/1st-ball-for-my-dog_TZZMD.pdf
!I suggest you make use of the answer key as you seem to be having problems.
Practice a lot then read some more forums in a whole new light. Baby steps.

SirKicksalot
14-09-2012, 12:53 AM
Trading games fuels day/week 1 sales.

gundato
14-09-2012, 01:08 AM
The cost of making a game is covered by selling the game new too. Unless you think every single game publisher just releases games at a loss all the time and is somehow still in business.
No, but let's just do a bit of math here.

Game A is sold 4 times for X dollars.

If sold new, the publisher of Game A makes 4X dollars (yes, the store gets a cut, but it doesn't matter)
If all 4 copies of Game A were the same copy, just bought and resold repeatedly by a store, then the publisher makes X dollars.

Assuming that the publisher is not paying us to play the game, then 4X > X.




So if I sell a used xbox game on ebay for $35 it's ok, but if gamestop does it they are evil because they contribute nothing to the industry.

P.S. Gamestop does sell new games in addition to used games, pretty crazy I know. Maybe we should focus our efforts on pawn shops instead.
Actually, yes. It is perfectly okay. Because you aren't doing it on a huge scale. Now, if you made a business out of buying games on eBay for cheap and selling them for 3 times the price you bought them, I would think you are a dick. But you probably still wouldn't be doing it on a huge scale.

And yes, Gamestop sells new games too. But they make their huge profits on the whole "Screwing customers and the publishers". Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that.

And here is the beautiful thing that you may not understand: I am not saying other people shouldn't buy from Gamestop. I would prefer it if they didn't, but they are really just screwing themselves over more than anything else. I know, it is a crazy thought. Someone expressing an opinion without thinking anyone with a differing opinion is stupid and an enemy of gaming? Preposterous!

But somebody asked why somebody was turned off of Impulse after it got bought by Gamestop, and I explained why a LOT of gamers dislike Gamestop. And it mostly boils down to them screwing over the publisher AND the customer, rather than just picking one like a normal seller.

deano2099
14-09-2012, 01:16 AM
Wait. What? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/gamestop-profit-tumbles-as-game-consumers-spend-online.html)

Decline sure, but they're still making shitloads. Over here in the UK GAME closed half their stores as they literally couldn't pay the rent.


They would lose more money doing that then they would save through eliminating used game sales....

Maybe. Maybe they'd sell more at a lower price.



They feed off both gamers and the industry and contribute absolutely nothing to it.
Y'know, except for providing a high street presence for videogames. Again, this is one of those debates when most people in forums like this keep the blinkers on. We are not normal.

See, if second-hand sales were eliminated, game shops would not be a viable business. The margins on new games are just too small. They would close down. You might not mind that, I might not mind that, but the publishers are scared shitless of that happening because they need a high street presence for games, they need to stick them in people's faces, because that's how they sell most of their games. And if that option isn't available to people, they're not suddenly going to go digital. They'll spend the money on gin or whores instead. Because they're not 'gamers', they are just people what play games and they are the main audience. The value of having actual stores out there on the high street to the industry is huge.


Gamestop is not going to donate their money to kickstarter or some publisher or developer.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK the most common trade-in tends to be old for new. It's kids trading in the game of last month so they can get the game of this month (that came out two days ago, and so doesn't have second-hand copies available yet) for half price.

deano2099
14-09-2012, 01:25 AM
No, but let's just do a bit of math here.

Game A is sold 4 times for X dollars.

If sold new, the publisher of Game A makes 4X dollars (yes, the store gets a cut, but it doesn't matter)
If all 4 copies of Game A were the same copy, just bought and resold repeatedly by a store, then the publisher makes X dollars.

Assuming that the publisher is not paying us to play the game, then 4X > X.


That's the 'every pirated copy is a lost sale' argument.

Where does that 4X dollars come from? I don't suddenly have 4x as much money to spend on games if we stop secondhand sales. What you're not accounting for is the fact that when someone trades in a game, they generally get store credit, which they spend on games. Sometimes new, sometimes second-hand.

Unlike piracy though, we can put an exact figure on it: the lost revenue for the game publishers is equal to Gamestop's profits on secondhand sales. The cut, the bit you say doesn't matter, is the only thing that does matter. As the best possible scenario here is that the income that did belong to Gamestop gets moved to the publisher instead.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 01:38 AM
Exactly... (here comes the cognitive dissonance bit from you...)

Wether or not it's okay is a matter of opinion and is irrelevant to the argument that gamestop is syphoning a large share of money out of the pockets of the market that game developers target and rely upon.
They are by definition a parasite that is taking marketshare from the industry without contributing.


Why bring this up? This has nothing to do with anything at all. They distribute games for publishers yes, and?

May I suggest you read this? : http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/reading-comp/1st-ball-for-my-dog_TZZMD.pdf
!I suggest you make use of the answer key as you seem to be having problems.
Practice a lot then read some more forums in a whole new light. Baby steps.

That's cute, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

gundato
14-09-2012, 01:45 AM
That's the 'every pirated copy is a lost sale' argument.

Where does that 4X dollars come from? I don't suddenly have 4x as much money to spend on games if we stop secondhand sales. What you're not accounting for is the fact that when someone trades in a game, they generally get store credit, which they spend on games. Sometimes new, sometimes second-hand.

Unlike piracy though, we can put an exact figure on it: the lost revenue for the game publishers is equal to Gamestop's profits on secondhand sales. The cut, the bit you say doesn't matter, is the only thing that does matter. As the best possible scenario here is that the income that did belong to Gamestop gets moved to the publisher instead.
Well, not really. My point is just why secondhand sales are bad. If someone purchases a used game, the publisher does not see a single penny from that transaction.

If you want to make the example REALLY complicated, add a k that corresponds to the percentage of mark-up so that stores make a profit as well as the probability of a purchase.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 01:48 AM
Well, not really. My point is just why secondhand sales are bad. If someone purchases a used game, the publisher does not see a single penny from that transaction.

If you want to make the example REALLY complicated, add a k that corresponds to the percentage of mark-up so that stores make a profit as well as the probability of a purchase.

The money ends up going to publishers at some point in the system through store credit.

The real question is, who cares? Why does it matter that publishers don't get money from used sales?

The only evidence you can show for them being bad is that it doesn't maximize publisher profits. So if you are a game publisher, sure used sales are bad. If you are a consumer they are great.

=/

Back to the beginning.

b0rsuk
14-09-2012, 02:08 AM
Used books are generally restricted to older titles that were out of print, not so much the hardcovers they initially release in. People who buy hardcovers tend to be book lovers who want a pristine copy or people who really want to read the story NOW. That being said: I read on the pooper, and I assume other people do too. I don't want to touch a used book :p

My book - my sale - my money. STAY THE FUCK AWAY. This extends to all other items. Games are the same. I don't care what they think they can get away with thanks to DRM, always-online stuff or day1 DLC. I stay away from such games because for me, it's deception. GOG, Humble Indie Bundle, Kickstarter, Desura, various assorted indie games with their own digital distribution channels. The world doesn't end with STEAM.



Well, not really. My point is just why secondhand sales are bad. If someone purchases a used game, the publisher does not see a single penny from that transaction.

And why should he ? In this case, what service does he provide to person A and person B ?



Unlike piracy though, we can put an exact figure on it: the lost revenue for the game publishers is equal to Gamestop's profits on secondhand sales. The cut, the bit you say doesn't matter, is the only thing that does matter. As the best possible scenario here is that the income that did belong to Gamestop gets moved to the publisher instead.

It's not "lost revenue" it's "revenue not gained". By the same logic you should go after movie and game critics, because they lower the profits of game/movie makers.

gundato
14-09-2012, 02:14 AM
The money ends up going to publishers at some point in the system through store credit.

The real question is, who cares? Why does it matter that publishers don't get money from used sales?

The only evidence you can show for them being bad is that it doesn't maximize publisher profits. So if you are a game publisher, sure used sales are bad. If you are a consumer they are great.

=/

Back to the beginning.
Pretty much. Because this was the entire rationale behind why I don't like Gamestop in the first place. Ah well, maybe if you think you steered the conversation here you'll listen.


If a publisher thinks they are losing money to used sales, they are gonna do something about it. That something is activation model DRMs like Steam and Day 1 DLC. So yeah, it does affect us.

In every anti-DRM thread, people point out that DRM does nothing to halt piracy and is all about used sales and what not. Uhm... Hello used sales.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 02:24 AM
Pretty much. Because this was the entire rationale behind why I don't like Gamestop in the first place. Ah well, maybe if you think you steered the conversation here you'll listen.


If a publisher thinks they are losing money to used sales, they are gonna do something about it. That something is activation model DRMs like Steam and Day 1 DLC. So yeah, it does affect us.

In every anti-DRM thread, people point out that DRM does nothing to halt piracy and is all about used sales and what not. Uhm... Hello used sales.

Used sales have been irrelevant in the PC space for almost 20 years now. Retailers stopped buying/selling used PC games because of the ease of piracy (install the game and return it/resell it).

I don't like gamestop either, but not because they sell used games. I don't like them because of how they go about doing it. Their mark ups are way worse than your average pawn shop, selling games for 3x what they paid for them is fucked. What's even worse is that if you want cash instead of store credit they give you even less, there is a 15% (I think maybe it was 10%) fee for getting cash instead of store credit.

I also don't like their annoying sales tactics where they try to shove strategy guides and pre-orders from random games down your throat every time you go in the store.

So just to be clear. I like used games, I don't like gamestop.

gundato
14-09-2012, 02:36 AM
Used sales have been irrelevant in the PC space for almost 20 years now. Retailers stopped buying/selling used PC games because of the ease of piracy (install the game and return it/resell it).

I don't like gamestop either, but not because they sell used games. I don't like them because of how they go about doing it. Their mark ups are way worse than your average pawn shop, selling games for 3x what they paid for them is fucked. What's even worse is that if you want cash instead of store credit they give you even less, there is a 15% (I think maybe it was 10%) fee for getting cash instead of store credit.

I also don't like their annoying sales tactics where they try to shove strategy guides and pre-orders from random games down your throat every time you go in the store.

So just to be clear. I like used games, I don't like gamestop.

Yes... You are right, used games HAVE been irrelevant for a while in the PC space. Apologies, I forgot that we were completely disjoint from all console games and that there is no such thing as a port.

And honestly, I fully agree with everything you just said. They are cannibalizing the industry while screwing over the customer. That is why I don't mind Gamefly because they at least don't screw over the customer while they are doing it. I don't like Gamefly, but I have nothing against them.

RobF
14-09-2012, 03:52 AM
The margins on new games are really slender, the way publishers gather their releases all into the fourth quarter bar a few exceptions leave stores low on good new product to sell throughout the rest of the year and the two big franchises (FIFA/COD - insert Madden for US?) are massively undercut by supermarkets who sell at a loss. Stores can't survive selling My Dress Up Doll Dance Party 7 Petz Hardest With Noel Edmunds in the meantime.

There's a need to prop up those bricks and mortar stores somehow and selling Sonic figures and online codes isn't going to cut it.

Retail still provides the biggest chunk of revenue to the mainstream games industry for now so I'm not sure how anyone can claim the stores contribute nothing to the industry. That's roughly 70% of money coming in there. That's not just taking stuff from the industry, that's feeding it.

And of course, the second hand market does drive new game sales and it makes games affordable to a secondary market. Take that away entirely tomorrow and see what happens. Well, don't because for all its faults, I kinda like having a videogame industry that encompasses so many tiers from bedroom indie to behemoth corporation. And also don't because you're tacitly handing control over to the publishers who don't give a fuck about you. Retail (and Valve to a large degree) are buffers and for all those faults, having buffers between you and the megacorps is a bloody good thing.

I'm not going to support Gamestop or UK equivalents because they're hardly good examples of how to run stores and treat customers but the idea that they're just leeches or that second hand sales are despicable or that this stuff is born in a void is absurd.

The videogame industry isn't being crushed by second hand sales, it's growing year in, year out. You don't need to stop it.

gundato
14-09-2012, 01:32 PM
The margins on new games are really slender, the way publishers gather their releases all into the fourth quarter bar a few exceptions leave stores low on good new product to sell throughout the rest of the year and the two big franchises (FIFA/COD - insert Madden for US?) are massively undercut by supermarkets who sell at a loss. Stores can't survive selling My Dress Up Doll Dance Party 7 Petz Hardest With Noel Edmunds in the meantime.

There's a need to prop up those bricks and mortar stores somehow and selling Sonic figures and online codes isn't going to cut it.
Yes, the margins on retail are crap and get crapper over time. In a lot of ways, that is a vicious cycle. Publishers perceive sales being lost to used game sales so they need to make up for it, which leads to more of an incentive for the store to sell used games.


Retail still provides the biggest chunk of revenue to the mainstream games industry for now so I'm not sure how anyone can claim the stores contribute nothing to the industry. That's roughly 70% of money coming in there. That's not just taking stuff from the industry, that's feeding it.
To my knowledge, nobody is saying that Gamestop contributes nothing to the industry (if they did, they are stupid. Or I mistyped ;p). What I have been saying is that they are a leech who is HURTING the industry. Big difference there.


And of course, the second hand market does drive new game sales and it makes games affordable to a secondary market. Take that away entirely tomorrow and see what happens. Well, don't because for all its faults, I kinda like having a videogame industry that encompasses so many tiers from bedroom indie to behemoth corporation. And also don't because you're tacitly handing control over to the publishers who don't give a fuck about you. Retail (and Valve to a large degree) are buffers and for all those faults, having buffers between you and the megacorps is a bloody good thing.
That's just it. Gamestop's markups on used games are so bad that it really doesn't make it more affordable to most people, it just gives the illusion of it. Those people would be just as able to game if they took five minutes to read the circular that comes with the sunday news paper (or just checked sites like CAG).

I can't be arsed to go grab the link I posted earlier, but they are selling a new used game (released a few days ago) for 12 dollars off online, 5 dollars off in store. They are buying the new copies back for 30 dollars online. I can't be arsed to check, but if there is any day 1 DLC or online passes with that game, that is AT LEAST 5 dollars (probably closer to 10). And considering a lot of companies (especially console) tend to make Day 1 DLC a key part of the game (howdy Arkham City :p)...
So basically, you get a used copy with no serial numbers for 10 dollars off. Or you check a website like CAG (or just go subscribe to the magazine of Toys R Us or Best Buy...) and you can probably get it 15 or even 20 dollars off within a month.
Yeah, Gamestop is REALLY making games affordable to the market. Either that or they are preying on stupid people and the poor.

Also, don't give me that crap that used games are required for a varied industry. As was mentioned before: Used games haven't really been an option in the PC market for 20 some odd years, and we have a MUCH wider variety than the consoles.


I'm not going to support Gamestop or UK equivalents because they're hardly good examples of how to run stores and treat customers but the idea that they're just leeches or that second hand sales are despicable or that this stuff is born in a void is absurd.
The only people arguing that second hand sales are despicable are the people who just want to pick fights with straw men. Pretty much everyone who has been bashing Gamestop here has said it is a matter of scale. Best Buy letting you buy used games on their website is one thing. Gamestop trying (and generally succeeding) at making people buy the used game over the new game is another thing entirely.


The videogame industry isn't being crushed by second hand sales, it's growing year in, year out. You don't need to stop it.
And, as I mentioned earlier, console gaming is stagnant and is largely not embracing digital distribution. While there are many reasons for that, Gamestop is a big one. And so long as they don't embrace digital distribution, they have no incentive to get rid of those huge markups (like has happened on a lot of PC exclusive titles...) and the customer is suffering.

We shouldn't have to wait until the entire market crashes before people consider how to provide a better experience. Look at what happened to Borders (the book store).

Nalano
14-09-2012, 04:19 PM
In this thread Gundato is an apologist for publishers, which is funny because publishers are not paying him to be so.

...or are they?​

gundato
14-09-2012, 04:23 PM
In this thread Gundato is an apologist for publishers, which is funny because publishers are not paying him to be so.

...or are they?​
Whatever you say Nally.

deano2099
14-09-2012, 04:33 PM
That's just it. Gamestop's markups on used games are so bad that it really doesn't make it more affordable to most people, it just gives the illusion of it. Those people would be just as able to game if they took five minutes to read the circular that comes with the sunday news paper (or just checked sites like CAG).

You're missing half of the equation though. They make games more affordable not just by selling them (slightly) cheaper but by offering an easy and convenient way for people to sell their old games. It's easy to say "just use Ebay" but that's ignoring people too young for a PayPal account entirely (who, on the anecdotal evidence of my eyes, tend to use the trade-in option the most).

Stuff like day-one DLC, online passes and project $10 ... people get the idea these are trying to kill the secondhand market, and the inevitable conclusion is the next lot of consoles will have online activation. That won't happen, because that kill the gamestores, the ones that bring publishers 70% of their revenue.

Project $10 was there purely to stop places like Gamestop from selling secondhand copies for just $10 less than new ones. It was to stop them taking the piss quite so much with the margins. Publishers don't want to kill secondhand, just regulate. Likewise DLC can make people keep hold of a game for longer. It's not to stop them selling it, it's to stop them selling it on for a few months so there are less secondhand copies about.

gundato
14-09-2012, 05:21 PM
You're missing half of the equation though. They make games more affordable not just by selling them (slightly) cheaper but by offering an easy and convenient way for people to sell their old games. It's easy to say "just use Ebay" but that's ignoring people too young for a PayPal account entirely (who, on the anecdotal evidence of my eyes, tend to use the trade-in option the most).

Stuff like day-one DLC, online passes and project $10 ... people get the idea these are trying to kill the secondhand market, and the inevitable conclusion is the next lot of consoles will have online activation. That won't happen, because that kill the gamestores, the ones that bring publishers 70% of their revenue.

Project $10 was there purely to stop places like Gamestop from selling secondhand copies for just $10 less than new ones. It was to stop them taking the piss quite so much with the margins. Publishers don't want to kill secondhand, just regulate. Likewise DLC can make people keep hold of a game for longer. It's not to stop them selling it, it's to stop them selling it on for a few months so there are less secondhand copies about.

Currently brick and mortar is bringing 70% (I'll assume that number wasn't pulled out of your ass. It sounds right to me :p) for consoles. PC it is quite different. And I am sure that many publishers have seen how PC games are shifting to F2P models and even releasing "real" games at discount prices (Paradox has taken advantage of that). All of which cut down on overhead, increase profits, and give a LOT more control over the games to the publisher.

And taking advantage of children (the aforementioned stupid people :p) is good in the sense that it lets them play more. But take a look at eBay and how much a lot of PSX games are going for. Odds are many of the buyers sold those and are now trying to get a copy again.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 05:46 PM
Currently brick and mortar is bringing 70% (I'll assume that number wasn't pulled out of your ass. It sounds right to me :p) for consoles. PC it is quite different. And I am sure that many publishers have seen how PC games are shifting to F2P models and even releasing "real" games at discount prices (Paradox has taken advantage of that). All of which cut down on overhead, increase profits, and give a LOT more control over the games to the publisher.

And taking advantage of children (the aforementioned stupid people :p) is good in the sense that it lets them play more. But take a look at eBay and how much a lot of PSX games are going for. Odds are many of the buyers sold those and are now trying to get a copy again.

F2P exists because it's more profitable for an online game than traditional models, it has nothing to do with piracy or used game sales.

deano2099
14-09-2012, 05:54 PM
F2P exists because it's more profitable for an online game than traditional models, it has nothing to do with piracy or used game sales.

Not necessarily. The latest incarnation of You Don't Know Jack is F2P, and that was previously a disc-based series.

gundato
14-09-2012, 05:56 PM
F2P exists because it's more profitable for an online game than traditional models, it has nothing to do with piracy or used game sales.

No, it has to do with a shift away from brick and mortar stores. Please actually read what I post. Context matters.

When you primarily rely on people buying stuff in stores ("Hey, this game next to MGS4 looks good. I'll get that too") you can't really take advantage of F2P and microtransactions.
When you primarily rely on people buying stuff on the interweb, F2P is viable.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 06:00 PM
No, it has to do with a shift away from brick and mortar stores. Please actually read what I post. Context matters.

When you primarily rely on people buying stuff in stores ("Hey, this game next to MGS4 looks good. I'll get that too") you can't really take advantage of F2P and microtransactions.
When you primarily rely on people buying stuff on the interweb, F2P is viable.

No it doesn't, it has to do with profit. F2P games are mainly a PC only thing, the shift away from boxed copies of PC games has nothing to do with piracy or used game sales. It has to do with profit margins.

gundato
14-09-2012, 06:08 PM
No it doesn't, it has to do with profit. F2P games are mainly a PC only thing, the shift away from boxed copies of PC games has nothing to do with piracy or used game sales. It has to do with profit margins.

...
Yes. Good job. You are correct. Shifting away from brick and mortar increases profits. I am not sure why I couldn't figure that out on my own. Thank you for explaining that.


Currently brick and mortar is bringing 70% (I'll assume that number wasn't pulled out of your ass. It sounds right to me :p) for consoles. PC it is quite different. And I am sure that many publishers have seen how PC games are shifting to F2P models and even releasing "real" games at discount prices (Paradox has taken advantage of that). All of which cut down on overhead, increase profits, and give a LOT more control over the games to the publisher.


All mockery aside (seriously dude, learn to read): You are damned right, it has to do with profit. PCs have largely abandoned brick and mortar stores (because they abandoned us) and as a result we have (some) cheaper games and models that are VERY good for the publisher (and somewhat good for us) like F2P models. And console game publishers aren't stupid (especially since most of them are PC game publishers too :p), they want to try and get in on that on the XBOX and the PlayStation too. But most attempts at weaning the customers off brick and mortar and onto DD get met with PR poo-storms and a refusal to stock merchandise (although, that may be changing).

Seriously Hyper, I think you would actually read anything I posted (rather than zero'ing in on something you can rant about) you might find that we probably are saying the same thing at this point.

Nalano
14-09-2012, 06:14 PM
...
Yes. Good job. You are correct. Shifting away from brick and mortar increases profits. I am not sure why I couldn't figure that out on my own. Thank you for explaining that.

We don't care about profits.

That's what you're not getting.

We're consumers, not shareholders. I don't get paid dividends when EA's fourth quarter is bullish.

gundato
14-09-2012, 06:24 PM
We don't care about profits.

That's what you're not getting.

We're consumers, not shareholders. I don't get paid dividends when EA's fourth quarter is bullish.
Oh Nally. You scamp you.

Let me just restate the logic so that people can refuse to read it again.

Why a store's over-reliance and emphasis on used games is bad:
It makes publishers (rightfully) feel that they are missing out on profits. This leads to a further reliance on activation model DRM and day 1 DLC

Why are activation model DRMs and Day 1 DLC bad?:
Activation model DRMs take away any ability to trade or sell used games at all (although, PC gaming seems to have done okay). And a lot of Day 1 DLC is stuff that rightfully should be in the game anyway (Arkham City) or is the Capcom approach that is even MORE insulting (google it, it is funny).

Why Gamestop in Particular is bad with regard to used games:
They really aren't saving the customer any money and are gouging everybody. I am not going to explain this part again. So basically they are pushing a sales model that screws over the industry AND the consumer.

_____________

Why Gamestop is hindering the shift to digital distribution:
They have a history of refusing to stock titles/products if they have an emphasis on digital content (see the PSP Go). They are slowly changing this, but their approach is so laughable that I don't know how to feel

Why do Publishers want digital distribution:
It lowers overhead which increases profits and allows for things like F2P models which greatly increase profits

Why do we care about a Publisher's profits from shifting to a DD-based sales model?:
Because it is a lot harder to justify those super-high prices in a DD context, which leads to lower prices overall (see the PC...). And F2P models have the potential to allow us to spend a lot less on a game.

Why do we care if console games shift to digital distribution?
First off, a lot of us are gamers in general and LIKE some console games. But if the console game prices lower, the PC ports can have even lower prices too. Because nobody likes seeing their neighbor get a game for cheaper. You know how some publishers sell PC games at the 60 or 70 dollar price marks? That is so they don't piss off the console gamers

Why do we care if console gamers are pissed off?
We don't. But the publishers do, and the publishers make sure to spread the pain.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 06:47 PM
Oh Nally. You scamp you.

Let me just restate the logic so that people can refuse to read it again.

Why a store's over-reliance and emphasis on used games is bad:
It makes publishers (rightfully) feel that they are missing out on profits. This leads to a further reliance on activation model DRM and day 1 DLC

Why are activation model DRMs and Day 1 DLC bad?:
Activation model DRMs take away any ability to trade or sell used games at all (although, PC gaming seems to have done okay). And a lot of Day 1 DLC is stuff that rightfully should be in the game anyway (Arkham City) or is the Capcom approach that is even MORE insulting (google it, it is funny).

Why Gamestop in Particular is bad with regard to used games:
They really aren't saving the customer any money and are gouging everybody. I am not going to explain this part again. So basically they are pushing a sales model that screws over the industry AND the consumer.

_____________

Why Gamestop is hindering the shift to digital distribution:
They have a history of refusing to stock titles/products if they have an emphasis on digital content (see the PSP Go). They are slowly changing this, but their approach is so laughable that I don't know how to feel

Why do Publishers want digital distribution:
It lowers overhead which increases profits and allows for things like F2P models which greatly increase profits

Why do we care about a Publisher's profits from shifting to a DD-based sales model?:
Because it is a lot harder to justify those super-high prices in a DD context, which leads to lower prices overall (see the PC...). And F2P models have the potential to allow us to spend a lot less on a game.

Why do we care if console games shift to digital distribution?
First off, a lot of us are gamers in general and LIKE some console games. But if the console game prices lower, the PC ports can have even lower prices too. Because nobody likes seeing their neighbor get a game for cheaper. You know how some publishers sell PC games at the 60 or 70 dollar price marks? That is so they don't piss off the console gamers

Why do we care if console gamers are pissed off?
We don't. But the publishers do, and the publishers make sure to spread the pain.

Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with used games either.

Activation DRM has nothing to do with used games either.

How many console games have DRM like this? The only thing they have on consoles is those stupid "pay to play" codes where you have to pay $10 to play a game online if you purchased it used, which isn't so bad when you can pick up a lot of used online games for like 10 bucks in the first place.

Fumarole
14-09-2012, 06:49 PM
So, EA and Valve?

gundato
14-09-2012, 06:54 PM
Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with used games either.

Activation DRM has nothing to do with used games either.

How many console games have DRM like this? The only thing they have on consoles is those stupid "pay to play" codes where you have to pay $10 to play a game online if you purchased it used, which isn't so bad when you can pick up a lot of used online games for like 10 bucks in the first place.
Huh, could have sworn people were saying DRM isn't to fight piracy it is to fight used games. Ah well

And Day 1 DLC IS about used game sales. At least, it was for EA
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eas-project-ten-dollar-explained

And EA are many things. Stupid is not one of them. So it is likely a lot of OTHER publishers feel the same way.


And a lot of games for 10 bucks? Really? Have you ever SEEN Gamestop?

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/uncharted-2-among-thieves/73462
Uncharted 2 came out a few years back. Gamestop is selling it used (online) for 18 bucks.

Infamous 2: http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/infamous-2/78093
Same price both ways

Infamous 1: http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/infamous/71713
But considering that one costs more new than Infamous 2 does, I find it questionable.

That's the thing. Gamestop's used game prices tend to be, at most, 10 bucks off the new game price. And you can generally get a MUCH better deal if you just wait a few weeks for a sale from one of the chains.

So yeah, paying 10 bucks for a "pay to play" code (Day 1 DLC by another name) isn't that bad if you are getting 10 dollars off anyway. But if that is the case, why not buy new? Or wait a few weeks and get the new game for 10 dollars off...

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Huh, could have sworn people were saying DRM isn't to fight piracy it is to fight used games. Ah well

And Day 1 DLC IS about used game sales. At least, it was for EA
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eas-project-ten-dollar-explained

And EA are many things. Stupid is not one of them. So it is likely a lot of OTHER publishers feel the same way.


And a lot of games for 10 bucks? Really? Have you ever SEEN Gamestop?

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/uncharted-2-among-thieves/73462
Uncharted 2 came out a few years back. Gamestop is selling it used (online) for 18 bucks.

Infamous 2: http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/infamous-2/78093
Same price both ways

Infamous 1: http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/infamous/71713
But considering that one costs more new than Infamous 2 does, I find it questionable.

That's the thing. Gamestop's used game prices tend to be, at most, 10 bucks off the new game price. And you can generally get a MUCH better deal if you just wait a few weeks for a sale from one of the chains.

So yeah, paying 10 bucks for a "pay to play" code (Day 1 DLC by another name) isn't that bad if you are getting 10 dollars off anyway. But if that is the case, why not buy new? Or wait a few weeks and get the new game for 10 dollars off...

Because gamestop is the only place you can get used games.

gundato
14-09-2012, 07:03 PM
Because gamestop is the only place you can get used games.

They are the one I am talking about. Because I have nothing against used games in general, I have problems with Gamestop. As I have mentioned multiple times, Gamefly also thrives upon used games, but they at least don't screw over the customer in the process.

Seriously dude. Stop "being clever" by throwing what I said a post ago in my face as though it were a new concept. Again, I think if you actually READ what I posted we would agree more.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 07:10 PM
They are the one I am talking about. Because I have nothing against used games in general, I have problems with Gamestop. As I have mentioned multiple times, Gamefly also thrives upon used games, but they at least don't screw over the customer in the process.

Seriously dude. Get help. Your illiteracy is REALLY getting problematic.

No, I'm pretty sure you have been deriding used games in general throughout this thread, occasionally throwing in "I like gamefly" for no apparent reason to make it seem like you aren't just some used game Nazi.

Quickly, go back and edit all your posts about DRM and day one DLC and how used games are destroying the industry though! DO IT NAO!

gundato
14-09-2012, 07:22 PM
No, I'm pretty sure you have been deriding used games in general throughout this thread, occasionally throwing in "I like gamefly" for no apparent reason to make it seem like you aren't just some used game Nazi.

Quickly, go back and edit all your posts about DRM and day one DLC and how used games are destroying the industry though! DO IT NAO!
An un-lampshaded Godwin bomb? Really...

And nah, if you go back and check my posts (and their context), you'll see I am pretty consistent. Used games in general are not great for the industry, but they have their uses. Like piracy. They provide access to games to people who might otherwise not have been able to enjoy them. And those people might eventually either buy DLC or buy a game later.
But they also aren't good for the industry either and isn't really something that should be promoted. They just aren't hurting it to a noticeable degree (ie. a lot less than other factors).

What I take issue with is companies like Gamestop that push "buy used" over "buy new" to an obscene degree AND who screw the customer over in the first place. If they pushed "Buy used, it is noticeably cheaper and better" like Gamefly does, I would be okay with it. But it is more "Trade in your old games and buy used to save 5 bucks, maybe." which is just hurting everyone. Because it takes sales away from the industry (I don't have Gamestop's sales figures, but if the CEO has spoken out that used games are good, I imagine it is a sizeable portion) ANd it hurts the consumer.

And it doesn't help that there have been multiple "isolated incidents" over the years of some stores selling used games as though they were new. But the rise of serial numbers in console games have largely stopped that.

What you are describing is what certain people (yourself included :p) posited as straw men. Its cool, I know you have trouble following along sometimes.

Nalano
14-09-2012, 07:40 PM
Seriously dude. Get help. Your illiteracy is REALLY getting problematic.

What's that word that you used when you described how I treated people? Oh, right, like garbage (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?6107-Black-Mesa/page2&p=188706#post188706).

Now, I'm not saying you should stop with the snide remarks, oh no. Just own up to them!

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 07:51 PM
An un-lampshaded Godwin bomb? Really...

And nah, if you go back and check my posts (and their context), you'll see I am pretty consistent. Used games in general are not great for the industry, but they have their uses. Like piracy. They provide access to games to people who might otherwise not have been able to enjoy them. And those people might eventually either buy DLC or buy a game later.
But they also aren't good for the industry either and isn't really something that should be promoted. They just aren't hurting it to a noticeable degree (ie. a lot less than other factors).

What I take issue with is companies like Gamestop that push "buy used" over "buy new" to an obscene degree AND who screw the customer over in the first place. If they pushed "Buy used, it is noticeably cheaper and better" like Gamefly does, I would be okay with it. But it is more "Trade in your old games and buy used to save 5 bucks, maybe." which is just hurting everyone. Because it takes sales away from the industry (I don't have Gamestop's sales figures, but if the CEO has spoken out that used games are good, I imagine it is a sizeable portion) ANd it hurts the consumer.

And it doesn't help that there have been multiple "isolated incidents" over the years of some stores selling used games as though they were new. But the rise of serial numbers in console games have largely stopped that.

What you are describing is what certain people (yourself included :p) posited as straw men. Its cool, I know you have trouble following along sometimes.

You can't have both. Either everyone who sells used games is evil because it robs publishers of money and creates things like DRM and day one DLC or they aren't.

You can hate gamestop for other reasons, but you need to take the other parts of your anti-gamestop argument out of the equation if you support other game re-sellers.

Your repeated attempts to insult my intelligence are cute though, you should try to hide your insecurities a little better in the future.

Kadayi
14-09-2012, 07:54 PM
In this thread Gundato is an apologist for publishers, which is funny because publishers are not paying him to be so.

...or are they?​

We all look forward to the day when you finally bring a counter argument to these forums instead of conspiracy fueled insinuations tbh. Do they not teach debate in the New York school system or something? It's laughable tbh.

Nalano
14-09-2012, 08:00 PM
We all look forward to the day when you finally bring a counter argument to these forums instead of conspiracy fueled insinuations tbh. Do they not teach debate in the New York school system or something? It's laughable tbh.

I was wondering when you'd come to cheerlead the publishers!

Protip: Putting fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala" doesn't mean nobody brought up a counterargument.

It's okay, buddy. I won't use naughty words. I already see your mouse hovering over the report button.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 08:11 PM
I was wondering when you'd come to cheerlead the publishers!

Protip: Putting fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala" doesn't mean nobody brought up a counterargument.

It's okay, buddy. I won't use naughty words. I already see your mouse hovering over the report button.

I wonder if he will report Gundato. Probably not because he isn't one of us.

gundato
14-09-2012, 08:44 PM
You can't have both. Either everyone who sells used games is evil because it robs publishers of money and creates things like DRM and day one DLC or they aren't.

You can hate gamestop for other reasons, but you need to take the other parts of your anti-gamestop argument out of the equation if you support other game re-sellers.

Your repeated attempts to insult my intelligence are cute though, you should try to hide your insecurities a little better in the future.

No, I am just trying to figure out how you can keep throwing the stuff I said a post prior "in my face" as though they were huge holes.

And believe it or not, but the world is not one of absolutes. There ARE grey areas. I guess the reason we disagree is that you live in a world of absolutes whereas I try and consider the consequences of an action.


What's that word that you used when you described how I treated people? Oh, right, like garbage (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?6107-Black-Mesa/page2&p=188706#post188706).

Now, I'm not saying you should stop with the snide remarks, oh no. Just own up to them!
You're right. I shouldn't stoop to your level. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, maybe not quite at your level. I still try and make sure all my posts advance the conversation beyond "Har har, X is stupid. I want to mock them". But I was dangerously close, and for that I feel bad.

Apologies Hyper. But seriously, learn to read what is being posted.

Although, for the record, that WAS an Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia reference.

Kadayi
14-09-2012, 09:04 PM
I was wondering when you'd come to cheerlead the publishers!

Protip: Putting fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala" doesn't mean nobody brought up a counterargument.

It's okay, buddy. I won't use naughty words. I already see your mouse hovering over the report button.

I'm not cheering on anyone. I'm merely marveling at your endless ability to say nothing, ad infinitum Nalano. Over 6K posts and I've not yet once seen you once bring a reasoned argument of any kind to these boards. There's no rationale, no logic, no reason to anything you ever say. At best you bring vague shady notions of ill considered grand publisher conspiracies, yet you seem too afraid of your own shadow to put any commitment behind your words. People would have more respect for you if you had some back bone to your positions, but instead................meh. Change up the act.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 09:22 PM
No, I am just trying to figure out how you can keep throwing the stuff I said a post prior "in my face" as though they were huge holes.

And believe it or not, but the world is not one of absolutes. There ARE grey areas. I guess the reason we disagree is that you live in a world of absolutes whereas I try and consider the consequences of an action.


You're right. I shouldn't stoop to your level. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, maybe not quite at your level. I still try and make sure all my posts advance the conversation beyond "Har har, X is stupid. I want to mock them". But I was dangerously close, and for that I feel bad.

Apologies Hyper. But seriously, learn to read what is being posted.

Although, for the record, that WAS an Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia reference.

There is no gray area in this case, if gamestop selling used games is bad for consumers because it forces publishers to do "bad things" like day one DLC and what not, then anyone selling used games is bad for consumers.

You can't have it both ways, sir.

Also, don't apologize to me. I don't give a fuck beyond the hypocrisy of the people who use the report function on these boards.

Kadayi
14-09-2012, 09:33 PM
There is no gray area in this case, if gamestop selling used games is bad for consumers because it forces publishers to do "bad things" like day one DLC and what not, then anyone selling used games is bad for consumers.

It's bad for the industry, because the money doesn't go towards financing future development. The vast majority of money that goes to publishers gets ploughed back into future product in order to stay competitive Vs other publishers. Yes, there are shareholders and stock dividends to deal with for sure, but there's always a balance to be struck between profit and planning for the future. There are better ventures to stick your cash in if you want high yield dividends than games companies (Apple for instance). Money to gamestop though just keeps them running. It's not funding future product.

Hypernetic
14-09-2012, 09:40 PM
It's bad for the industry, because the money doesn't go towards financing future development. The vast majority of money that goes to publishers gets ploughed back into future product in order to stay competitive Vs other publishers. Yes, there are shareholders and stock dividends to deal with for sure, but there's always a balance to be struck between profit and planning for the future. There are better ventures to stick your cash in if you want high yield dividends than games companies (Apple for instance). Money to gamestop though just keeps them running. It's not funding future product.

I'm not attacking that stance (though others have) I'm attacking the stance that it's only true for gamestop and not other game re-sellers (such as private sellers on ebay or Gundato's favorite company Gamefly)

Selling used games is either ok or it isn't.

gundato
14-09-2012, 10:58 PM
There is no gray area in this case, if gamestop selling used games is bad for consumers because it forces publishers to do "bad things" like day one DLC and what not, then anyone selling used games is bad for consumers.

You can't have it both ways, sir.

Also, don't apologize to me. I don't give a fuck beyond the hypocrisy of the people who use the report function on these boards.
Yes, you really can.

Its like enforcing the law for a "stupid" law. Like the underage kid in the arcade from the other thread. If there are only a few kids and nobody is causing a stir, most people won't care. If there are a BUNCH of kids or the kids start causing problems, people care.

Same thing here. If it is just ebay copies and trade-in programs with some stores, fine. If a store starts pushing the used copies over the new copies and are gouging prices on everyone (to the point that they aren't just getting the "I can't afford a 60 dollar game" but are getting the people who would otherwise pay 60 bucks), it is a problem.

I am not familiar with Best Buy's, but my understanding is they only do trade-in and used stuff online. And I am okay with that because it is a small percentage of their overall sales. They are still primarily selling new items and are just saving that for the bargain hunters (I think Amazon does that too).

As I have mentioned, I am not particularly fond of Gamefly, but they aren't screwing over the customers. They are actually providing a good service. So while I am not sure how good they are for the industry (I imagine the rental market is still pretty small), they are good for the consumers.

Hypernetic
15-09-2012, 04:10 AM
Yes, you really can.

Its like enforcing the law for a "stupid" law. Like the underage kid in the arcade from the other thread. If there are only a few kids and nobody is causing a stir, most people won't care. If there are a BUNCH of kids or the kids start causing problems, people care.

Same thing here. If it is just ebay copies and trade-in programs with some stores, fine. If a store starts pushing the used copies over the new copies and are gouging prices on everyone (to the point that they aren't just getting the "I can't afford a 60 dollar game" but are getting the people who would otherwise pay 60 bucks), it is a problem.

I am not familiar with Best Buy's, but my understanding is they only do trade-in and used stuff online. And I am okay with that because it is a small percentage of their overall sales. They are still primarily selling new items and are just saving that for the bargain hunters (I think Amazon does that too).

As I have mentioned, I am not particularly fond of Gamefly, but they aren't screwing over the customers. They are actually providing a good service. So while I am not sure how good they are for the industry (I imagine the rental market is still pretty small), they are good for the consumers.


You should read your own posts sometime, maybe you will realize how ridiculous you sound.

random_guy
15-09-2012, 06:02 AM
Is it me or has there been more nastiness than usual on these boards lately? Is everyone just bored waiting for Dishonored or Borderlands or something?

deano2099
15-09-2012, 08:34 AM
I'm not attacking that stance (though others have) I'm attacking the stance that it's only true for gamestop and not other game re-sellers (such as private sellers on ebay or Gundato's favorite company Gamefly)

Selling used games is either ok or it isn't.

Not really. The argument is Gamestop are taking money out of the gaming eco-system - potentially huge amounts because of second-hand sales.

Consider that consumers have a fixed amount of money to spend on games every year. They spend that on new games from Gamestop and the publisher gets 70% of that or whatever. Now if they trade with their friends, or sell copies directly to other people, they get extra income back which can be spent on games. Now sure, there's no guarantee that will be spent on games but most people who sell stuff do it systematically - if they couldn't sell it on, they wouldn't spend so much in the first place.

Gamestop upsets the balance because of the difference between what you sell for and what they then sell it on for. They essentially pocket the difference. That's money that goes to their shareholders and doesn't get spent on games. One could make the same argument about selling on Ebay - their fees are also taking money out, but they are significantly smaller.

I haven't explained it well, and it's a tough concept to grasp. And I still think GameStop should be allowed to sell secondhand games and support that. I'm just trying to explain the difference.

Lacero
15-09-2012, 03:30 PM
It's really hardly surprising, given that EA likes to buy hot studios and turn them into hit factories.

I can't believe they've still not fixed that typo days later.

(did someone make this joke already? I'm drive-by posting while GW2 downloads)

gundato
15-09-2012, 05:18 PM
Not really. The argument is Gamestop are taking money out of the gaming eco-system - potentially huge amounts because of second-hand sales.

Consider that consumers have a fixed amount of money to spend on games every year. They spend that on new games from Gamestop and the publisher gets 70% of that or whatever. Now if they trade with their friends, or sell copies directly to other people, they get extra income back which can be spent on games. Now sure, there's no guarantee that will be spent on games but most people who sell stuff do it systematically - if they couldn't sell it on, they wouldn't spend so much in the first place.

Gamestop upsets the balance because of the difference between what you sell for and what they then sell it on for. They essentially pocket the difference. That's money that goes to their shareholders and doesn't get spent on games. One could make the same argument about selling on Ebay - their fees are also taking money out, but they are significantly smaller.

I haven't explained it well, and it's a tough concept to grasp. And I still think GameStop should be allowed to sell secondhand games and support that. I'm just trying to explain the difference.
Oh, I don't think they should be banned from selling secondhand games. The system is in place, it is their right to abuse it. If they want to focus on short-term gains at the expense of the long-term health of the industry, that is their choice.

But I also won't shed any tears when Sony and MS find a way to phase them out entirely.