Gamestop: "pre-owend business good for industry"

http://www.latestnewsexplorer.com/gamestop-pre-owned-business-good-for-the-industry/

heres the soruce copy and pasted

"

Gamestoprevealedthat they are worth $1.8 billion a year and still remainsadamant that usedsales dont impact new.

In aninterviewwithGamasutra,GameStop CEOPaul Rainespoints out that 70%of the income gamers receive from turning in their used games is spent on new gaming products. Yet many developers andpublishers believe thatthe used sale methods of retailersis actually killing the industry.

Most Pre-Owned Ghost Recon Future Soldier

My answer to developers is that we are driving growth in acategorythat needs to grow, he said. We think theres a real lack of awareness as far as how its good for the industry. The transparency youre seeing from us is because we want people to know about it,helping peopleunderstand what were trying to do for the industry.

Many gamers see the trade-in model ascurrency, a means to purchase a new title they couldnt afford with straight-upcash. And its not justthegameseither: used consoles can betradedin towards a newer version, to purchase a batch of used titles or the latest AAA shooter on the market. Either way,the moneyis usually dumped back into the games industry.

Raines says, The knowledge of how this model helps drive sales really resides at the publisher level. We have not been successful in communicating to developers how thisbusinessreally helps. Now, if Im a developer, I know that [used games] give me heartburn, to see a game He tails off, aware perhaps that saying the words to see a game I poured myheart and soulinto selling at close toretail priceswithout yielding up a cent in royalties.

Were really not cannibalizing new game sales, Raines proceeded, Thats a common misconception. So my answer to developers is that we are driving growth in acategorythat needs to grow.

Most Pre-Owned The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Raines concluded, We think theres a real lack of awareness as far as how its good for the industry. The transparency youre seeing from us is because we want people to know about it,helping peopleunderstand what were trying to do for the industry.

As Raines points out,Its going to get picked up, there are a lot of people [on the internet] who tend to be very developer-centric, they love the developers. Anyone who is perceived as doing anything whatsoever to detract from the developer is going to catch some vitriol from the [internet] folks.

He makes one last point, the pre-ownedbusinessis not going to go away overnight. No matter what happens, there will be people who want a $9.99 Madden 07. They dont have $59 to pay for the new game. Weve got a ton of customers still playing PS2 games. I mean, where do you buy PS2 games anymore except GameStop? Theres a consumer for that.

So do you think pre-ownedbusinessimpacts the developers andpublishers?"

I agree and disagree.

Everything has positives and negatives.

Pre-owned allows the use of trading in toward newer titles, with a subsidized cost. However, you also now have the option between a relatively new game at $55 or the same game, new, at $60. People, naturally, are going to want the lower price.

I would maybe agree if their pricing was structured to better reflect that you are buying a used product, rather than trying to take the sale from the same copy (new) in order to make a much larger profit on the used sale.

pre owned buisness in mom and pop stores is good for the industry.

Pre owned buisness by a world wide monopoly where often people don't even buy the games for full price but trade in thus no money changes hands except for that company and that company shafts the customer at every opportunity so as to make massive profits of which they never share with the developers...etc is not good for the industry.

Good and bad. trade in's can not only go towards new games, but also lure gamers in to buy new the next time around. If someone buys a used copy of a game, and love it, you can almost bet on them getting it new for the second installment. On the other hand, gamestop takes the whole piece of the pie when someone buys used. That wouldn't be a problem, but they are a major establishment, not some local shop.

They're pretty much saving their own skin, but they do have a point.

That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.

pre owned buisness in mom and pop stores is good for the industry.

Pre owned buisness by a world wide monopoly where often people don't even buy the games for full price but trade in thus no money changes hands except for that company and that company shafts the customer at every opportunity so as to make massive profits of which they never share with the developers...etc is not good for the industry.

WilliamRLBaker

you get rid of the second hand games market and you could potentially be pushing some of the poorest people out of gaming entirely, the irony is that the only publishers that are moaning about preowned games seem to be the ones that actually make significant Bank, Trading your games in has been around sinc e the ZX spectrum, it's fair to say it's a aprt of the culture of being a gamer, it would also set a rather dangerous precedent that could undermine a basic human right we have had for a very long timedelta3074

I'm PC only,but I like this post.Yeah,I fully agree that second hand bussiness on consoles is a positive thing for the consumer,and often for the developer too,helping to raise awareness of franchises that are less represented.As you said,it's a part of the console culture,and nothing wrong with it...

I'd really like if there was a used game market on the PC,where digital licenses like Steam ones are transferable...

The only time I buy used is if Im not sure about a game and its used for >$20. Im not going to buy a used game for $54.99 when I can get it new for $59.99.

That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.Gxgear

Used games are singlehandedly destroying console gaming IMHO. This gen has been complete shyte because devs are too afraid to take risks with the cost of game development being so high.

COD sells a bajillion copies? Let's make a modern day FPS.

I hate to say it but digital downloads, DRM, authentication codes, and overpriced DLC are inevitable for next gen.

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you get rid of the second hand games market and you could potentially be pushing some of the poorest people out of gaming entirely, the irony is that the only publishers that are moaning about preowned games seem to be the ones that actually make significant Bank, Trading your games in has been around sinc e the ZX spectrum, it's fair to say it's a aprt of the culture of being a gamer, it would also set a rather dangerous precedent that could undermine a basic human right we have had for a very long timeRocker6

I'm PC only,but I like this post.Yeah,I fully agree that second hand bussiness on consoles is a positive thing for the consumer,and often for the developer too,helping to raise awareness of franchises that are less represented.As you said,it's a part of the console culture,and nothing wrong with it...

I'd really like if there was a used game market on the PC,where digital licenses like Steam ones are transferable...

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

04dcarraher

Problem is that developers do not get any money after the first sale of the game unless they do what EA does for MP pass's to get some money back. So its not a positive thing for developers, A resale is a real lost sale for them and if MS and or PS3 decides to implement some sort of anti used games structure by tying games to accounts depending on the developers choice. Will help developers get more money upfront vs Gamestop's reselling a new game for only $5-10 less. Gamespot profit from used games are over 80% of their business which is why they are throwing this article out there. With a $60 game a developer only gets $7-$8 while the rest goes to production/shipping , royalties , and other cuts of the pie to the consoler's owner and publisher.

04dcarraher

Could also negatively impact their bottom line. There seems to be the idea that used game sales will immediately flock to new sales if the used game industry were to die. I don't doubt that some would, but it's a huge gamble. Could easily swing to a majority buying new games, as you said, or swing to a majority passing up any game that isn't from an established series.

To me, the better solution would be to work with Gamespot to see developers get some kickback from used sales (unlikely) or stop this $60 per game and have the industry adopt a new pricing model that doesn't have games such as Fable/KoA fighting with Skyrim in the $60 price bracket.

F@ck Gamestop.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.Zeviander

You think people comfortable dealing in pre-owned games wouldn't buy new releases from the pre-owned pile?:?

By the way, Gamestop isn't worth 1.8 billion because they rain trade-in credits and sell new games. They're worth that much because of revenue generated from dealing and selling used games- money that publishers and developers alike won't see a penny of.

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

navyguy21

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

navyguy21

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

spiderluck

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

In some ways I'm sure it is. A used or borrowed game may lead to a new fan which could further lead to new sales in later installments.

Never really can know for sure.

Anyways, I buy everything new to support devs as much as I can (outside of preordering games, don't buy 60 dollar games) but if people want to borrow or buy used, more power to them.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

of course they will say that because thats where majority of there money come from

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.navyguy21

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

Of course they would say that, they are rolling in dough from used game sales. Kid buys halo 4 for $60, finishes it, returns it for store credit, buys a new game with it, gamestop restickers the game and someone else buys it, now GS made double prfit on the game, the devs saw the money from one copy, etc. etc.

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

HaloPimp978

that wouldnt make any sense and that will be impossible to do.

thats why devsput online codes on games now though

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.Kickinurass

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.Kickinurass

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

HaloPimp978

Yea gamestop thats great and all but, seriously do you have to give so little for trade-ins? Making hand over fist on those, of course they're gonna say its "good for the industry"

The percentage profits would depend on the trade in value, take gamestation, they never offer less than 40% of RRP Trade in, so 40% of what they earn on the game preowned is what they effectively paid for it in the first place, places like gamestop may be making a killing but Game and Gamestation nearly went under this year so selling preowned games obviously isn't as lucrative as some would make you believe, people need to quit with the assumption that all specialised games retailers are as bad as gamestop and completely shaft there customersdelta3074

Killing the used game market would be a huge mistake and i really believe that this is no one's intention, but much like movies where blu-rays or dvd's are released after the box office has taken it's rightful share , then maybe a similar model could be implemented where no copies of new releases would be sold as used for an [ arbitrary ] amount of time...2 months from release would probably be a huge benefit to devsspiderluck

Developers, make games people want to keep. Simple right?

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

Cranler

I can't really say I blame them though, for taking advantage of idiots, since we live in a capitolistic society.

Isnt all off just speculation and opinion? Why are you wanting people to provide proof when you have none either? I could provide anecdotal evidence like "if a gamer waits until a game is cheaper to buy, when they DO go buy, they still have a choice of used vs new". It doesnt matter WHEN, doesnt matter HOW CHEAP, there would still be an option........an option that wouldnt exist without used games. Again, you keep going on, asking to proof as to why used games are BAD, even though i keep saying that i believe they are GOOD. And as far as evidence that it hurts the industry or devs? Answer: Sequels, DLC, online passes, safe bets (FPSs), less innovation and risk taking. Hard proof? hardly, but at least my suggestions make you think...navyguy21

I didn't provide any evidence because I wasn't arguing a specific point - simply that more data is needed before any conclusion is reached. The only point I believe would deserve proof would be the fact that used games positively impact the industry - which I can find but it's pretty easy with a short Google search for any credible economic/finance website.

Except for online passes, none of the things you mentioned could blame used games as the sole reason for their existence. Sequels have, and will always exists because fans want more adventures in familiar settings. DLC exists on PC as do FPS - so blaming their existence on used games is a reach. Less innovation and risk taking may be true, but there are other factors to consider in addition to the used game market. It's easy to use used games (and piracy, DLC, motion controllers etc) as a singular scapegoat and forget other factors at work.

Killing the used game market would be a huge mistake and i really believe that this is no one's intention, but much like movies where blu-rays or dvd's are released after the box office has taken it's rightful share , then maybe a similar model could be implemented where no copies of new releases would be sold as used for an [ arbitrary ] amount of time...2 months from release would probably be a huge benefit to devs

spiderluck