-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Egg headed man sticks it to Jaffe over used game sales
- Thread starter JSnake
- Start date
Also, talking about the DD model.. why not create a "refund" system with DD?
Say you buy a game DD.. and want to get rid of it a week later you get 20 bucks back. a month later you get 15 back, etc. Until a point 6 months after release there is no "buyback" available for a game. It would give people a little flexibility if they are truly done with a game.
You could also create rental models. Download the game for 10 bucks and it lets you play if for a week (or whatever) and then you have to buy the game to keep playing once that time frame is up. Let the player put the rental price towards the purchase of the full game. Great for the consumer (being able to put the rental cost towards a purchase is a great value proposition)
It is a way for the devs/publishers to effectively recreate the two models they seem to hate (people selling new games, rentals) while keeping the profits in their pocket.
Say you buy a game DD.. and want to get rid of it a week later you get 20 bucks back. a month later you get 15 back, etc. Until a point 6 months after release there is no "buyback" available for a game. It would give people a little flexibility if they are truly done with a game.
You could also create rental models. Download the game for 10 bucks and it lets you play if for a week (or whatever) and then you have to buy the game to keep playing once that time frame is up. Let the player put the rental price towards the purchase of the full game. Great for the consumer (being able to put the rental cost towards a purchase is a great value proposition)
It is a way for the devs/publishers to effectively recreate the two models they seem to hate (people selling new games, rentals) while keeping the profits in their pocket.
TheJollyCorner
Member
hey Jaffe- can you put some dinosaurs with laser-guns on them in the new Twisted Metal, please?
Brimstone said:
Used? Pfft. Thanks to the brutal off-target reviews, the vista-only PC requirement, plus time since release, the XBOX360 version is completely affordable brand spanking new for $9.99 with free shipping.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103052
Gorgon
Member
SecretBonusPoint said:
...and that's precisely the problem. I would respect Jaffe if he was honest about it and simply stated something along the lines of "I'm a developer and so it is in my interest that we devs/publishers make as much money as we can because that ensures a more healthy industry, we get more money, whatever".
However that is not what he says. He makes it seem like retailers selling used games are moraly "BAD". They're not. They have the right to do what they do and there's nothing immoral about it.
Some people here complain about the used car analogy because car makers still sell parts and cessories even if the car is resold. Fine. But do you people send a check to the original book publisher when you buy a used book, just because it's "the just thing to do"? Do you send a check to the original publisher when you get a used music CD or film DVD? Do you send a check to the original builders of your house when you resell it to buy a new one? So much fucking hypocrisy.
Like everyone else I want this industry to be healthy, but that doens't mean that we should start witch hunting vendors of used games. They are doing nothing moraly or legaly wrong. It's the publishers job to come up with ways to counter that. Go DD if you want and if you feel that it's better and more profitable for you. Just don't start blaming and whitch hunting and trying to create scape goats.
chaostrophy
Member
Personally I wonder who all the used games on the shelves at Gamestop come from. They give people who sell games so little money that to me it's only worth trading a game in if I didn't like it at all- I've never sold a game that I enjoyed enough to play to completion.
Maybe people would be more reluctant to sell games if the industry wasn't so dependent on sequels, and turning every successful game into a franchise? Like God of War, it was a pretty unique game when it came out. But then came GoW2, and soon GoW3. The industry gives gamers the sense that a flashier and more refined version of any game idea is always around the corner, it will make the games you own obsolete, so why bother hanging on to them? Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if devs actually created more new-IP games.
Maybe people would be more reluctant to sell games if the industry wasn't so dependent on sequels, and turning every successful game into a franchise? Like God of War, it was a pretty unique game when it came out. But then came GoW2, and soon GoW3. The industry gives gamers the sense that a flashier and more refined version of any game idea is always around the corner, it will make the games you own obsolete, so why bother hanging on to them? Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if devs actually created more new-IP games.
kame-sennin
Member
davidjaffe said:
That was an industry directed comment. I've been impressed by what you've done so far, just to be clear.
davidjaffe said:
As a professional courtesy between Gamestop and the publishers, that seems fair. Early digital releases are also a consumer friendly way to insulate new releases from the resell effect. So no, I would not have a problem with that. However, I maintain that there is no legal, or even ethical, obligation on the part of Gamestop or other resellers to be courteous. And, based on the reasons stated in my previous post, I don't personally believe that used games have as dramatic an affect on new game sales as is commonly believed. There's definitely an effect, but I think focusing on games that are multi-player oriented (especially local) and have - not necessarily deeper content but - more interesting content that drives replay, is the only way for publishers to dampen the effects of the used market.
vireland said:
Yes, I agree that this is unfair, anti-competitive behavior. I personally will never shop at Gamestop as they sold me a used game for full price. They are a shitty company.
charlequin
Banned
vireland said:
Okay, but reverse that. Publishers expect gaming stores to survive on a $5 margin (or less) on new games and a non-existent margin on hardware. The market has already proven that a dedicated game store simply can't survive on that alone, with the result being that used-focused chains or specialty stores that mostly deal in old systems and games are all that's left. And we know (I'm sure you know better than most) that you can't turn to general retailers like Best Buy who won't push niche games or keep anything older than last week in stock.
The business model here is pretty terrible across the board for publishers and game stores, but I don't find that a compelling case for screwing consumers.
vireland said:
This is crazy talk to me. A scuffed optical-media product will often not be playable when purchased, but there's no good way to gauge this at purchase time except to guess whether your system can read through the level of scratches present. (With a book it's trivial to check that every page is present before purchase.) Furthermore, unlike a CD or DVD, an unreadable portion of a disc of game software often renders all the content following it inaccessible.
I have never been screwed over with an unexpected flaw in a used book and very rarely even seen a significantly degraded experience over buying books new; I can't say the same for games. The terrible way that people in the US treat their games should represent a huge opportunity for the game industry to place value on new copies.
Smash88 said:
True, and sadly utterly unsurprising (that's what drove the internet-piracy witchhunt from the RIAA in the 1990s, too.) The gaming business model is broke as fuck but companies that already work within the context of that existing model are not interested in switching to something else.
vireland said:
This is a fair point, but again the converse comes up: right now when a game bombs, stores get stuck with rotten stock. Are publishers going to be willing to switch to a returnable model in exchange for better stockage of brand-new titles? I'm going to guess "no."
Opiate said:
This has been my advocated position for some time. There's far less traction in the used DVD market because the price range for DVDs is already extremely cheap and numerous specific products sit at a <$10 price sold new. Similarly I'm not sure how much business Gamestop does selling used copies of Greatest Hits titles for $18 but it certainly can't be a lot.
In a world in which games, by default, retail for a consumer-friendly price, the room for GameStop to resell them at a scarcely reduced price but a far higher margin will similarly shrink.
Opiate said:
What's funny to me about this is that Jaffe went from making God of War to making what would seem, at first blush, to be a far more sustainable development choice: the multiplayer-focused, small-team Calling All Cars. So in that sense, he already has!
-Rogue5- said:
I've never resold a game I paid money for to GameStop, and I certainly don't know any reason I ever would outside of one of those "huge bonus for trading in 5 shitty games!" deals. I honestly assume the majority of trade-ins come from the top 10 brand new games (where they actually pay out quite a bit), uneducated or low-option consumers (like kids), and people pawning stolen games for crack money.
Rather than giving a very specific suggestion, I would recommend a larger philosophical position: change what you have control over.
For example, Gamestop's used sale policies are almost entirely outside of Publisher control. You can exert a little influence -- and I recommend that you do that -- but by and large used markets exist in every industry and it would be nigh impossible to quash it.
By contrast, game budget is entirely within your control. 100%. Every penny you spend on the game's budget is your choice. As such, it is within your power to make a game that costs as much as 100 million dollars, just as it is in your control to make a game that costs 100 thousand. Lower budgets could allow lower retail prices. Mr. Pacther identified the lower initial prices of DVDs and CDs (10-20) as reasons why those industries are not suffering as badly from used sales "stealing" revenue. As such, lowering budget would allow you to lower retail price which should supress cost. Remember, this is entirely within your control.
Another example: gameplay mechanics. As with budget, the gameplay mechanics are entirely within the control of the developer/publisher. 100%. And as have been mentioned in this thread, some games seem to have lower trade in rates, while others have higher, and these tend to follow predictable patterns. Games with social and/or multiplayer value tend to be held on to longer. Examples include Mario Kart, Call of Duty, and Wii Fit.
Other options: look for other venues for your products. For example, Arcades allow for a theatre-esque "first release" of a game. If a game were released in Arcades first and then later released on home consoles, this would allow for additional revenue streams. This, however, is not entirely within a publisher's control; game developers have (I believe consciously) quashed the Arcade market in the US, and revivifying that market would take concerted effort from multiple publishers. Nevertheless, the concept works in other industries and could theoretically work in this one, in some form: release the game to a venue outside the consumer's home first, then offer a "home release" later.
To loop back to my original point: focus on the things you can actually control. You can't control rental markets: Nintendo tried and was laughed out of court. You can't control Gamestop. You can control other things, though, and you should concentrate on those.
For example, Gamestop's used sale policies are almost entirely outside of Publisher control. You can exert a little influence -- and I recommend that you do that -- but by and large used markets exist in every industry and it would be nigh impossible to quash it.
By contrast, game budget is entirely within your control. 100%. Every penny you spend on the game's budget is your choice. As such, it is within your power to make a game that costs as much as 100 million dollars, just as it is in your control to make a game that costs 100 thousand. Lower budgets could allow lower retail prices. Mr. Pacther identified the lower initial prices of DVDs and CDs (10-20) as reasons why those industries are not suffering as badly from used sales "stealing" revenue. As such, lowering budget would allow you to lower retail price which should supress cost. Remember, this is entirely within your control.
Another example: gameplay mechanics. As with budget, the gameplay mechanics are entirely within the control of the developer/publisher. 100%. And as have been mentioned in this thread, some games seem to have lower trade in rates, while others have higher, and these tend to follow predictable patterns. Games with social and/or multiplayer value tend to be held on to longer. Examples include Mario Kart, Call of Duty, and Wii Fit.
Other options: look for other venues for your products. For example, Arcades allow for a theatre-esque "first release" of a game. If a game were released in Arcades first and then later released on home consoles, this would allow for additional revenue streams. This, however, is not entirely within a publisher's control; game developers have (I believe consciously) quashed the Arcade market in the US, and revivifying that market would take concerted effort from multiple publishers. Nevertheless, the concept works in other industries and could theoretically work in this one, in some form: release the game to a venue outside the consumer's home first, then offer a "home release" later.
To loop back to my original point: focus on the things you can actually control. You can't control rental markets: Nintendo tried and was laughed out of court. You can't control Gamestop. You can control other things, though, and you should concentrate on those.
charlequin said:
Where on EARTH did you get the idea that they were making $5 on a $59 game? The gross margin is somewhere around 3-4x that, more if you add in the marketing money they extract from publishers. $5 on a 19.99 game, maybe, but we're talking new release AAA, and that's nowhere NEAR reality. Don't boo-hoo for them, the retailers are making money on new and used.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
Son of Godzilla said:
That's what happens when you make a five hour game.
TheHeretic
Banned
vireland said:
Err $5 isn't far off. Their margins are from 7-20% of new products, which is $12 on a new game max. Did gamespot pillage your families village or something? Seriously.
charlequin said:
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how the process works. Do you think Gamestop will EAT that stock loss of value? No. They pass it to the publisher in the form of price protection, markdown money, or as a last resort, returns. PLUS they take an upfront line-item deduction for a certain amount of "defective" returns irregardless of what your actual return rate is. Gamestop keeps a reserve on payments to the publisher that is held hostage for just these kinds of deductions (and in case the pub goes out of business). Again, in this case as well, the publisher takes the lion's share of the loss. Are you beginning to grasp why pubs are angry?
vireland said:
This is kinda ingenious... and evil.
"Sir, if you wait a bit, we'll probably have this game used". Tadah.
No wonder Europe is now #1, this practice literally does not exist here. In a city of 2 million, you only have a few rundown used games stores which also sell cell-phones and nothing new. That's it.
vireland said:
Not to mention a small time private store eats the losses fully because pubs don't give them ANY protection on their own and with some bad luck, poof.
So large chains which can issue conditions like those to the pubs become more and more dominant in game retail.
I agree with Jaffe, and I don't know why anyone else wouldn't (if you're a gamer worth their salt in any case).
I can type out a wall of text, but my fundamental point is best left to a small concise statement:
Devs make more money. More money raises the max potential of the quality of the game. I want devs to make more money because I like quality games. It's classic syllogism is it not?
I can type out a wall of text, but my fundamental point is best left to a small concise statement:
Devs make more money. More money raises the max potential of the quality of the game. I want devs to make more money because I like quality games. It's classic syllogism is it not?
TheHeretic
Banned
DrPirate said:
Shitting all over the rights of consumers and retailers in the process? The end doesn't justify the means, and your end is absurdly optimistic anyway.
vireland said:
Its commonly cited by analysts. What's your personal experience?
MightyHedgehog
Member
New games should just be $40 to $30 to start and the profit margin on and incentive for people to trade in used games goes way down. Cut retailers a better deal on each new title sold and they have more incentive to push new over used. Also, new games would, IMO, start to sell even better because they can reach more people at the lower pricepoint. And when there's a layer of not so good games that survive based, in great part, to their low pricepoint rather than any objective level of quality, they immediately have to face competition from higher quality games now at the same level. Quality of games goes up, new and used prices come down, used sales level out and everyone is happier. *
*this is, of course, provided that they aren't insanely budgeted titles to begin with and assuming that publishers aren't going to want to push the boundaries of the average new price...because, AFAICT, they were the ones who started this death spiral...retailers only answered back by trying to maintain a workable profit margin. A problem also exists in the form of some sort of stability in the price level of games...something chains (Wal-Mart) and big e-tailers sort of muck up with their competition thanks to their loss-leader-ness. There's little that can be done about that, I suppose... In any case, the relationship is still mutually beneficial between retailer and publisher, so they need to work something out regardless if they are both to continue receiving those benefits. 100% DD is not here and yet we cannot go back to a DD-less world. Whatever it is, figure it out, assholes...or you may find that the majority of your consumers have told you to fuck right off.
*this is, of course, provided that they aren't insanely budgeted titles to begin with and assuming that publishers aren't going to want to push the boundaries of the average new price...because, AFAICT, they were the ones who started this death spiral...retailers only answered back by trying to maintain a workable profit margin. A problem also exists in the form of some sort of stability in the price level of games...something chains (Wal-Mart) and big e-tailers sort of muck up with their competition thanks to their loss-leader-ness. There's little that can be done about that, I suppose... In any case, the relationship is still mutually beneficial between retailer and publisher, so they need to work something out regardless if they are both to continue receiving those benefits. 100% DD is not here and yet we cannot go back to a DD-less world. Whatever it is, figure it out, assholes...or you may find that the majority of your consumers have told you to fuck right off.
TheHeretic said:
Link, please or it didn't happen. Also, you may be citing net margin (which still seems too skimpy), while I'm citing gross margin.
My experience? I have sold more than a million games into retail in my career. I think I have a grasp of the issues and the costs/profits.
DrPirate said:
Except it shits all over a fundamental principle of a free society in order to get "higher quality games" which I doubt we would actually see as a result of this.
Gamestop is taking the risk of loss when they buy a used game. They should get the profit if and when they sell it. Simple enough.
Developers have no skin in the "used" game market. If gamestop buys games for too much and can't sell them used the developers/publishers don't eat a loss.
charlequin
Banned
vireland said:
Err, ooops. Saying $5 there was a mistake (I think I got the retail margin and the used game discount swapped around in the course of an edit there) but in my experience the markup dealing with people trying (unsuccessfully) to start a video game store, the retail markup on a new $50 game was around $10, a number that Ars Technica's "price breakdown" superficially agrees with. If Gamestop is getting a $20 margin on a $60 game now I'd have to imagine it's in part in the form of discounts or "kickbacks" from the publishers. (If there's some sort of expected marketing-payment any major title's publisher pays out to GS that'd explain it.)
Regardless, my argument isn't that Gamestop (a ludicrously profitable company) is in a bad position, but that Gamestop is a monster created by market realities: you can't meaningfully operate an independent game retail business without trading extensively in old product due to thin margins, and the big-box stores offer an overall worse alternative for the majority of companies.
Agent X
Member
SamBishop said:
With regard to the scenario where the guy traded in his game for a measly $10, did the clerk follow him home, storm into his house, and force him at gunpoint? Or did he bring his game to the store, where the clerk told him, "I'll give you 10 bucks for it," and the guy willingly agreed to it?
vireland said:
I understand that this is lucrative for the retail shops, and that it may seem unfair to the game developers and publishers who aren't making a single penny out of it. But let me repeat a key point that I (and others here) have mentioned earlier, which conveniently got lost in the shuffle:
Where did the used game shops obtain their used games from?
From consumers, of course. Consumers who paid $50-$60 for a new game, played it for a year or maybe a month or maybe even a day, then felt like getting rid of it. And just why did they get rid of it? Because they didn't want it anymore. Perhaps the game is a short story-driven game that's light on content and lighter on replay value. Perhaps the game is tedious and unbearably difficult and the guy just felt it's not worth his time or effort to grind with it. Or perhaps the game just flat-out sucks.
If developers make better games that are fun to play and have lots of replayability, then maybe, just maybe us consumers will want to keep them. They won't trade them in, which in turn means the retailers won't have any used copies to resell.
vireland said:
If the game is of high quality, and offers great incentive to replay the game over an extended period of time (such as online or offline multiplayer, high score leaderboards, multiple branching story paths), then you won't see large numbers of people trading in that game during the release window.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
davidjaffe said:
DD games are priced less, but they're usually less of a game, with much smaller budgets too. So 99% of the time you're not getting the same value, production value out of a $20 dd game as you do out of a game like God of War 3 or most retail disk releases. Hell, Warhawk was $40, the same price it cost at retail. GranTurismo Prologue was $40, same price as the retail release.
I think it's false to say we're getting a break buying it digitally. There's just no proof that's true. The only time it is true is when Steam or some other service runs a sale. That happens to be the only time I buy a DD'd game when there's a choice, and I've never paid more than $25 for a DD game, and I only did that once. I'm not anti-dd either. I have 16 PSN games, and 14 or 15 XBLA games. Most of them were $10, and that's the sweet spot for me. For $10 bucks, you got it, I'll buy your game, and I'll try a lot of games that get decent reviews. For $20, I'll buy a couple AAA rated games. For $30, I will buy Grand Theft Auto, Uncharted, and only my very favorite games. For $40, forget it, I'm not paying that for a DD game. I'll wait for a sale, or I just won't buy it.
You can say don't let the door hit you on the way out, but I'm someone that buys a lot of new games. The video game industry makes a lot of money off of me right now. I also buy some used games, but I'll buy new if the price is right and the game is good.
charlequin said:
Gamestore != Gamestop, because there are layers of distribution in between the pub and store for the mom and pop stores and an economy of scale present with Gamestop that does not benefit the mom and pops. Half (or more) the potential profit of a title is taken by distribution before it gets to a mom and pop store, so you can't use those for a Gamestop thesis.
TheHeretic
Banned
DrPirate said:
You don't know that consumers have rights? Are you like 11?
Pretty much.DrPirate said:
This whole thing is ridiculous tbh.
Why the hell would any typical consumer care that the pub/dev gets a cut of used GS sale anyway? It's still 54.99 to them. This just boggles my mind. GS has no room to raise their used prices anymore anyway, so consumers won't pay extra. And they make such a large profit on used sales that paying a little in royalties won't hurt much anyhow. As gamers we should be supporting our developers(especially when it doesn't hurt us in return anyway!)
Of course this is all pointless again, cause it will never happen. People are just argueing some hypothetical shit(including me :/).
Pubs/devs will continue on the path of DLC, pre-order bonuses, and shoehorning in MP. And of course DD will be taking off in big ways in the future(discounted price of disc counterparts).
DrPirate said:
Yes. When you buy something you have the right to turn around and sell it at the best price you can. Interjecting a 3rd party to your transaction (the publisher) who doesn't actually participate in the transaction is going to hurt the consumer at the end of the day.
TheHeretic
Banned
vireland said:
You are making shit up dude. How do you know what distribution costs are for a "mom and pop" store? Gamestop makes about $10 bucks a game, which is consistent with a lot of retail.
It will be a great day when Gamestop goes under. The thing I can't stand about Gamestop is 95% of the people that work there know NOTHING about games. You can't make a simple purchase without being bombarded with 9 million questions on games you should pre order according to them. Each transaction at the counter takes 20 minutes with all the bullshit you go through. If people are trading in games, you might as well come back in an hour. The only purpose I have for Gamestop is a midnight launch maybe once a year (amazon.com for all my other gaming purchases). If I had the choice to download a new game at midnight I would even pay more for it. I'm 100% on board for DD. Even though I doubt it will happen this generation Id like to see MS or Sony grow some balls and put a brand new triple A title up for download at midnight on launch day just to see what would happen.
NeoUltima said:
Gamestop may not be able to mark up the newer releases as used games, but they can certainly pay less for the used copy. And they can wait longer to drop used game prices, etc.
You are being naive if you think gamestop will simply pay the developers without passing at least some of that cost on to the consumer.
Plus, there is still no good reason WHY the developer should get to put their hand back in the cookie jar. They made their money on the new game sale. That is all they are entitled to.
davidjaffe said:
I actually like this answer. It's not one I typically hear from developers.
If GameStop had a waiting period before they sold new games as USED, would you be more open to that? Also, do you acknowledge that used games sometimes encourage people to buy new? I.E. for sequels and other games made by that Publisher/Developer.
TheHeretic
Banned
Agent X said:
This statement leaves out a huge segment of the market, and one Gamestop trades on. Kids with limited resources that have to trade in the current game for credit to get the next game. My son has some friends like this that are locked into the Gamestop store credit morass. No access to credit/debit cards, and limited financial resources, so they trade games ALL the time, and turn them to get the next game. It's a TERRIBLE value for them, but their options are limited. I think Gamestop has a LOT of customers like this.
Ardorx said:
Except movies don't have a waiting period. The day a movie comes out on DVD it is for rent at blockbuster (sometimes sooner). Jaffe is trying to compare a games release date to a movie hitting the theater. Videogames don't have an equivalent to a theater release. They used to, but arcades died.
If they want to do something like Jaffe is proposing they need to come up with some mechanism for it. Restricting a consumers ability to rent a game or sell a game arbitrarily hurts the consumer directly.
TheHeretic said:
That's a link to the same quote you made with no attribution. ("In contrast, gross margins for new consoles and games are 7% to 20%, according to analysts.") The VERY next line is attributed to a specific analyst, so there's NO excuse for leaving that one out unless it was spurious.
Try again. Link, please.
TheHeretic
Banned
vireland said:
Why am I providing links? How about you go out and find the margins on games for gamestop? You have nothing to offer apart from your "experience", which is what? Are you a gamestop accountant?
And if they lower the trade-in value, than people may wise up and realize GS has been ripping them off all along(GS gets less trade-ins). Again as I said, this is all theoretical. There will never be any sort of legislation passed on this so talking about it is a waste. Also I was under the impression they drop used prices when the new price goes down. (except in rare cases like CoD4 when it stays $60 for 3 years and they have too many used copies in stock)StoOgE said:
Remember theoretical, its not going to happen anyway! (no matter what one's opinion is)
Opiate said:
I would love something like this.
I envision something along the lines of a net cafe (hourly fees to pay, nice environment, refreshments sold on site), where people would have a chance to play games 3-6 months before they're released to retail, and the publishers get a substantial cut of the revenues.
If they build it, I will come.
charlequin
Banned
vireland said:
Err, well, what you've described so far is "publishers are mad because they let GameStop put them in a frilly pink dress and tie them up over a barrel," which I guess qualifies as a good reason to be angry. :lol
I certainly understand your feelings about it, because you ran a small publisher (that I was a big fan of) and the GameStop/EB business practices were all guaranteed to screw you over in a deeply unpleasant way. But the situation looks very different when you try to look at anyone who isn't Gamestop breaking into the market: these people get lower margins, don't get price protection on rotten stock, and otherwise are squeezed into a business model that is literally unsupportable without delving into some kind of used product.
I'll happily admit to being surprised that Gamestop gets special dispensation on price protection and returnability from publishers because, again, nobody else who wants to sell games gets that.
vireland said:
Gamestop sucks! I'm very open about that: they're a pawn shop that trades on people's ignorance and on stolen goods to profit, and they'll take a pair of pliers to the nuts of a small publisher without a moment's hesitation. They also have the only sustainable business model for operating a dedicated game retail business.
Gamestop has this huge leverage over publishers because they need there to be specialty retailers, but it's the business model that publishers have uniformly adopted that ensure that nobody who isn't Gamestop (either literally, or in the form of a different chain with nigh-identical policies) can actually operate a game retail store.
TheHeretic said:
Well, I've published and sold more than 30 games TO gamestop (well, babbages, funcoland, EB, etc, etc as well, but they're all gamestop now), so I know the wholesale and retail points well.
You're providing links to back up the statement you made as an outsider with no practical knowledge of the industry from an insider's perspective. You=outsider guessing, me=insider who knows. If you have an analyst link, I'll see what they're blabbing about, but in my experience, 7-20% for the gross margin on new games for Gamestop is laughable.
Similar threads
- Locked