Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Jim gets sent crazy game promotion stuff all the time. The previous one was a chainsword from Warhammer 40k Space Marine (to scale) from THQ. The one he used in this is ChaosEater, War's sword from Darksiders though its a little small given war is about 8-10foot tall. Another game published by THQ, I guess they like sending him crazy crap? lol

Oh and back on topic, fuck EA and game codes n all that.

TheDooD:

They're money grubbing bastards that can careless about a happy fan base compared to lining their pockets with more money they'll never spend because they're afraid of taking risks. The funny thing is that Gamestop and other places that sell used games uses the money from said games to buy newer games, stock all those nice things gamers want and publishers want sold as well. They love gamestop when they're stocking their NEW stuff but wants them to burn in napalm the moment something used of theirs is for sell.

Jeez there's a lot of straw-manning going on here. The argument developers make is not that they'd be better off without Gamestop. They don't say that Gamestop does nothing for them. The argument developers make is that they'd make MORE money if Gamestop wouldn't sell used games. Whether that's right or wrong is the question, but don't act like they never acknowledge that Gamestop makes them money - they do.

You know what publishers could do about the used games market? Here's what:

They could set up a part of their website specifically devoted to trade-ins. Players could sell used copies of the game to one another, using the publisher themselves as the middle-men, and the publisher would get some money out of the deal.

The advantage to doing this over GameStop would be that the publishers wouldn't have to take nearly as big of a cut of each transaction in order to stay in business, so the seller gets more, the buyer pays less, and everyone goes home with more money in their pocket.

As an added bonus, you could also do this with serial numbers. Any used copy directly processed through the publisher's website would have the serial number automatically "reset" with no extra steps necessary... and any used copy sold through a third-party like GameStop would have to be called-in and processed (requiring proof of purchase, &c.). Even if you didn't charge any extra money for the serial number thing, the sheer CONVENIENCE of it would be a drawing point.

Were the fuck do you get these weapons? Are you steeling them from rich kids cosplay conventions or something?

OT: Easily your best vid. A lot of valid points.

I'm on PC online passes aren't bad for me because we don't get trade in Period.

And while i can see why people need to live off of trade in's.

I think the used game market needs to be adjusted, i think there should be a 30 day grace period, where from the set release date trade in's can't be sold in retail stores(sure ebay and the like are ways to get around this). But at least in that case all of the money is going to the seller, as opposed to gamestop or the like perpetuating a cycle where they charge 5-10 dollars less than the games price on the shelf next to it.

Some game copies boomerang in and out of the store. In an experiment a friend did at the video game store he worked at he marked 10 or so games to see how often they came back in after that intitial trade some of them came back 10+ times in the first 2 months.

the fact that the trade in system perpetuates buying a game rushing through it and trading it back to add another 10-20 dollars ontop of the trade credit to get the next game and do the same thing. Results in this boomerang effect.

And the thing is even with a 30 day grace period they can still sell them at the same prices they do now. But at least when john goes in 3 days after release he wont be presented with a shelf full of trade in copies and only 1-2 new copies(another tactic the local video game store uses(EB which is the Aussie version of Gamestop).

To me the used games market is essentially piracy(and yes no theft has occured but there is no other industry where you can buy a product for 10% cheaper 3 days later. And no other industry where wear and tear doesn't ruin the product. Unless someone has been feeding games to their dog's they will always work as good as a new copy. Not to mention that unlike buying a second hand car where you can't visibly see any where and tear inside the engine all you have to do is look at the back of the disc to see if it's shot to hell or not.

But hey i mainly game on PC and when i want a title on the console something like Demon souls for instance i want that developer to have money

Interesting episode and I have to say you hit the nail on the head. I feel it's only wishful thinking though, and we'll continue to be hammered with online passes and DRMs. It's sad too, because I use to constantly buy used games and I've all together stopped. I don't buy more new ones; I simply just buy less overall. I tip my hat to the publishers for forcing me to give them less of my money.

Sylocat:
You know what publishers could do about the used games market? Here's what:

They could set up a part of their website specifically devoted to trade-ins. Players could sell used copies of the game to one another, using the publisher themselves as the middle-men, and the publisher would get some money out of the deal.

The advantage to doing this over GameStop would be that the publishers wouldn't have to take nearly as big of a cut of each transaction in order to stay in business, so the seller gets more, the buyer pays less, and everyone goes home with more money in their pocket.

As an added bonus, you could also do this with serial numbers. Any used copy directly processed through the publisher's website would have the serial number automatically "reset" with no extra steps necessary... and any used copy sold through a third-party like GameStop would have to be called-in and processed (requiring proof of purchase, &c.). Even if you didn't charge any extra money for the serial number thing, the sheer CONVENIENCE of it would be a drawing point.

That'd certainly be a proactive way to handle the situation, but it's basically what they're already doing with online passes - they're adding a fee on top of a used game's sale price that people more or less have to pay (depending on the game and its reliance on online features, anyway) which goes directly to them. The only difference is the price would, as you note, be reduced somewhat because you're cutting out the middle-man, but you haven't addressed the increase in cost this would entail thanks to shipping and processing costs. It's possible that it'd end up just breaking even, in which case, this is a whole lot of trouble the publishers would go through to essentially stay where they are now.

The only sure benefit I could see this providing to them is that they'd be able to use this system for every game regardless of whether it had an online component, which is certainly something to consider.

I believe Penny Arcade said it best when they said: When you buy a game used, you are not a customer of the publisher, you're a customer of Gamestop (or wherever). (They talk, at length, about this in their news section that day.)

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

JustaGigolo:

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

And people wonder where the self entitled, gamer brat stereotype came from.

Fucking economics, how does it work?

They have every right to buy it if they want to and can afford to, and buying a game used or waiting for the price to drop is a perfectly legitimate way of being able to afford them. There have been court cases to prove that neither of these things is in any way unfair on publishers, and we don't need to worry about the profit margins of Activision and EA, they're doing just fine, and they were doing just fine before online redemption codes too.

Azuaron:
I believe Penny Arcade said it best when they said: When you buy a game used, you are not a customer of the publisher, you're a customer of Gamestop (or wherever). (They talk, at length, about this in their news section that day.)

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

Like fo' real.

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

can you show me the catagorical proof that shows that only the poor buy used games.

Because while i'm in uni and direct what funds i can to games i believe i will enjoy and as a result deserve my money. I have a mate who is earning 200k+ a year in the US and is just as stingy with his purchases and will always go for a used copy.

If the issue here was truly that the poor can't buy new games, why can't they wait for a month or 3 when it goes on sale(though this would require publishers to actually let game prices degrade over time although not sure if thats publisher side or store side in order to maintain used game prices)

I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

Steam I think has a good compromise. Yeah they don't let you buy used (or trade in for store credit), but they'll sell you older titles at "used" prices.

Plus it solves the problem publishers have with Gamestop-type stores. With Steam selling it, publishers still get a cut. If you buy Fallout New Vegas for $15 on Steam, Valve gets some money, and Bethesda gets some money. If you buy a used copy of FNV at Gamestop for $15, Gamestop gets all the money and Bethesda gets none.

Azuaron:

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

See this is where the argument falls down.

Server bandwidth and the like aren't being over taxed by used sales.

Seeing as the guy who originally bought the game can no longer play it therefore he can no longer use server bandwidth. So the server bandwidth that the original "New Copy" Buyer paid for when he bought the game, is still covered by the copy he resold.

the only way you could argue differently is that if say THQ made the assumption that on average each copy of their game sold would have 40 hours of server bandwidth usage for whatever reason. But because of used sales Each copy was averaging 60hours of server bandwidth usage.

The problem with that argument though is that THQ is in no position to guestimate how much time you will use their servers for. And if the issue really is that they only budgeted for 40 hours than how come they aren't making a blatant cash grab to pay for server cost's regardless of how the copy was obtained.

not to mention that in most case's the server bandwidth would be minimal seeing as they generally don't supply dedicated servers for these thing's instead favouring P2P systems for the very fact they reduce bandwidth considerations by the publisher

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I may be jaded by the whole "used game" arguments because I'm a PC gamer, and digital distribution is the way to go.

People say that they can't afford to buy a game new, so they wait and buy it used.

I say I can't afford to buy a game new, so I wait and buy it on a Steam/Gamer's Gate sale for 10-30% of its original price (seriously, I got Dragon Age, it's expansion, and all the DLC for $20). Since I'm buying new, I'm a customer of the publishers and developers, and since I'm willing to wait for a sale, I'm not selling organs to fuel my gaming habit.

So anytime someone says they "can't afford" a new game so they buy used, I naturally scoff, but maybe things are different on consoles.

hitheremynameisbob:

Sylocat:
snip

That'd certainly be a proactive way to handle the situation, but it's basically what they're already doing with online passes - they're adding a fee on top of a used game's sale price that people more or less have to pay (depending on the game and its reliance on online features, anyway) which goes directly to them. The only difference is the price would, as you note, be reduced somewhat because you're cutting out the middle-man, but you haven't addressed the increase in cost this would entail thanks to shipping and processing costs. It's possible that it'd end up just breaking even, in which case, this is a whole lot of trouble the publishers would go through to essentially stay where they are now.

The only sure benefit I could see this providing to them is that they'd be able to use this system for every game regardless of whether it had an online component, which is certainly something to consider.

Well, they could do it the same way Amazon's z-shops do it, where the buyers and sellers have to put up the shipping costs themselves. I wonder how e-Bay handles shipping, too.

But yeah, after all that, it might not make too much money, but even if the publisher could net two dollars from each used sale, that's more than they're getting now, and with the volume of used game sales, it adds up. And it's good for the consumer as well.

annnnnnnd you were doing so well till 6 mins in, but thats personal opinion and something that is a tagent to my main point, jim is right here, in the sense that online passes are very very bad, now personally i prefere the secondary method of new games passes, biving bonus things that others will pay full price or buy dlc if they want, now say something like the first 1/2 pieces of dlc were free with a new game but it would cost 5 (insert local currency here)s more, eventually most will buy the dlc, mass effect 2 is very good example for me, i bought it second hand, but i've bought a good chunk of dlc for it in the last 2 months, the online pass route is so very very bad, but giving extra's to people buying new games, now thats a winner in my eyes

If I pay you for product, I want all the motherfucking services that are supposed to come with it hassle free. I too miss the cartridge, pick up and just play days.

This whole scheme gets me angry too.

Sylocat:
Well, they could do it the same way Amazon's z-shops do it, where the buyers and sellers have to put up the shipping costs themselves. I wonder how e-Bay handles shipping, too.

But yeah, after all that, it might not make too much money, but even if the publisher could net two dollars from each used sale, that's more than they're getting now, and with the volume of used game sales, it adds up. And it's good for the consumer as well.

It's not more than they're getting from the online pass, though. That's earning them ten dollars per game that has it, more or less, because most people that buy the games that have online passes want to play multiplayer. Hence, it's the same solution they're already trying, just without involving Gamestop and possibly being applicable to non-online games.

The other unstated problem with this proposal is that it potentially puts Gamestop out of business, which is unquestionably BAD for developers, who rely on them to move a large portion of their new products.

hitheremynameisbob:

TheDooD:

They're money grubbing bastards that can careless about a happy fan base compared to lining their pockets with more money they'll never spend because they're afraid of taking risks. The funny thing is that Gamestop and other places that sell used games uses the money from said games to buy newer games, stock all those nice things gamers want and publishers want sold as well. They love gamestop when they're stocking their NEW stuff but wants them to burn in napalm the moment something used of theirs is for sell.

Jeez there's a lot of straw-manning going on here. The argument developers make is not that they'd be better off without Gamestop. They don't say that Gamestop does nothing for them. The argument developers make is that they'd make MORE money if Gamestop wouldn't sell used games. Whether that's right or wrong is the question, but don't act like they never acknowledge that Gamestop makes them money - they do.

If they really cared that gamestop makes them money then why in the hell do they want them gone and why are they treating people who's still spending money like they're common thieves. I'm not playing the straw man I'm stating my own opinion because like quite a few people I know they can't buy every game and are pretty much forced to buy used and share accounts.

Great stuff as usual Jim, agreed 100%

Nurb:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

except the games industry is like no other.

when you buy a used car it has wear and tear. A game does not. (if a used game has wear and tear generally it's painstakingly obvious. But trying telling whether or not the headgasket on the used car you have bought doesn't have a crack in it. That's going to break in a month.

You don't buy a car drive it to Mcdonalds then decide you want a new car. take it down to the lot you just bought the thing from slap a 10% discount on it and sell it. It simply doesn't work that way.

The only other industries that have even a comparable product to games are DVD's and Music CD's. Most of which when you buy you don't resell. And if you do you resell them yourself. They aren't being sold next to brand new copies of the same product the very next day.

I think that the companies would have no issue if used game trading was done through thing's like Ebay and the like, and not in the exact same location as their own products are being sold.

At least with Ebay and the like, their are negatives to buying a used copy maybe you have to wait for shipping. You need to ensure it's not a scam etc etc. But there is no negative to buying a used copy in the same store as the new one which is the issue used gaming doesn't have to be just for the poor it's for anyone who wants to buy the used copies over the un-used one and in some cases the only way people will ever buy a new copy of the game is if their isn't a used copy sitting right next to it for 5 dollars less

TheDooD:

If they really cared that gamestop makes them money then why in the hell do they want them gone and why are they treating people who's still spending money like they're common thieves. I'm not playing the straw man I'm stating my own opinion because like quite a few people I know they can't buy every game and are pretty much forced to buy used and share accounts.

You think developers want Gamestop GONE? What on Earth are you basing that on? If they wanted Gamestop gone they'd just stop selling their games to them. You are using a straw man because you're claiming that developers are making an argument that they aren't. They like Gamestop in general because without Gamestop they'd lose a huge portion of their new game sales. They NEED Gamestop. If they didn't, they'd have stopped using Gamestop to distribute their games a long time ago. How developers treat us is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't like it any more than you do, but you're saying that developers don't recognize that Gamestop makes them money. They obviously do.

They just also claim that they'd make more money if Gamestop would stop selling used games.

Jim Sterling is one the gaming gods sent down to liberate us from our oppressive superiors !

alinos:

Azuaron:

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

See this is where the argument falls down.

Server bandwidth and the like aren't being over taxed by used sales.

Seeing as the guy who originally bought the game can no longer play it therefore he can no longer use server bandwidth. So the server bandwidth that the original "New Copy" Buyer paid for when he bought the game, is still covered by the copy he resold.

blah blah justification blah

No. Let me just repeat this, because apparently you didn't actually read what I said:

Azuaron:
If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

hitheremynameisbob:
It's not more than they're getting from the online pass, though. That's earning them ten dollars per game that has it, more or less, because most people that buy the games that have online passes want to play multiplayer. Hence, it's the same solution they're already trying, just without involving Gamestop and possibly being applicable to non-online games.

I meant, it's more than they're getting if they aren't switching to this stupid online pass system that really needs to die.

Besides, given how huge a cut GameStop takes of the used game sales, I don't think it would be that difficult to get 10 and still make it cheaper. Especially if, like Amazon z-shops, the clients swallow the shipping costs.

The other unstated problem with this proposal is that it potentially puts Gamestop out of business, which is unquestionably BAD for developers, who rely on them to move a large portion of their new products.

As long as GameStop is relied upon to move "a large portion" of their new products, they won't go out of business, because they'll still be doing that. Providing a cheaper alternative to their USED game sales, however, might force them to drop their price-gouging a bit (and make no mistake, they are pulling a HUGE profit margin off their used-game sales, they're in no danger of going out of business if they play a little more fair).

I agree a lot on these "points" what is best?
Small "loss" (it's not really a loss it's a non income) but happy gamers and lots of them and some fans liking the game to buy the next one witch turns in to profit in the long run
or
Profit that will turn out after a few years to HUGE fracking losses, angry gamers, and not to many daring to try the "new" IP game...

I know what I would choose but then again everyone knows "gamers" are the smartest and knows everything :P (well not really but we're the customers and they are supposed to "prove them self worthy" to us not the opposite)

Meh as a PC gamer this really doesn't affect me at all, we don't get used games, and we've been imputing codes in order to play our games for how long?

Azuaron:
Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I may be jaded by the whole "used game" arguments because I'm a PC gamer, and digital distribution is the way to go.

People say that they can't afford to buy a game new, so they wait and buy it used.

I say I can't afford to buy a game new, so I wait and buy it on a Steam/Gamer's Gate sale for 10-30% of its original price (seriously, I got Dragon Age, it's expansion, and all the DLC for $20). Since I'm buying new, I'm a customer of the publishers and developers, and since I'm willing to wait for a sale, I'm not selling organs to fuel my gaming habit.

So anytime someone says they "can't afford" a new game so they buy used, I naturally scoff, but maybe things are different on consoles.

Yea its different on consoles normally for a game to be reduced in price it either has to be out for a long time and normally by then used copies are cheaper. Or the old method where the really popular games got the greatest hits tag and where sold for 20 bucks. I have no idea how you don't know this. If publishers had sells on all left over and not so new hard copies most notably during the summer they can make some money, yet they don't do this. So gamers have to wait for used sells. It's like Steam's method yet its second hand game, some people look at it like dirt but the price drop is pretty much the same.

Redlin5:
If I pay you for product, I want all the motherfucking services that are supposed to come with it hassle free. I too miss the cartridge, pick up and just play days.

This whole scheme gets me angry too.

But that's the thing: you aren't paying them (the publishers), you're paying Gamestop. If you pay Gamestop and want your game to have online play, complain to Gamestop and leave the publishers alone: you are not their customer, don't try and act like one.

alinos:

Nurb:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

except the games industry is like no other.

when you buy a used car it has wear and tear. A game does not. (if a used game has wear and tear generally it's painstakingly obvious. But trying telling whether or not the headgasket on the used car you have bought doesn't have a crack in it. That's going to break in a month.

You don't buy a car drive it to Mcdonalds then decide you want a new car. take it down to the lot you just bought the thing from slap a 10% discount on it and sell it. It simply doesn't work that way.

The only other industries that have even a comparable product to games are DVD's and Music CD's. Most of which when you buy you don't resell. And if you do you resell them yourself. They aren't being sold next to brand new copies of the same product the very next day.

I think that the companies would have no issue if used game trading was done through thing's like Ebay and the like, and not in the exact same location as their own products are being sold.

At least with Ebay and the like, their are negatives to buying a used copy maybe you have to wait for shipping. You need to ensure it's not a scam etc etc. But there is no negative to buying a used copy in the same store as the new one which is the issue used gaming doesn't have to be just for the poor it's for anyone who wants to buy the used copies over the un-used one and in some cases the only way people will ever buy a new copy of the game is if their isn't a used copy sitting right next to it for 5 dollars less

The used car market is the closest you can get, and there's no car company throwing a tantrum about how used cars are "stealing money" from them when people don't want to spend the money on a brand new version, which is what one of these publishers said about the used game market, that it's basically stealing from them.

-You make a product
-You sell a product to a customer
-You have no further rights to money no matter what the customer does with it.

This is pretty much accepted by everyone else and a gamng companies need to stop whining about it.

Online passes devaluating both used sales AND new sales?

That's more like wishful thinking rather than a real issue, Jim.

Used sales have been killed on the PC with DRM and new games still cost $50 and with some big publishers the prices have actually gone up to $60.
Even if it would happen, that's cheaper new games and more people buying passes or new games and not just a small minority supporting the whole game industry. I wish.

The only point sofar that stands, is the hassle involved.

Nurb:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.

Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.

There's no other industry where CONSUMERS feel entitled to buy a much cheaper used product that is functionally identical to the original.

When you buy a used car, you are accepting that there will be a certain amount of wear and tear, and thus some decreased functionality. When you buy a used book, you are risking page damage. A used VHS will have degraded some, a used DVD will probably have scratches and scuffs. Consumers don't care, or at least they don't blame the manufacturer.

But used games? When you play online, you are using the PUBLISHER's bandwidth. Bandwidth costs money. If you don't pay for the game, you are stealing money from them. Even the tired pirate argument of, "DURR, THEY DONT LOOZE ANY MUNNY FROM PIRACY, LOL!" doesn't apply, because you are costing them money for bandwidth.

NinjaDeathSlap:

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

Yes, because everyone can easily afford to pay for every game they want new before the price drop or before used ones start appearing.

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean yes. I meant no, no way, and if you can then you are very much in the minority and you shouldn't be blaming others for having less money than you.

If they can afford the $55 that GameStop sells used games for, for 3+ months after the game comes out, they can drop the extra $5 easily. They aren't that poor, clearly.

They could also be patient and wait for a sale, because every week, every retailer has sales. And games are involved in these sales 95% of the time. Guess what? These sales usually put the game at below the $55 price tag you're paying for a new release used game at GameStop. Logic'd.

Sylocat:
I meant, it's more than they're getting if they aren't switching to this stupid online pass system that really needs to die.

Besides, given how huge a cut GameStop takes of the used game sales, I don't think it would be that difficult to get 10 and still make it cheaper. Especially if, like Amazon z-shops, the clients swallow the shipping costs.

As long as GameStop is relied upon to move "a large portion" of their new products, they won't go out of business, because they'll still be doing that. Providing a cheaper alternative to their USED game sales, however, might force them to drop their price-gouging a bit (and make no mistake, they are pulling a HUGE profit margin off their used-game sales, they're in no danger of going out of business if they play a little more fair).

Then let's address the other competitor to this proposal: Ebay. You're going to face stiff competition from Ebay here because you're trying to skim something off the top. Forget ten dollars - nobody's going to pay ten dollars more for a used game than they'd have to pay on Ebay. Or, if you embed that charge into the price without raising it, nobody is going to want to SELL their game on this service, because they'll be making ten dollars less than they would on Ebay.

I think you're underestimating how much of Gamestop's business is based on used sales at this point. If you take them away, maybe they don't go out of business, but at the very least they'll be closing a significant number of stores. Hell, could they even justify stores any more? Think of how much shelf space your local Gamestop uses for used games. About 70% here. Less locations means less convenience for consumers and fewer impulse buys. It means less ability to compete with stores that haven't based their business model on used games like Target, Best Buy, and Walmart. Overall, it likely means fewer places to buy games, which isn't a good thing for developers.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here