Techdirt. Stories about "gamestop"

Techdirt. Stories about "gamestop" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "gamestop"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:13:00 PDT Gamestop Offers Glimpse Into Their Used-Games Facility Timothy Geigner http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/14414219947/gamestop-offers-glimpse-into-their-used-games-facility.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/14414219947/gamestop-offers-glimpse-into-their-used-games-facility.shtml what happens to the used games that get traded into Gamestop Stores. The entire article is quite fascinating and a rare glimpse into a notoriously secretive company's business, but it's the why of this article I want to focus on. Or, more specifically, why Gamestop opened their doors for this piece.

Used-game sellers generally, and Game Stop specifically, have been a constant target of game producers. They claim that used game sales keep people from buying games in their awesome new shrinkwrap. As the IGN article notes, this is a case of only looking at one side of the coin (those that are going to Game Stop to buy used games) without acknowledging the other side (those that are going to Game Stop to trade in used games). The article expands on this:

"GameStop’s bosses are obviously tired of hearing about how used games are killing gaming, about how unfair they are on the producers of the games who get nothing from their resale.

One astonishing stat is repeated by three different managers during presentations. 70 percent of income consumers make from trading games goes straight back into buying brand new games. GameStop argues that used games are an essential currency in supporting the games business."

So, if that number is correct, the interest in used games by some consumers is what drives the purchase of new games by other consumers. This is similar to what we've seen in book sales, where used books fuel the new book market. Being able to trade in games doesn't simply result in money collected for the retailer; it results in money collected by game producers as well. This goes beyond simply mentioning first sale rights. If used games are fueling the purchase of new games, what are producers complaining about? If Gamestop is to be believed, it's a significant part of the new games market:

"GameStop says 17 percent of its sales are paid in trade credits. The implication is clear - if the games industry lost 17 percent of its sales tomorrow, that would be a bad day for the publishers and developers."

So maybe game producers should be thanking Game Stop instead of griping.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> they're-tired-of-being-labeled-the-villain http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120806/14414219947 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:27:00 PDT Want Revenue From Used Games? Just Have GameStop Buy DLC Codes For The Customer Zachary Knight http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml used games revenue stream. Warner happens to be one of those companies. With the release of Batman: Arkham City, Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game. If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman. That is if you buy it used anywhere other than GameStop.

According to a memo sent to Kotaku, Warner and GameStop have partnered up to give free codes to buyers of used copies of Batman. Granted, GameStop is most likely paying for these codes for the customer and is most likely getting them at a discounted rate. This happens to be a great deal for both companies and even some customers. Warner gets the satisfaction of capturing used game revenue with a reduced risk of customers deciding not to buy the redemption code. GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal. Finally, customers of GameStop don't have to shell out the extra cash to play as Catwoman.

This is an interesting move on Warner's part. GameStop is the poster child for the evils of used games, according to many games industry veterans. However, even the toughest critic of GameStop's policies recognizes the power this one brand has over the game consumer, thus the deal. If GameStop is willing to make such a deal with Warner, would they be willing to do the same with other companies such as EA or Ubisoft?

Of course, there are additional ramifications to consider. How will this affect the relationship with other game stores, both in and outside the US, which don't have the same leveraging power? Will those smaller stores be coerced into deals that are not as sweet for them and their customers? Regardless of the ramifications, it is nice to see a company actually be proactive about capturing used games revenue rather than just complain and punish players. Why can't more companies act this way?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> that's-one-way http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111014/08203116363 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:50:18 PDT Gamestop Discovers The Streisand Effect; Gives OnLive Tons Of Free Publicity In Trying To Take Away Coupons Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/23265115719/gamestop-discovers-streisand-effect-gives-onlive-tons-free-publicity-trying-to-take-away-coupons.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/23265115719/gamestop-discovers-streisand-effect-gives-onlive-tons-free-publicity-trying-to-take-away-coupons.shtml Deus Ex: Human Revolution and discard an included coupon for a free version of the game via the OnLive streaming platform. OnLive and Square Enix had announced the promotion to help both companies, but apparently Gamestop was jealous to be cut out of the mix. Below is an image of the order that GameSpy, who broke that story, received:

From there the story got more bizarre. Gamestop didn't even seem to realize how bad this looked at first, insisting that it just didn't want to help advertise "a competitor." Soon after all of this came out, Gamestop ordered its stores to remove the game from its shelves entirely as part of a "recall" in agreement with Square Enix. The likely implication: Gamestop and Square Enix worked out a deal to offer versions of the game without the coupon, meaning Gamestop employees won't have to destroy the coupons.

However, the real story in all of this should be just how much free publicity Gamestop just gave OnLive in its hamfisted attempt to pretend the company didn't exist. And, of course, now it means that anyone wishing to buy the PC version of the game is probably (assuming that no coupons will be available) better off buying it from someone other than Gamestop. I've defended Gamestop's used game sales practices for years, but I'm amazed the company thought any of this was a good idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> epic-failure http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110828/23265115719 Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:31:05 PDT Another Artificial Market Created Thanks To Copyright: Download Insurance? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01441814494/another-artificial-market-created-thanks-to-copyright-download-insurance.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01441814494/another-artificial-market-created-thanks-to-copyright-download-insurance.shtml Sneeje points us to a screenshot that's making the rounds (thanks, not surprisingly, to Reddit), demonstrating that GameStop is apparently offering consumers the ability to buy "download insurance" for an extra $3.95. Apparently, that extra money lets you redownload the product in the future (assuming GameStop still exists and/or any DRM servers are still functioning):

Of course, plenty of online sites that sell digital goods offer the ability to redownload what you've already bought as a free service to everyone, but not at GameStop apparently. This is, of course, a ridiculous concept. I really do wonder if anyone actually signs up for something like that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> oh-come-on http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110601/01441814494 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:12:12 PDT Gibson Sues More Than Just Activision Over Virtual Music Concert Patent Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml sued Gibson for a declaratory judgment that it didn't infringe on a really questionable patent concerning a computerized guitar for a "virtual" concert? Well, Gibson has now struck back, and it's not just suing Activision, but almost all the retailers who sell it as well, including Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, Amazon.com, Toys 'R' Us and GameStop. The idea, clearly, is to have those retailers put pressure on Activision. Update: Wired reports that the lawsuit also covers a bunch of other companies. Basically, Gibson is suing anyone even remotely connected to video games that involve fake guitars.

Of course, there are all sorts of questionable things about this lawsuit. As we pointed out when Activision first sued, Gibson's patent doesn't seem similar to "Guitar Hero" at all. It talks about playing a real concert, with a real guitar (with strings) attached to a head mounted display. Also, as Activision points out, Gibson didn't care about the patent as long as Activision and Gibson had a marketing agreement. They only started calling for patent infringement after the marketing agreement ended. Finally, suing retailers for selling the game is quite sketchy. In fact, the Supreme Court just heard a case looking at whether or not that was legit, and the Justices sounded quite skeptical. Gibson is clearly posturing to try to push for a settlement -- and in the process, showing yet another way to abuse the patent system.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> who-else-can-we-sue http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080321/165732619 Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:22:00 PDT GameStop Suspends Manager Who Won't Sell Games To Kids With Bad Grades Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070917/004054.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070917/004054.shtml encourage good grades. The policy was that he wouldn't sell video games to kids unless an adult confirms that the kid got good grades... and if the kid had straight As, the manager would buy him or her a free game. However, as the Raw Feed points out, it appears that GameStop wasn't too happy with this policy and has suspended the guy. This really isn't a huge surprise (going against corporate policy doesn't often end well), but the community reaction to the whole thing certainly suggests that there's a market for this kind of "good grades policy," and if GameStop won't allow it, then perhaps other video game stores might test it out to try to attract more business. It sounds like a lot of parents would support it. Of course, there's really nothing stopping parents from instituting the identical policy on their own... Also, you could just as easily argue the opposite position as well. If one retailer offers that policy and others don't, all the kids with bad grades are about to head over to the other store. Which do you think is the larger market?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> can't-support-that-type-of-policy http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070917/004054