DICE 2009: GameStop exec defends used game sales
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Feb 21st 2009 at 2:00PM }
He said that the effect GameStop's pre-owned sales have on the success of new games is beneficial -- according to the company's statistics, over 70 percent of trade credits are applied to the purchase of new games. As far as stealing from the coffers of developers and publishers, Raines said that only four percent of used games purchased are titles that were released in the past 60 days. Even with these figures in hand, we still understand developers' protestations -- after all, any slice of a $2 billion pie is highly covetable.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Cj @ Feb 21st 2009 2:04PM
Ok no matter what. Why is a used game, just $5 less than the new copy? I rather get a new one.
Neuromancer @ Feb 21st 2009 2:09PM
To some people $5 is not insignificant. Personally I'd rather have the new one too, though.
CitizenSnips @ Feb 21st 2009 2:13PM
well if you have gamestops edge card, and anyone who goes there more than once a month does, then you get another 10% off, which is another 5 dollars. Therefore, if your a member, you get a used game for 10 dollars cheaper rather than 5 dollars.
And, well, $10 off is a pretty big deal. that more than an hours work to most people.
Al2x @ Feb 21st 2009 2:13PM
Agreed, but again the option is always there for that kid who is only $3 short of a full $60.
If I see a game that is $20 cheaper used, it's an instinct. $10, I need to decide if the game is that high of quality that I want a brand new (read: Killzone, Halo, GTA, etc.). $5, splurge and buy the new.
My biggest gripe about used games though has got to be the casing of the used games. All of the games that I have ever traded or sold to any friends, relatives, gamestops, ebay, etc. have been in mint condition, mostly because the only time I touch the case is when I grab the game, otherwise it stays tucked in a draw or cabinet with the others.
WHY ARE ALL THE GAMESTOP USED GAMES MARKED WITH SHARPIES EXPLAINING "This game is owned by billy bob fucker"? And the worst is when you ask for a game used and they have the fucking audacity to give me the game in a compact disc sleeve, no case, nothing.
Gamestop needs a universal policy that protects the buying and the selling of the used games.
ryan @ Feb 21st 2009 2:35PM
We'll just call it "The Billy Bob Fucker Policy". Love the sound of that!
Mats @ Feb 21st 2009 7:36PM
I am quite sure that when the next gen comes around you will see a even bigger incentive to buy new. I predict that serial codes will come to consoles, and connect your came to your account in a 1 time use. Without this connection you will not be able to get achivements, not play online, others will not see what you are playing and DLC will come at a higher price.
Then everyone will go... "hmm how much more will I get if I pay the exstra 5 bucks?"
mr mobius @ Feb 21st 2009 7:42PM
Al2x, I assume I know what you are talking about.
GAME will give me a case, but I will not buy a preowned game if the casing itself has scratches in it, or is badly cared, for it indicated to me that the games will not have been treated with much respect themselves.
I try to keep the casing of my games in as mint a condition as possible because I don't like things being badly cared for. Some of the cases I see look like they have been poked with car keys. I've only had that problem once with a game, where I put it in a laptop bag to carry somewhere, and the plug dented it. Needless to say, I don't do the same again.
If it is a game I'm unsure of, I may go preowned if it is much cheaper and in good condition. If it is a must have game, I'm going with a new game.
scopeanime @ Feb 22nd 2009 12:26AM
I would rather get the used copy because if the game sucks or is really short you have a week to return it. Besides, if the game plays without issue, who cares if someone else has owned it
finnith @ Feb 22nd 2009 2:38AM
I have no problem buying used games mostly because the difference does build up over time. If I buy 4 used games that are $5 cheaper than the new ones that means I can buy another game (albeit old).
Additionally, I don't have a job (still in high school and need to get marks high for university) and I pay for all my games myself so I've got to cut costs somewhere.
And it's not always a $5 difference, either. For some reason, Call of Duty 4 is $70 here (at least at my local Blockbuster), but a used copy costs $50 at EB Games. That twenty dollars can go towards another game.
Lastly, I don't know about you, but I've never got a scratched up game that didn't work. I'm not advocating Gamestop's retarded policy of buying games for such low prices and then selling them with a 300% markup on the price that they bought it at but I think used games are good for the consumer.
The part about Gamestop selling used games for a profit reminds me of Karl Marx's labour theory of value. I hate English.
Gonzo @ Feb 24th 2009 10:16AM
So by that logic you should buy from amazon or ebay since you'll probably save four times that much, and that will really add up.
What everyone has a problem with (except for the employees and consumers who have drank the koolaid) is the fact that if someone sells a game on ebay, amazon, or to an acquaintance they at least have the money to buy another used game. Go to Gameslop and you have to trade in a few games to get one old used game. Not only that but their whole preorder policy (the biggest ripoff since layaway) means that to get a recent game you to either give them $5 weeks (sometimes months) before it even comes out or buy a used copy of the game that's $2-5 short of new.
It's bad for game companies because gamers who would've just as well bought a new game get sidelined into buying a used game out of convenience. More importantly it's bad for gamers because they get one game for the five they trade in (provided they're not too old) where any other avenue would net you a new game for every two that you sell; provided they're not too old.
And I'm not even going to get into dealing with the fruitcakes that work there.
J.Goodwin @ Feb 21st 2009 2:06PM
Since when is buying selling used games "borrowing and lending."
Neuromancer @ Feb 21st 2009 2:10PM
In the cosmic sense
DCBlack @ Feb 21st 2009 11:48PM
It's more like "lending and borrowing" in a bank sense. I'll loan you my game, but I want collateral. $50 ought to do it. Then, when you're ready to bring my game back, I'll give you back $15, and then I'll go to the next schmuck and lend the game out again for another $50. So in that sense, it's lending with a raping high interest rate.
Thanatos @ Feb 23rd 2009 1:07PM
@DCBlack more like you bring it back and they give you $5. And if you put it that way just get gamefly its cheaper.
Markez @ Feb 21st 2009 2:15PM
I don't have an issue with this, they sell it, 'we' buy it. I'm not going to whine and complain because someone has found a profitable business model. Is pricing a used game 5 beans less than a brand new one absolutely asinine and dumb to me? Yes, yes it is. But people buy it anyway.
Moptimus Slime (Leader of the Taylor Swift Defense Force, Gobot in disguise) @ Feb 21st 2009 2:20PM
because people are stupid enough to think saving $5 is worth a scratched disc that isn't really guaranteed to work
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 21st 2009 3:34PM
Moptimus
What are you talking about? Used Gamestop games are guaranteed to work. You have 7 days to return it from the time your purchased it for any reason including but not limited to defective software.
Chris @ Feb 22nd 2009 1:42AM
Not dumb, because we also take another 10% off if we are part of the club. So we get the game for $50 instead of $60, with the option to return for our money back in 7 days.
I've probably returned more games than I've kept.. probably twice as many. But the ones I've kept have usually been games I wouldn't have tried otherwise, since the games I'm really excited about, I've bought new.
Game makers need to start having more confidence in their product. There are only so many dollars out there that can be applied to games. If buying a game meant owning it forever and permanently losing my $60, I'd almost never buy games, I'd just rent them from gamefly until I was tired of them.
No, the fact that selling the game is an option is the only reason I buy a lot of the games brand new, which translates to more sales for those game studios who make the good stuff. It's only those who make mediocre products that need to worry.
Roto13 @ Feb 21st 2009 2:15PM
I'm all for buying and selling used games (especially since the price of PS360 games went up to $70 here in Canada recently, so they're effectively $20 (or 40%) more expensive than they were last generation, so I don't exactly love the publishers these days), but GameStop is terrible no matter how you look at it.
If you think publishers should be making more money from game sales, GameStop hurts that by expanding used game sales to a much larger scale than they would be if GameStop wasn't there encouraging people to trade or sell their used games to them. If you (like me) see nothing wrong with selling or buying used games, since you can buy and sell pretty much everything else that isn't meant to be disposable, GameStop is still horrible because they buy too low and sell too high. They're simultaneously ripping off buyers and sellers while alienating publishers. If you want to buy or sell a game, everybody wins if you just put an ad in a newspaper or on Craigslist or something. (Well, everybody who deserves to win.)
HitNRun @ Feb 21st 2009 2:40PM
Damn straight. I buy most of my games through Half.com. I get the game $30 cheaper, and the previous owner of the game gets $30. Gamestop steals none of this.
Ryan LN @ Feb 21st 2009 3:41PM
Yes, I agree with you that the prices of used game sold by Gamestop are often terrible, but we live in a (relatively) free market and no one is forcing anyone to buy their used games from or sell their used games too Gamestop. In addition to Gamestop, I also frequent ebay, Amazon, Craigslist, Blockbuster, and local brick and mortar mom and popish retail establishments for my used games, and while I wish Gamestop had lower prices they do serve a purpose when i can't find that obscure title for the PS2 or for when I have to have my copy of Gears of War 2 at midnight. Gamestop itself would also argue that the advantage to paying a few dollars more for a used game from them rather than from GoodGamez49 on ebay is that if it doesn't work you can easily get your money back or get conforming goods, but ultimately we are all better served by having as many options out there as possible, even if some totally suck. Eventually they will all go the way of the dodo- we all realize that the path that video games are going down leads to digital distribution with little or no used market at all. While that would definitely make things a bit more profitable for some publishers, I think that in the end it would hurt them because how many of us got our start on franchises that we're now addicted to through the purchase of used games? I bought Grand Theft Auto III, Halo, Gears, and Metal Gear all used, but I have bought each and every one of their sequels shirinkwrapped on day one. Whose to say I ever even get a taste if not for used games? There is a delicate balance at work here, and even things that we don't like often serve a hidden more benign and useful purpose. I think that publishers better be careful what they wish for- the bargain may come at a cost.
wicko @ Feb 21st 2009 4:13PM
They're 70 for you? I've seen a few games that much at futureshop but then I look at Amazon and its 55$ for Killzone 2 pre-order and other pre-orders/new games.
Roto13 @ Feb 21st 2009 4:17PM
New games like Street Fighter IV and Killzone 2 are $70 everywhere I look besides Amazon. EBGames, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc. all list them for $70. Games that came out before February are still $60, though, from what I've seen. I much prefer walking into a store and buying a game than buying things from Amazon, but it looks like I'm going to have to change my habits.
The Purveyor of Justice @ Feb 21st 2009 2:19PM
I'm sorry, but developers wanting a piece of used game sales is just rediculuous. Do they expect special treatment, which no one else in the business world garners? What other industry gives the original manufacturer/developer a slice of resale? Auto's? Video's? That's right there isn't any!! Next thing I know the contractor who built my house is gonna want his 10% when I sell, just for having built the thing!!!!
WiredKnight @ Feb 21st 2009 2:39PM
You're right. Gamestop should totally be able to rip off consumers, developers, and make loads of cash from doing fuck nothing.
Geist @ Feb 21st 2009 3:02PM
Yes, they should be able to. You see, there's this thing called the Free Market. If Gamestop is able to create a place where people are willing to gather to buy/sell used games, then good for them. If they can take a piece of the pie and still end up being one of the biggest place for used games, then good for them. If you don't like it, suck it up and don't go to their stores; they aren't breaking any rules.
The Purveyor of Justice @ Feb 21st 2009 3:03PM
Welcome to the business world.
Nobody forces people to trade in their games!
The Purveyor of Justice @ Feb 21st 2009 3:16PM
If game developers don't like it they can stop whining for partial treatment, and face their concern head-on by maybe competing a little better; maybe they should try lowering their retail prices to entice buyers who would otherwise spring for a used copy. Something. Anything.........or maybe just stop being a bunch of whinny, greedy babies!!
WiredKnight @ Feb 21st 2009 11:01PM
I don't know why you guys downvoted me, I'm agreeing with you. If Gamestop wants to be known as a money-grubbing middleman, that's totally their prerogative.
I never said they were doing anything "wrong." But I don't like it, and I haven't bought anything from Gamestop in years. I'm quite familiar with how capitalism works in this country, thanks.
If your going to go about the "business world" like you own the place, you should at least recognize that developers don't set the price, the publishers do.
Deck @ Feb 21st 2009 2:24PM
I don't particularly like GameStop that much, more for their way too over enthusiastic employs more than anything else really though. I never buy a new release used though. Maybe its just a weird personal thing, but I would much rather unwrap a shrink wrapped copy and have a brand new copy of the game than something that isn't, for just $5 more. I can understand the justification if you have an EDGE card though, that does make some sense at least.
As far as trading it in, if I ever do, for the most part that money does go toward a new release at the $60 price tag.
So yeah... GameStop may not be the best outlet around but sadly, its really the only outlet around. Therefore, what else are you to do? Sure I sell on Amazon sometimes, but if its older at all and not really popular..you don't make much more than trading it in at GS. Due to the Amazon seller fee and the shipping fees. Normally works out to be a few dollars more and honestly, (maybe this is laziness too) the convenience of getting the credit right away at GS is a lot more appealing.
WiredKnight @ Feb 21st 2009 2:44PM
Selling on Amazon may end up getting you the same amount, but at least you're setting your own price, Amazon takes a tiny commission, and Gamestop isn't making any money off of you or your buyer.
It's kind of funny that buying and selling used video games online has become a lot more honest than in retail stores.
Geist @ Feb 21st 2009 3:05PM
WiredKnight, if you think that Gamestop doesn't deserve to do this, I challenge you to open your own store where people can buy and sell used games. You can be a hero, take no commission on any sales, and it will be glorious, right up to when you go out of business.
HitNRun @ Feb 21st 2009 9:23PM
WiredKnight's wrong for the most part, but he's definitely right about selling online. It's so much better (as in, $20+ better both ways) for both the seller and the buyer that there's no sound reason for using Gamestop except fear of the whole "shipping thing" or being too young to have a debit card.
Of course, that's the way the market works. The problem is that gamers are a habitual and grouchy lot and would rather just continue to use Gamestop and complain about it.
WiredKnight @ Feb 21st 2009 11:08PM
What the hell am I wrong about exactly?
It's not like I'm on a crusade to put Gamestop out of business. Obviously any used goods dealer needs to make a commission to stay in business. And it goes without saying that Gamestop's business model works, they're making tons of money off of it.
But you can't sit there and tell me that buying a month-old, used, AAA title, in great condition from someone for $15, then selling it to the next guy for $55 is honest.
Sarge @ Feb 23rd 2009 11:52AM
I'm sorry, but whose fault is that? If you want to sell your game for $15, that's your fault. And okay, maybe Gamestop marks it up to $55. Is anyone forcing you to buy at that price?
Besides, all the prices come down eventually when sales slow. Look at the crap that populates the used bins, especially titles that they probably gave more in trade-in credit than they're selling them for at this point.
Does Gamestop's pricing suck? Yup. I think I should get a more substantial discount on used games. But the fact that they're so close to new prices actually helps the publishers, because a lot of people will just buy new, unlike some of the cheaper stores and options.
Do their trade-in values (usually) suck? Yup. But that's why I don't trade in my games there.
This discussion is an indicator that we as a society are giving up the notion of personal responsibility, most recently exhibited in the housing sector.
Mike @ Feb 21st 2009 2:28PM
Hey, who photo-shopped all the PC games into that Game Stop picture? They did a nice job.
HitNRun @ Feb 21st 2009 2:43PM
Joystiq needs a once-a-week ability to give a post +10.
Snarf @ Feb 21st 2009 5:24PM
Same guy who photoshopped in the four chicks.
Thanatos @ Feb 23rd 2009 1:13PM
Tell me about it, last 3 different gamestops ive been in had one small shelf with about 20-30 titles and almost 10 of those were WoW and the expansion.
B3astofthe3ast @ Feb 21st 2009 2:30PM
The answer is simple. If developers want some of the dough, develop there own buy back program that trades used games for new games/DLC. Imagine if EA had such a system?
Spam @ Feb 21st 2009 2:50PM
They'd go out of business - they wouldn't make any money because everybody would trade in last years [insert sport brand here] game, or all the old crappy movie tie-in that people only realised was rubbish too late, and EA would have to pay for all that in some way - be it directly losing money, or not making enough profit out of each release. And this will happen just because of the sheer number of crappy games EA put out every year that, for some reason, people buy.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 21st 2009 2:54PM
Dude, EA would make tons of money. They take in traded Madden from last year, change the box art and slap a new CD art cover onto the disk and then you got the next year's version. They could save a ton of money doing this as they could dispense with the whole development process and no more mussing around with the disk stamping facility.
bill51 @ Feb 21st 2009 2:37PM
I think of all the in-game advertising present in games now and how that's had zero effect on the initial price of games. Then adding the fact that they want a slice of the used game profits, it really makes them look like a bunch of money grubbing whores.
Of course, the price of making a game has risen significantly, but it's quite odd how magnificent games were made for over two decades without this kind of bellyaching. It must take a lot of dough to keep that constant stream of shovelware going.
daniel @ Feb 21st 2009 2:51PM
i quite often buy used games any reduction in price is enough to motivate me to go used and unlike what everyone seems to be reporting about gamestop, game the big games retailer here in the uk seem to be pretty fussy about what they'll take ive never had a problem with any used game ive brought there
LaughingTarget @ Feb 21st 2009 2:52PM
The game was purchased, we can sell it to whoever. Next thing you know, they'll be bitching and moaning about Ebay and start demanding a piece of that, too. Sorry guys, I bought it, I can then sell it off to someone else if I damned well feel like it. If it happens to be GameStop buying (not gonna happen in my case) then so be it. Once they bought it, they can do whatever they want to, like sell it (or in the case of last year's Madden, melt them down into soda bottles). They can price used games at whatever price point they want. It's their property.
RedRaptor @ Feb 21st 2009 3:13PM
I haven't seen that many PC game boxes in a long, long time.
Glorious.
Mr Khan @ Feb 21st 2009 3:30PM
Replay value will save you. I mean, the problem largely effects games that have short single-player modes, and alternately lack local multiplayer.
Which will harm a lot of games, but some more than others. Games like Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Gears, Halo, will find less pain from this effect, but games that scorn the offline element, like The Conduit (no splitscreen), or such as Heavenly Sword, will suffer from their inability to have lasting value. Put in more lasting value for all users (because a surprisingly great many consoles aren't connected to the internet), and the problem will decrease
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 21st 2009 3:46PM
Mr. Khan,
I disagree in a sense. Sometimes a single player game is fine so long as there is things to accomplish or collect on each playthrough like Uncharted or MGS 4. Didn't you say not to long ago that multiplayer artifically lengthens a game?
Did it stop you from enjoying Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Zelda or Zack & Wiki? The answer is more than likely a no. Good games are good regardless if they have singleplayer or multiplayer. I admit that some form of multiplayer gameplay (be it co-op or competitive) is the new trend but I will take a fleshed out single player adventure any day over a game with tacked on multiplayer.
For example, I don't think inFamous or Madworld are going to have a multiplayer component but they are two of my most anticipated games of this entire year. If a game is fun I'll spend hours on it but if it sucks no amount of endless multiplayer is going to save it for me.
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Feb 21st 2009 3:56PM
Just to follow up with something ...
I think an incentive that developers can give customers to only buy new games is by offering certain perks and content that's only available when buying the game new. A good example would have been the flashback map pack with Gears 2 but they ruined that by selling it for $5.00 after release. This content needs to be stuff that can't be acquired by another other means except a new purchase of the game.
Another incentive that I touched on earlier is rewarding the player for multiple playthroughs. Do you remember how Resident Evil 4 offered new weapons and game modes for completing the game under certain objectives? Obviously games like Yakuza 3, Infamous & Grand Theft Auto offer the player an oppourtunity to play without following a linear path which can also increase replayability.
Third of all would have to be offering free DLC or cheap expansions that add to the games adventure. Obviously Burnout Paradise has done a great job of keeping relevant by the numerous free DLC offering. MM has done the same with LBP but the difference is that game has an endless amount of content anyway becasuse the users can publish their own levels.
The last thing developers can do is give the user some sort of content creation suite and the means to publish their works for the community like LBP and Farcry 2 had.
In the end it's as simple as the developer needs to craft a quality product that the consumer has some sort of attachment to in one way or another and wants to hold onto. Fallout 3 would have been great on the PS3 had you been able to continue exploring after the main quest finished.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 21st 2009 4:24PM
That really wasn't the point. Good game or not, all of them have a point where you simply don't feel like playing anymore. Mine is when I finish it for the first time and it lacks a compelling online component (for me, this has turned into most of them, I'm finding the online parts to be way too similar) because I remember every bit of the game and don't have much interest in going further.
What does adding achievements or trophies accomplish? A minor extension of play value before the game is no longer desirable to play. That's what was mentioned above. A single player focused game, even with the various side trappings, isn't going to stay in the buyer's home as long as a game with a compelling multiplayer component or party aspect. Games like Rock Band or (ugh) Wii Play will stay in the buyer's home for a much longer time than Uncharted will. Uncharted is a wonderful game, but it doesn't have anything about it that screams, "Play me again every year until the end of time."
No matter how into playing video games you may be, you only have a set amount of time. 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year and a limited lifespan until you take the eternal dirt nap. How many games can you keep in your library that are keepers and how many new ones are you going to forego to keep the old ones around?
I used to keep games, but not anymore. I know perfectly well that I'll run out of time in a day, month, year, etc if I wanted to go back and jump on the old things. I used to have a few thousand titles stretching back to the NES days. But I realized that all they did was sit in a box in the closet or attic (depending on where I was). That's when I figured I should just sell them and put the proceeds toward the newer titles I was purchasing. This saved me a chunk of change in the process.
The Uncharted and Mario Galaxies have a highly limited lifespan and that lifespan is far shorter than the Guitar Heroes and Wii Sports of the world. There just isn't anything amazing enough to keep it around until the end of time. No such game exists.