GameStop accepts inevitable, creates digital media executive position

T-minus 10 years (or more) and counting...

LOL exactly Khan.


Despite everyones distain for Gamestoppage, to think digital distribution is going to take over the likes of GS and other brick and mortar used games spots anytime in any near future is laughable. Just take a look at 360's laughable "Games On Demand".

Why do you guys fail to realize it's not going to take over physical distribution but merely add another option?

No Mystile, I agree. That's ALL it's ever going to be. If that.

Commence the countdown to economic demise.

Gamestop or whatever store that eventually replaces it isnt going anywhere. If digital distribution were ever to replace brick and mortar stores for entertainment needs then millions upon millions of people would be out of jobs causing a huge economic downturn. Its not going to happen, car companies disappearing and creating record unemployment levels is nothing compared to all the game/movie/music stores disappearing.

It wont be a merge, it'll be a hostile takeover (by Wal-mart that is)

the Super-Mega Center, with a GameStop tucked in the corner between clothes and electronics.

maybe world war 3 will start when Wal-Mart and GameStop can't decide who will buy out who.

uh...

Gamestop market cap: 3.98B
Walmart market cap: 191.71B

Wishful thinking, my good man. It is no more than wishful thinking.

Not wishful thinking at all - I don't have a dog in this hunt. Someone is going to find a way to service the part of the market that is not part of the distribution network if content delivery goes 100% digital and I suspect Gamestop is smart enough to capitalize on this.

If they don't, publishers will be forced to continue producing physical media and Gamestop still stays in business. I'm not suggesting GS will be around forever - I just don't see them closing their doors anytime soon.

Blockbuster is still around and I don't know ANYONE who doesn't have NetFlix.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Every time I talk to somebody that still goes to Blockbuster, I want to slap them. Okay, well not really, but I do try to talk them into getting a Netflix account. If you watch at least two movies a month (and who doesn't?), the damn thing pays for itself.

Substantial number of console gamers without broadband? The same gamers who live in the middle of nowhere and would have to drive 50 miles to the nearest Gamestop?

Blockbuster Online (at least if you have a legacy account like me) is a better option, in my opinion, because then I get a free movie rental if I take it back to the store, and I get a free game rental every month, for the same price I'd pay with Netflix. Not a bad deal, in my opinion.

Hey Playboy wheres my check for staring at boobies all day long?

Not really. Porn is one of the biggest entertainment industries in the entire world. One way or another, people in the porn business are always going to find ways to make money.

they would make a KILLING if Porn Theaters came back....lol

not really, since most people do a certain thing while watching porn that they can't or choose not to do in public...

aye Pee Wee didnt care....beat off right there in the theater....

What do you mean by "full retail experiences [getting] bigger?"

Generations advance and whatnot. Start from the 9 Gig games of today, but think about downloading full dual-layer PS3 games, then think about if that 50 Gig size becomes something of a standard for your basic A-grade game down the road, when the other companies have adapted Blu-Ray (or the inevitable Blu-Ray knockoff Nintendo will doubtlessly use), and then think about having to download that.

How, exactly, does GameStop "rip you off"?

You for real? They sell second hand / stolen goods for inflated prices, and buy up all the competition so have little choice but use their funky smelling pawn shops. A practice that damages the games industry and leave you with a copy of a game that looks like it lost a fight with a belt sander.

How DON'T they?

"They sell second hand/ stolen goods for inflated prices" - so they're FORCING you to buy them? It something called being an informed consumer, which is your responsibility, not theirs. So how is that "ripping you off"? You make a decision to either do business there, or not to. If they came to your house, punched you in the face, took your games and forced you to take half the games' value in store credit then THAT is "ripping you off". As for the stolen thing, I'm sure it happens but there are in fact ordinances that they have to abide by.

Clearly it damages the games industry as well since you can see how horribly the industry has performed and grown over the last decade. Wasn't it determined and accepted by game developers and publishers that most trade ins actually go towards purchasing new product? How awful, making it easier for people to aquire new games.

Oh look, I want to buy a used copy of 'Prototype"; can I see the disc? Oh, it looks like it lost a fight with a belt sander. Do you have a good copy because I won't buy it if you don't?

See what I did there? I used my brain and my power of choice and didn't get "ripped off"

Here's the amazing thing though - you don't have to buy it if you don't like the price and you don't have to trade it in if you don't like what you're getting for it.

Money to the developers? Ok, so if you buy Halo 3 then sell it to your neighbor for $35 then should you be required to send Bungie a percentage of that?

It's called free enterprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_enterprise

So what about my comment made you think I don't exercise that exact plan? I think that's exactly what I said. Welcome to 2005, when I stopped selling anything to GameStop, using that new "amazing" concept you're talking about.

And yes, I think you, but specifically only you, should send Bungie some money when you sell your friend Halo 3. Person-to-person transactions aren't regulated in a way that would work with a royalty model, but if a company like GameStop is reaping massive profits from used games on the books (meaning they can trace which games sell and how much they earn from them), there is a growing interest in the gaming industry to put some of that "used market" money back toward the people who developed the games that are re-selling, over and over.

It's called youmissedthepointofthewholething.com, take a look. It might take the URL a while to load, but you should keep trying.

Nope, didn't miss the point at all. By that logic then, used automobiles would work the same way, so would used books, clothing, DVDs, CDs, MP3 players etc.

The developer/publisher made their money when the retailer bought the product. If I then decide after buying the game that I want to sell it back to someone like a large specialty retailer I have the right to do that since it is my property. It then becomes their property and they can do with it what they want. They have no further obligation to the publisher whatsoever for having a business model that people clearly like utilizing and is profitable.

Why should the scale of the enterprise matter? It could be person to person, one small store, a chain of stores or a worldwide franchise. The principle remains the same and I'm sure, though I'm not taking the time at the moment to reference it, that there is a legal precedent or principle about 'first ownership' or a similiar moniker that addresses that very thing - that after the initial sale a product has no further supplemental royalty rights.

Check that Free Enterprise link again

kthxbye

You keep stepping up, but you don't really read.

Yes, you missed that point. Even if I was arguing for developers getting royalties, (which I was NOT) the logic does NOT extend to automobiles and the other examples you typed. C'mon guy, you're smarter than that.

Different product markets have different means of profit and sales, some more straightforward than others, others with royalties, etc., therefore you can't blurt out that old 'by that logic, then (insert stretched-thin actually unrelated analogy here)' internet nugget like you did, and you're clearly smart enough to recognize that candy sells with a different profit model than a screenplay or musical recording, or even a piece of software. And the scale does matter, because outside of 'widget' examples in a classroom, the number of people employed, the resources used, impact on other economies, how much money is being made, etc. is all considered.

As for your link that you keep pushing, I don't think you quite understand that if the industry opts to figure out and use a royalties model, THAT would ALSO be "free enterprise" in effect. I know that's a bit inconvenient to hear, as I'm sure you only want to acknowledge what 'free enterprise' encompasses when it bolsters your own point. Or in other words, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

The thing is though, the scale doesn't matter because the principle remains the same. That's why the analogy is relevant whether it's automobiles, dvds, games or candy. Apparently the law agrees with that and does not consider the number of people employed, the resources used, the impact on different economies, how much money is being made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

There's no royalty model in regards to used games that the industry can implement because the Supreme Court disagrees that they have the right to it - it would seem that their definition of free enterprise matches mine. Go figure.

*predictable rebuttal*

*opinionated statement full of grammar errors bound to get downvoted*

*obligatory reply-fail*

NO! Wait! I clicked to post a new comment and it still replied! What HATH GOD WROUGHT!?

I see, I didn't realize you were present during those negotiations, which are usually only attended by GameStop executives and the executives of the company they're dealing with.

And what the hell game is PAA:OTRPOD anyway? Acronyms only work when the title is well known - what a loss to GameStop that must have been.