Support NeoGAF

[John]

He's got a problem with if you don't cut him in on the action. That was pretty clear.

His problem is with retailers going into business with the intent of diverting sales away from unused products. Objectively it's a double-standard, sure, but his game company is free to go DD-only if he wants to.

This isn't politics, it's business. Gamestop's stealing his sales, so he won't sell to Gamestop. That's all.

 

[StuBurns]

No one else thought that this was funny?

Also I find it disturbing that Jaffe would ever allow himself to spell you as u.

What's strange is the inconsistent. Who uses u followed by you? Either one or the other Jaffe jesus.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Christ.

The future of the games industry is dickish men threatening each other over twitter.

I think thats a more pressing concern than used game sales.

 

[StoOgE]

besides, that guy is also stupid... car analogies dont work well there as car companies still make money on used cars....

They do? I would love to hear that explanation.

 

[StuBurns]

They do? I would love to hear that explanation.

Parts I guess, although this generation has given publishers DLC to make money on second hand games. It's actually better in that sense than it has been before.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

No, it''s completely different. You can't compare cars or houses with videogames, that's silly.
They're totally different markets, for parties involved, IP regulations, time on the market, etc etc.

The only difference is that anything digital doesn't really age, so a used game or song plays exactly the same as a new one. Well that and the low marginal cost/ high marginal profit combined with really high fixed costs.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Unless you work for a game company, I really don't see how a person can sit there and argue FOR limiting consumer (ie your) rights, but GAF is always full of surprises.

 

[spwolf]

They do? I would love to hear that explanation.

servicing is where dealers make all of their profit. They make almost nothing on new cars.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

What's strange is the inconsistent. Who uses u followed by you? Either one or the other Jaffe jesus.

Actually I meant the fact that Jaffe would knock someone else for the harsh language they used was funny.

 

[conman]

Sure, Jaffe's an asshole, but everyone knows that. Doesn't make him wrong. Also, doesn't mean that non-Jaffe's also not an asshole. Two assholes.

But their exchange is funny. Jaffe's talking about one thing (this guy's attitude). Non-Jaffe's talking about another thing (used game sales). Neither seems to understand that the other is talking about something else.

 

[shintoki]

So how many people here sell old games off to buy new ones? :lol

 

[Pureauthor]

Unless you work for a game company, I really don't see how a person can sit there and argue FOR limiting consumer (ie your) rights, but GAF is always full of surprises.

This qualifies as a 'surprise'?

 

[spwolf]

Unless you work for a game company, I really don't see how a person can sit there and argue FOR limiting consumer (ie your) rights, but GAF is always full of surprises.

except nobody is arguing that, jaffe isnt thats for sure.

As to the DD pricing - we know what happened to Warhawk when Sony tried to publish DD version for less.

 

[StuBurns]

Actually I meant the fact that Jaffe would knock someone else for the harsh language they used was funny.

I got that, I just thought the inconsistency was very odd. Half a text message, half email or something.

 

[Mithos]

servicing is where dealers make all of their profit. They make almost nothing on new cars.

Who says that the place you service your car is owned by the car manufacturer?

There are MANY independent service centers around.

 

[Gravijah]

So how many people here sell old games off to buy new ones? :lol

I don't ever sell games I own. But I sure as fuck buy used games, so...

 

[Willeth]

So how many people here sell old games off to buy new ones? :lol

Every now and again, I will, but it's usually so late that they've lost all value. I got into Goozex for a while but that stopped after I started having to pay for it.

The reason I stopped buying used games was because I could get new ones cheaper online. I think the last time I bought a used game was Beyond Good and Evil, because it was the only place I could find it. I still haven't played it properly, so I'm not sure what the lesson is there.

In fact, every single used game I've bought has meant much less to me than a new one at launch. I wonder why that is.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

servicing is where dealers make all of their profit. They make almost nothing on new cars.

Dealers aren't the manufacturers. You need to think this through a bit. :lol

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

except nobody is arguing that, jaffe isnt thats for sure.

As to the DD pricing - we know what happened to Warhawk when Sony tried to publish DD version for less.

Actually, Jaffe is arguing that (albeit indirectly), and so are many others in this thread (much more directly).

David is saying that if the retailers don't cave and give the publishers a piece of the pie, they will drop the a-bomb on them, and oh, awfully sorry gamers, but it appears you will also get hit. But we aren't aiming for you, so don't get mad at us!

 

[Aaron Strife]

I agree with Les even though I don't care for how he came across.

I buy new games new anyway because for me, the 5 dollars off isn't worth it.

 

[StoOgE]

servicing is where dealers make all of their profit. They make almost nothing on new cars.

But they don't make any money off the sale.. Jaffe is bitching about not making money off the actual used sale.

Also, dealers are very rarely owned by the car maker... and the car maker doesn't make all that much money off the sale of parts to the dealers either because most of those are coming from 3rd party suppliers.

and publishers still sell DLC so they can make money off of used games the same way a dealer continues to profit off of a used car sale.

Maybe instead of bitching about not getting a slice of the initial sale Jaffe should come up with a way to make more money off of the people that buy games used and/or incent people not to sell their copy in the first place.

 

[blindrocket]

Online retailer DVD Empire has announced that they’re getting out of the video game retail business, citing an inability to make a profit selling games under the current business model. In their explanation to current customers, they outline seven reasons why current business practices make it, in their words, “impossible for us to make money selling video games.”

The reasons? High wholesale prices on software—“they set the retail price at just $5 above the product cost (buy it for $54.99, sell it for $59.99)”—and hardware—“take a $400 console; we only make $5 on the sale—that is a .01% gross margin.”

Worst of all? Lack of price protection and rampant price drops on bad or stagnant titles.

The game industry releases many bad games, and word of mouth spreads fast to the consumer. All of those bunk games sit on our shelves. If we do end up selling them, we lose more money, due to the lack of price protection. They won’t let us return the bombs. Of course, if the video game industry produced quality games, we wouldn’t have this issue.

The only good news here is that DVD Empire is clearing out its entire video game stock at 20% off. Enjoy, cheapasses. Michael McWhertor

Ouch.

 

[swerve]

new and used cars, new and used music, new and used movies, new and used anything--it's pretty much all the same deal. Jaffe thinks the game industry is special somehow.

I've never gone to the counter with a CD, or a book, or a DVD, and been told that I could buy it for $5 cheaper used in the same store.

However, this happens very often in many leading game stores.

A huge difference is that in music and book stores, people are encouraged to - or at least left alone to - browse. Whereas game stores try to 'help' you to the cashier straight away, preferably with a used game.

I'm not taking sides, but there are big differences in the way other media are sold to the way games are sold.

 

[Uncle]

So how many people here sell old games off to buy new ones? :lol

I sure do. In fact sometimes I even buy cheap games, just to trade them in on some sweet Gamestop deal. I reserved and paid off Brütal Legend & Dragon Age: Origins just the other day. Total cost: 37€. Gamestop <3

 

[firex]

Jaffe and Robin Clarke come across as know-it-all idiots at best in this article, and butthurt morons for most of it.

 

[StoOgE]

I've never gone to the counter with a CD, or a book, or a DVD, and been told that I could buy it for $5 cheaper used in the same store.

However, this happens very often in many leading game stores.

A huge difference is that in music and book stores, people are encouraged to - or at least left alone to - browse. Whereas game stores try to 'help' you to the cashier straight away, preferably with a used game.

I'm not taking sides, but there are big differences in the way other media are sold to the way games are sold.

So then the argument is that Gamestop is guilty of being very efficient at steering customers towards higher margin items.

This isn't anything new either. Car salesman will very often try and show you used cars because the margins are higher.. go to a restaurant and they try and upsell you.

So the argument is Gamestop should stop trying to maximize their profits because it hurts Jaffe's pocket book?

What gamestop does is 1) Good for gamestop share holders. 2) Good for consumers (other than the whole selling used games as new BS). 3) Bad for publishers.

I have a hard time being sympathetic as long as what gamestop does is on the side of the consumers best interest.

 

[Willeth]

But they don't make any money off the sale.. Jaffe is bitching about not making money off the actual used sale.

and publishers still sell DLC so they can make money off of used games the same way.

Maybe instead of bitching about not getting a slice of the initial sale Jaffe should come up with a way to make more money off of the people that buy games used and/or incent people not to sell their copy in the first place.

Gears of War 2 did a weird thing with this. They included the Flashback maps in with Gears 2 new, which of course would be used already if you bought it used. They then made the maps available on XBLM - so anyone who bought the game new was ostensibly 'rewarded', but anyone who bought a used game still had the opportunity to pay the developers if they wanted to play the game online.

Now, though, there's a weird bundle pack of maps available, the best value of which includes the Flashback maps. So now, as someone who bought the game new and enjoyed the campaign more than the multi, if I want to play the new mission I also have to buy a bunch of maps I don't want, and possibly some I already own. Which is not elegant.

I do think that offering valuable DLC is perhaps the mixture of disc sale and DD that someone mentioned early in the thread, and it nicely sidesteps the issue of holding back content if there's a code in the box when bought new. Actually, the more I look at it, the more I like it.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Also, dealers are very rarely owned by the car maker... and the car maker doesn't make all that much money off the sale of parts to the dealers either because most of those are coming from 3rd party suppliers.

I have a vague memory that it's actually illegal for a car manufacturer to own a dealer. I could be wrong though.

 

[Noshino]

Sure. They are removing the right of resale. They are taking away your ability to recover some of the money you paid for a game that turns out to be a turkey. This dramatically decreases the value of the purchase as you are essentially "stuck" with it after you buy it.

Question, how much do you usually recover from reselling your games?

Anyway, the problem here is that Gamestop has most of the second hand market, and well, they are using your "right of resale" to their own good. If most people are informed about GameStop's practices, they wouldn't mind to give that "right" away for the benefits.

This would be fine if they would reduce game prices to the price of $(current game price - reasonable resale value) but they aren't doing that at the moment and I really don't see any intention in them to start doing it.

Once again, it has been mentioned time after time that it is the Retail industry that is keeping the prices that high. People say that there would be no competition, but console manufacturers ARE still fighting to one up the other, and so are the independent studios. To say that there would be no competition, even with "hit" games, is rather naive.

 

[cartman414]

This is a capitalist society and gamestop is a legitimate business. You can't just cry and call them unethical for satisfying demand in a niche that the game industry couldn't, no, would never provide. It's amazing when people talk about the buy back policy as if gamestop should be hooking people up for free. "Omg they pay you $10 and sell it for $30." NO FUCKING SHIT. They're not your bros and aren't out to hook you up. :lol

Interesting you bring up that last point, because Gamestop underpays even for what are essentially returns. They've already been ripping off unwitting customers in that department. It's why I prefer the eBay method for resale.

 

[StuBurns]

Strangely, I never buy used games when the game is still in print, because I want to support the developers/publishers (with a single exception this generation, that was quite a unique case). However, I have no issue trading games in. When I'm done with one, and aren't going to play it again, you just get so much back that it's hard not to for me. Maybe if I was very wealth it'd be different.

 

[Dorrin]

Game prices will be more flexible when retail is gone.

Bobby Kotick at Activision says hi!

"Les" was dead on with his analysis, Jaffe is wrong... again..

 

[turtle553]

What Jaffe doesn't realize is that he is already getting a cut of the used game sales. A portion of the $60 paid for a new game is the ability to resell the game. I'd say this is about $10 of the sale to me. Without the ability to resell, a new game may only be worth $50 or less to a lot of people.

Jaffe talks about the big picture, but he seems to be missing it.

 

[StoOgE]

Gears of War 2 did a weird thing with this. They included the Flashback maps in with Gears 2 new, which of course would be used already if you bought it used. They then made the maps available on XBLM - so anyone who bought the game new was ostensibly 'rewarded', but anyone who bought a used game still had the opportunity to pay the developers if they wanted to play the game online.

Now, though, there's a weird bundle pack of maps available, the best value of which includes the Flashback maps. So now, as someone who bought the game new and enjoyed the campaign more than the multi, if I want to play the new mission I also have to buy a bunch of maps I don't want, and possibly some I already own. Which is not elegant.

I do think that offering valuable DLC is perhaps the mixture of disc sale and DD that someone mentioned early in the thread, and it nicely sidesteps the issue of holding back content if there's a code in the box when bought new. Actually, the more I look at it, the more I like it.

It sounds like Gears tried to do something smart and wound up screwing it up after the fact.. but the idea there sounds about right. Reward people for buying the game new. Continue to give them incentives to keep playing the game.. and "punish" people for buying it used (having to buy something that was given away free on Day 1).

 

[mike0513]

Its not something that's maybe as prevalent in the gaming industry (yet anyways) as it is in others, but there are companies that are struggling right now to stay afloat in the tough economy. Because of this, I can see where they are coming from in regards to used game sales, however I don't agree with it. If they think that by cutting off used game sales, they would effectively turn those customers (that would buy used games) on to buying new games at 60 bucks a pop, they're sadly mistaken. In fact, I wager it would end up crippling them in the long run, much like the closure of retail stores has crippled the music industry (which is in utter shambles at the moment). It's simple economics really, when the demand for an entertainment medium is lower, the 'price for admission' must lower as well. If gaming companies want to take their products beyond the 'niche' audience, and into every household, they need there to be a fair balance for the customer. The only way to do that is to have a cheap entry point, which Gamestop (and other similar outlets) allow them to have. If your on the fence about something, you sure as hell are much more likely to make the jump into the yard if the worst that could happen to you is a few scrapes on your knees. Once Gamestop is out of the picture, not only does it raise the risk, effectively scaring off any potential newcomers, but it also scares off many customers whom have only recently began making the dive (which i would wager is around 30 percent of the current consumer population) And one more thing, if Gamestop were to give a certain percentage of used game sales to the developers, what would be the point of them even taking used games anymore? Not only would the profit margin decrease, but also the inventory upkeep, store space, and possible no-sale become much bigger issues for them as well. Just my two (or twenty:lol ) cents.

 

[shintoki]

Actually, Jaffe is arguing that (albeit indirectly), and so are many others in this thread (much more directly).

David is saying that if the retailers don't cave and give the publishers a piece of the pie, they will drop the a-bomb on them, and oh, awfully sorry gamers, but it appears you will also get hit. But we aren't aiming for you, so don't get mad at us!

I pretty much read it as a market crash in the making.:lol

 

[TalonsOfJustice]

If you're gonna complain because people are selling their games back, then don't sell your games on a disc. Cutting share from businesses is messing with a sense of ownership. Shops like Gamestop BUY that game back from consumers, then they re-sell it. It's not like they don't spend any money doing it, and if you're gonna whine because businesses are making money off your game that you already sold at a certain price, then stop selling your games on a medium where people can actually hold your product.

Want more control over the sales of your game? Make it downloadable, then whine again because your target consumer doesn't like to download games.

 

[Agent X]

Jaffe is completely wrong on this.

His argument, whether he likes them or not is to limit or constrict consumer freedom. If they start forcing gamestop to cut them in on the deal than gamestop will either

1) charge slightly more for used games to offset their loss
2) pay consumers slightly less for used games to offset their loss.

Not to mention, the publisher has no right to the money for the sale of used games. Once you sell the product to the first buyer, they are free to do what they want with it as far as selling it goes.

Topps/Upperdeck don't get a cut of second hand sales of their cards.
GM/Ford don't get a cut of second hand sales of their cars
Furniture makers don't get a cut of consignment store sales, etc.

These are very good analogies. Another one that I liked is RazzleDazzleRB's comparison to homebuilders wanting a share of the sale price of an old house.

The game industry needs to do a better job of giving owners incentives to keep their games and/or buy them on day one. Free DLC every few months to keep a game fresh. Cool incentives to play the game early in it's life cycles (play to win contests, play with the developers things, etc).

They should work to incent gamers to hang on to their games longer.

I agree with this.

Another thing to keep in mind is that stores that sell used games had to get those used games from somewhere. That "somewhere" happens to be consumers who didn't want the game anymore, for whatever reason. Maybe they "beat the story" and didn't see any reason to go back and play through the story the second time. Maybe they got it to play with their friends (either online or offline), but their friends are no longer interested and now they've lost interest as well. Or maybe they simply needed the cash, and this was something non-essential that they could hock.

Whatever the reason is, there's something in common--the people who sold or traded the used games away did not want them anymore. After all, if they still wanted them, then they wouldn't have sold them off. The store employees didn't go to gamers' homes, bust down their doors, and force them at gunpoint to sell off their games. The consumers made their own conscious choice.

If game developers work on crafting games that offer great longevity and replay value, then perhaps most of these people won't want to get rid of those games. They'll want to retain them for months or even years, because they know they can come back to them later and stil get enjoyment out of them.

On the other hand, if they make "disposable" games that are short on content and/or don't offer incentive to play them through an extended period of time, then they should not be surprised if gamers choose to "dispose" of them!

 

[Pureauthor]

Question, how much do you usually recover from reselling your games?

Anyway, the problem here is that Gamestop has most of the second hand market, and well, they are using your "right of resale" to their own good. If most people are informed about GameStop's practices, they wouldn't mind to give that "right" away for the benefits.

You can recover quite a bit if you know where to look. Or you could just dump 'em off at the nearest GameStop if it's convenience you're after.

Also why on earth should Gamestop not use the right of resale for their own good? As an organization, they exist to make profits, and as much as possible. That's what a business does.

Also, what benefits?

Once again, it has been mentioned time after time that it is the Retail industry that is keeping the prices that high. People say that there would be no competition, but console manufacturers ARE still fighting to one up the other, and so are the independent studios. To say that there would be no competition, even with "hit" games, is rather naive.

This is an era where video game companies have been screwing the consumers over with frivolous DLC that does nothing but unlock content already on the disc, also an era where they screwed the pooch on their own financials so badly that most of the western game devs are losing money despite jacking the price up ten dollars from the previous generation. I'm supposed to believe that bunch of clowns are going to do what's best for the consumer?

Its not something that's maybe as prevalent in the gaming industry (yet anyways) as it is in others, but there are companies that are struggling right now to stay afloat in the tough economy. Because of this, I can see where they are coming from in regards to used game sales, however I don't agree with it.

The reason I have no sympathy for this predicament is that they brought it upon themselves. The economy definitely didn't help, but their business model sucked before anyway.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I think there's also a side of the story that game devs also ignore, and which was mentioned in the article: the markup for new game sales is incredibly bad.

I mean, how can anyone blame companies for trying to sell used game sales when mark up for new game sales is like 10%? And if the game bombs, the minimal mark up goes away

 

[Raist]

And yet they all have a thriving resale market. What, exactly, about video games makes them unique enough to be different?

Retailers already get a share on the sale of a new game. And then they can do a shitload of money on selling a used copy. I'm pretty sure overall, they can easily make more money off a copy of a game than the developpers themselves. And that only cost them some shelf space. You can easily see why this only can upset devs/pubs.

In the case of other goods, the majority of the sales do not involve a third party. Not to mention that in the case of videogames the used copy will stand next to the new one. You don't exactly see that with other goods. For cars, the only case when it happens is with licensed retailers, who either are owned by the manufacturer, or pay a license. In both cases the manufacturer gets money on used sales.

Then you have the time factor. VG are extremely short lived products, so the used market is more likely to have a huge impact on it. That's not the case with goods such as cars or houses.

Competition. For many reasons, a 15yo house or a 5yo car are not likely to directly compete with their "new" counterparts. First because in most cases they're different, and second because this kind of used goods come with potential problems and shortcomings. Except if the disc is scratched to death and the box is ruined, there is absolutely no advantage in buying new vs used for videogames.

Etc.

I'm not sure Jaffe wants to completely ban the used market, just that he thinks the way it works right now is totally unfair to the devs/pubs who spent a shitload of time to create a product, and retailers are making easy money out of it. And I think he's right.

 

[vellex]

Have to agree with Doctor 'Les' Robotnik on this one.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Question, how much do you usually recover from reselling your games?

Anyway, the problem here is that Gamestop has most of the second hand market, and well, they are using your "right of resale" to their own good. If most people are informed about GameStop's practices, they wouldn't mind to give that "right" away for the benefits.




Once again, it has been mentioned time after time that it is the Retail industry that is keeping the prices that high. People say that there would be no competition, but console manufacturers ARE still fighting to one up the other, and so are the independent studios. To say that there would be no competition, even with "hit" games, is rather naive.

To your question, I generally recover about 50% or more when I resell my games. I don't use Gamestop, obviously.

As to the rest, I'm sorry, I don't buy it. The games industry has in no way earned my trust that they will do anything even remotely consumer-friendly. Instead of adjusting the idiotically self-destructive business model they've established, they've instead aggressively tried to find more and more ways to fuck me out of my money. I have no trust in them whatsoever to keep prices as competitive as retail does if they go digital distro-only.

 

[blindrocket]

There are other ways to combat this, such as putting in download codes for the online multiplayer, which will then tie the MP into the first console. The gamer can then trade the game in when they are done with it, but GS can only sell the single player and perhaps not make as much $. Kind of hard to sell a newly traded in game for almost full price when it's lacking a multiplayer component.


Another thing, you can't resale PC games, correct? Unless you sell it to an individual yourself, but from what I understand retailers won't touch it. Is it actually illegal or just against their policy?

I think it would be bad form to get rid of Gamestop altogether. As for brick and mortar stores we'd be left with Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy, who have only recently got into preorders and bonuses (probably only to compete with Gamestop). We could probably say goodbye to those free art books and other gaming paraphernalia we are accustomed to getting at Gamestop.

 

[Jet Grind Radio!]

I've never gone to the counter with a CD, or a book, or a DVD, and been told that I could buy it for $5 cheaper used in the same store.

However, this happens very often in many leading game stores.

A huge difference is that in music and book stores, people are encouraged to - or at least left alone to - browse. Whereas game stores try to 'help' you to the cashier straight away, preferably with a used game.

I'm not taking sides, but there are big differences in the way other media are sold to the way games are sold.

GameStops are very tiny compared to other stores that let you browse. Most of the time, like Best Buy and Target, they hardly know you're there. What GameStop's doing is pushing people to something that gives them more profit. Best Buy and Target are both guilty of this with their use of warranties.

There are other ways to combat this, such as putting in download codes for the online multiplayer, which will then tie the MP into the first console. The gamer can then trade the game in when they are done with it, but GS can only sell the single player and perhaps not make as much $. Kind of hard to sell a newly traded in game for almost full price when it's lacking a multiplayer component.


Another thing, you can't resale PC games, correct? Unless you sell it to an individual yourself, but from what I understand retailers won't touch it. Is it actually illegal or just against their policy?

I think it would be bad form to get rid of Gamestop altogether. As for brick and mortar stores we'd be left with Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy, who have only recently got into preorders and bonuses (probably only to compete with Gamestop). We could probably say goodbye to those free art books and other gaming paraphernalia we are accustomed to getting at Gamestop.

I really don't like the idea of having one time use codes for new games that link to actual gameplay. I think the developers releasing a steady stream of content for everybody would help curb the need/urge to trade in. Things like Fallout 3 and Rock Band have had fairly consistent DLC for months. That way it doesn't punish people who buy the game used out of necessity or preference. And the Publisher/Developer can seem more money over a period of time and get word of mouth still going.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Jeez that's some anger at play.

I look forward to the day when in regards to DD at least, this whole "Buying Used" thing is finally dead in the water thanks to Impulse's Phase IV and beyond stuff working out for everybody and all other current and future services aiming to match on it :fingers crossed:

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Man this industry is so retarded sometimes. It was how long ago that PC converted to CD numbers? Ship every console with a 500 gig harddrive, offer full installs to people logged in to service, watch used gaming sales implode.

 

[Willeth]

It sounds like Gears tried to do something smart and wound up screwing it up after the fact.. but the idea there sounds about right. Reward people for buying the game new. Continue to give them incentives to keep playing the game.. and "punish" people for buying it used (having to buy something that was given away free on Day 1).

Yeah, I didn't realise it at the time, but this is actually rather smart. I'd be wary of "punishing" used game buyers, and rather prefer to "reward" buyers of the new game, but that ends up in PR spin discussion.

World at War did something similar, as well - if you bought it in the first week, you got a weapon early on that ordinarily wouldn't be unlocked until later in the MP progression.

Of course, I'm struggling to come up with a solution that works for single-player games. Holding back an exclusive campaign level for this doesn't work, and costumes don't really have a value to it. Something like Arkham Asylum's challenge rooms might work.

Maybe blur the line between collectors' editions and regular editions. If you buy the game new, you get a code to download all the dev interviews and extra content that would have been on the second disc. Does that mesh with the available market? I'm not sure that the people who primarily buy used games care about collectors' editions.

EDIT: How did Burnout Paradise do after all the free DLC? Did they move more new units as opposed to what they would have used? Did the price of a new copy stay high longer than usual, because it was selling well?

 

[Tonza]

So then the argument is that Gamestop is guilty of being very efficient at steering customers towards higher margin items.

This isn't anything new either. Car salesman will very often try and show you used cars because the margins are higher.. go to a restaurant and they try and upsell you.

So the argument is Gamestop should stop trying to maximize their profits because it hurts Jaffe's pocket book?

What gamestop does is 1) Good for gamestop share holders. 2) Good for consumers (other than the whole selling used games as new BS). 3) Bad for publishers.

I have a hard time being sympathetic as long as what gamestop does is on the side of the consumers best interest.

I totally agree.

I think rather than trying to tell retailers to f*ck off, game developers should concentrate on making people A) preorder/buy new games by giving bonuses B) make them keep the game with DLC.

 

[Starchasing]

My greatgrandpa used to breed horses. Cars got him out of bussiness.

Bye bye Jaffe