First Ebay Now Game Stop

[Parrothead]

I think I am masochistic but hey, all in the name for making things better. Read on. . .

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/36532/Startup_Hopes_To_Disrupt_Used_Game_Market_By_Giving_Publishers_A_Cut.php

[+save2600]

Noble concept, but one I think may end up ruining the fun for everyone involved unless you've got airtight and legally binding contracts that would prohibit former publishers from fleecing you out of existence.

 

Well drawn up contracts first and foremost should be the #1 priority here before creating such a business model IMO. Good luck!

[the.golden.ax]

It was a good idea when I came up with it two-three years ago and opened my big fat mouth about it.

 

Karma, she is a bitch.

 

AX

[Rex Dart]

For the most part, this sounds like what gamefly's already doing. They sell used games. They likely have contracts in place with publishers, being a rental place & all.

[SpaceDice2010]

From what I see the business plan is flawed on many levels. My hunch - The company will become a niche player within a year. If and only if they can secure a nice chunk of VC can this company become anything more than a niche player. But, VC firms are not going to go with a business model that gives publishers a cut. If that data is so valuable, and I have my doubts about how valuable it is, then the VCs will want the data to be sold.

 

My 2c.

[Schizophretard]

I don't think the problem is the used video game market but the publishers. If someone buys a game, beats it, sells it, and then the new owner beats it, sells it,.... then that is a sign to me that the publishers failed to make a game that people want to keep. They should stop designing one night stand games and design games with replayability. Giving publishers a cut in used video game sells would be giving them an incentive to make games with even less replay value.

 

You make crappy games, people resell them, you lose profit, you raise prices on new games, piracy increases because people don't want to pay high prices, you raise prices more, you come up with a way to get your cut in used video game sells, your games get crappier, people get tired of buying crap so piracy increases even more, you get rid of physical media to eliminate piracy, people get tired of buying digitized crap that they can't resell, and then VIDEO GAME CRASH 2! But I'll still own my Atari.

[SpaceDice2010]

Am I the only one that thinks this is dumb idea?

[Shawn]

Am I the only one that thinks this is dumb idea?

 

No your not but as you can see from the lack of responses in this thead you must refer to what mother always said: If you don't have

anything nice to say (try your hardest as hard as it might be to) don't say anything at all.

[the.golden.ax]

Am I the only one that thinks this is dumb idea?

 

No your not but as you can see from the lack of responses in this thead you must refer to what mother always said: If you don't have

anything nice to say (try your hardest as hard as it might be to) don't say anything at all.

 

 

Your mom was a bunny?

 

 

AX

[horseboy]

I honestly just don't understand. Why would any gamer want to do this? If they are getting the games with the intention of trading them back in for another game why would they use this service over Gamefly? Gamefly is $8 a month and I can't imagine it will cost somebody less than that to buy and sell 2 or 3 games a month with this service. Am I missing a key element here? I have no intention of being mean or anything here, I just want to understand.

[Emehr]

I still can't accept the fact that publishers think they deserve a cut of the second-hand sales. The notion just baffles me completely.

 

It would be awesome if the precedent being set here worms its way into other industries; that way I can take a percentage of the sale of my Golf and send it to Volkswagen of America. They deserve it after all.

[bojay1997]

I honestly just don't understand. Why would any gamer want to do this? If they are getting the games with the intention of trading them back in for another game why would they use this service over Gamefly? Gamefly is $8 a month and I can't imagine it will cost somebody less than that to buy and sell 2 or 3 games a month with this service. Am I missing a key element here? I have no intention of being mean or anything here, I just want to understand.

 

I think the idea is that he will pay more for trade-ins than Gamestop and other brick and mortar trade-in places. Believe it or not, there is a whole mass of gamers who would probably be better off just doing Gamefly, but for now, they essentially pay a heavy premium for "renting" games by buying them new and trading them in towards other games instead in a perpetual cycle. I wouldn't have believed it myself, but I spent a few Saturday afternoons in Gamestop recently and there was literally a line of people waiting to trade relatively new stuff in (like games that had only been released the week before) for well below what they paid and then immediately put that money into another full price game or pre-order. Gamestop actually makes much of their revenue that way.

 

I think the major flaw with this proposed business plan is that it doesn't offer consumers the same immediate gratification as Gamestop or another brick and mortar trade in place, it will be expensive to operate given the need to pay postage both ways and cover the inevitable damage to items being sent through the mail and a percentage will go back to the publisher which cuts into the already slim margin. Still, if he can actually figure out a way to keep costs super low while paying more for trade-ins and having a selection as big as the local competitors, it's possible it could attract a niche group of used buyers who either live in fairly rural areas or just don't like brick and mortar alternatives for whatever reason.

[SpaceDice2010]

I honestly just don't understand. Why would any gamer want to do this? If they are getting the games with the intention of trading them back in for another game why would they use this service over Gamefly? Gamefly is $8 a month and I can't imagine it will cost somebody less than that to buy and sell 2 or 3 games a month with this service. Am I missing a key element here? I have no intention of being mean or anything here, I just want to understand.

 

That is one thing that this company would have to spend considerable money on branding to the consumer; why it's better than GameFly.

 

Here is where I think the company is missing the mark. Their main competition is not Gamestop, it's Gamefly.

[SpaceDice2010]

I still can't accept the fact that publishers think they deserve a cut of the second-hand sales. The notion just baffles me completely.

 

 

Many game publishers are already getting a percentage of used game sales by charging for online. As time passes they will find other ways as well.

[Shawn]

 

Your mom was a bunny?

 

 

AX

 

You can call me Flower if ya want to..... I don't mind

[Rev]

The idea to include the prepaid envelope has a small problem........Most games you get from Gamestop have been opened and sell as "new". The Gamestop drones will just throw away the PostalGamer envelopes!!!!!

[Uzumaki]

What's next? Ford and GM demanding a cut in used car sale? Garage sale Nazi trolling around for "illegal" sale? Good luck getting small claim court to settle a case of someone not paying the company a cut from a sale of $1 game cart.

 

It may look good for company's bottom line but it will get very unpopular with us customers. Plus how would they enforce the collection?

 

"But it's not Super Mario Bros. It's Super Plumber Bros, not the same game and thus I don't owe Nintendo any cut."

[Parrothead]

We realize there is a heated debate whether or not publishers should or should not be compensated for used game sales. We don't know who is right or wrong, we just know we can introduce a model that pays gamers more for games as well as (we hope) will aleviate "on-line" pass for our buyers as we will be rebating publishers already for all their games. This is something we are discussing with publishers as we speak. Next, we don't feel we can take on GameStop alone. That is part of the reason we want to include the publishers. So in essence, if publishers support us they support gamers and their right to get more for their used games - 30%+. Think of the 10% rebate we are paying them as more like marketing/advertising expense to us, they aren't getting it for free. And having the publishers support us publicly is some of the best marketing we can get. It also helps to get funding when we have companies like Sony, Nintendo, Msoft, EA, Activision, THQ, et al partnering with us.

 

And remember, we aren't taking the rebate out of gamers pockets, that is coming out of ours. As far as the "instant gratification" argument. It's a good one. We know we will lose out on 1st day releases and are cool with that. On the flipside, we believe gamers have matured and are usually playing more games than just one. So they can drop a game in their mailbox and will be playing other games the 2-3 days it will take to get their new order. Netflix has proven that people are cool with waiting a couple days for their entertainment and we believe will this will spill over into our model. As far as GameFly is concerend, yesterday we just had one of their key execs reach out to us about early employment so seeing where that goes this morning.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Parrothead

[SpaceDice2010]

Woof!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fd-Companies-Spectacular-Dot-com-Flameouts/dp/1416577939/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313513668&sr=8-1

[NightSprinter]

Eh, people are always gonna find new ways to try and make as much as they can on used. Should see what a few places in central Florida want to charge for pre-modded 80s consoles.

 

Oh, to ax and Shawn Sr, according to a friend of mine anyone who uses Twitter is called a "twitterpatter" (just to keep that movie's references going, heh).