Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't usually go in for multiplayer, which is why I was originally not excited about ORC. (I had even heard it was a MMO at one point.) I think there's already DLC up for it, too. Maybe a map.

Sidenote:
Slarg keeps pestering me to get Resident Evil: Operation Racoon City.

I will only do it if Best Buy will let me trade in Lord of the Rings: Conquest and Turok.

Kanluwen wrote:He's not doing it because he wants to. He's trading it in to play keep up ...

Even that doesn't make sense. If the consumer in question didn't have the cash to pay pre-order/launch price and GameStop didn't let him trade for boosted values, he wouldn't be able to do it at all or at least not with out trading even more games, in your view, "against his will."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Conquest was absolute gak! That was the first game I ever traded in, which is something I almost never do. I didn't even want it in my house. I traded it in like three days after launch and got something like 25 bucks for it -- and even though that stung I knew even then that it was 25 bucks more than I would have gotten without GS.

A friend was visiting after Christmas so I bought WitN for us to play. We beat it in no time and I was beyond unimpressed. I asked a GS dude how much they'd trade it for and he said something like $15. I nearly gak a brick. Thankfully, my friend wanted it and packed it in his suitcase while secretly leaving me $60 in cash.

I know GS is not my friend. Friends give you much closer to what you paid. But at least GS will give you something.

Also, never buy any game that says "Lord of the Rings" on it.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He's not doing it because he wants to. He's trading it in to play keep up ...

Even that doesn't make sense. If the consumer in question didn't have the cash to pay pre-order/launch price and GameStop didn't let him trade for boosted values, he wouldn't be able to do it at all or at least not with out trading even more games, in your view, "against his will."

I didn't say he didn't have the cash to pay preorder/launch price(technically: launch price is irrelevant as the MINUTE it ticks over to the release date, Game Stop pulls their preorder options and bonuses)...but there's a perception of value there which is misleading.

By timing the "trade-in deals" just right, Game Stop sets it up so that they can shaft you out of your trade-in values(especially by doing things such as "credit only applies on this day" or by requiring certain AAA titles to be paid off in full for a preorder) and still make the maximum amount of profit (which mind you; does not actually go to the publisher or developer since it's a trade-in which is resold) off a title which they know will be outdated within the next week.

Manchu wrote:Conquest was absolute gak! That was the first game I ever traded in, which is something I almost never do. I didn't even want it in my house. I traded it in like three days after launch and got something like 25 bucks for it -- and even though that stung I knew even then that it was 25 bucks more than I would have gotten without GS.

I actually enjoyed Conquest. I still play it sometimes.

The only reason I'd want to get rid of it though is that I've got too many games sitting in my game trolley. I figure I can clean out the titles which no longer have MP support--at all-- first.

Kan, if you don't want to trade in your games and you have the money to buy a game at launch then you shouldn't trade it your games. Again, this is a complaint that the consumer can only file against himself.

Meanwhile, if you don't have the cash or credit then GS is giving you an alternate means to get the game. No one is forcing you to trade just like no one is forcing you to buy. If anything, offering more value for trades on the game you want is a good thing for you. Sure, it's also good for GS. But being good for GS doesn't necessarily make it bad for you.

That is the publishers' line, not the consumers'.

Manchu wrote:Kan, if you don't want to trade in your games and you have the money to buy a game at launch then you shouldn't trade it your games. Again, this is a complaint that the consumer can only file against himself.

Meanwhile, if you don't have the cash or credit then GS is giving you an alternate means to get the game. No one is forcing you to trade just like no one is forcing you to buy. If anything, offering more value for trades on the game you want is a good thing for you. Sure, it's also good for GS. But being good for GS doesn't necessarily make it bad for you.

That is the publishers' line, not the consumers'.

Okay. This is getting us nowhere, I think, because you're so insistent upon this being "the publisher's line".

I'll try again though:
You can have the money to buy a game at launch. You can trade in your games all you want. That's not the problem, and that's not why I'm saying it's "bad for the consumer".

You are still doing it in such a way that it is only being done to pad Game Stop's pocket. They PURPOSELY have set themselves up to be the place which people will turn to by practicing shady deals and throwing their weight around at publishers/developers by threatening to not stock the game unless they get an "exclusive bonus" which only THEY get. Having a single retailer being able to push around the publishers and developers?

That's not a good thing when it can affect the content of the game.

Well, now you've completely skipped back to a previous line of attack.

Which has the same answers:

(1) You haven't shown any "shady dealing" that GS engages in (aside from an anecdote about one employee which even you admit is certainly not a GS policy).

(2) You haven't shown how GS "throwing its weight around" is bad for the consumer. GS leverages additional content out of publishers and then passes that on for free to its customers.

Hell, it's not even bad for publishers (which is more likely why they do it than a major business partner threatening them): GS is a much more effective distributor and co-marketer of games than anyone else. How many release events have you seen at Walmart? How many displays at Target? How many Target employees have ever pressured you to pre-order any game much less every game. I'm aware that some retailers do these things but none do them so much in so many places as GS. Publishers are likely glad to hand over some token map or item in exchange for all that selling power.

So we come back to a point of you defending developers/publishers rather than customers although you keep insisting it's all about what's good for the customer. The customer thinks he's doing fine at GS and he's not stupid. Neither is GS. Together, a lot of customers have gotten to play the games they wanted when they wanted to and GS has made a lot of money.

The only folks losing anything on this bonanza are developers and publishers (who also benefit from it, but they want every last drop of blood out of the stone). And the publishers' response? Screw over the customer with incomplete games and D1DLC.

Manchu wrote:Well, now you've completely skipped back to a previous line of attack.

Which has the same answers:

(1) You haven't shown any "shady dealing" that GS engages in (aside from an anecdote about one employee which even you admit is certainly not a GS policy).

"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing? Interesting...

(2) You haven't shown how GS "throwing its weight around" is bad for the consumer. GS leverages additional content out of publishers and then passes that on for free to its customers.

But they DON'T pass it on for free to players. That's the bloody point I've been trying to make. Game Stop may pass it on for free to THEIR "customers"; everyone else either has to pay for it or just not plain get it.

It's also worth noting that in cases like Ghost Recon's "Signature Edition", those preorder bonuses are limited to a certain percentage of titles that the vendor will receive, but Game Stop does not out and out tell you that. You'll preorder and do the whole trade-in bonanza thing, then get shafted from the preorder bonuses. Those "Signature Editions" are also something that Game Stop throws a hissy fit about, as if they do not get a larger percentage for their own shops than anyone else then they won't stock it.

Hell, it's not even bad for publishers (which is more likely why they do it than a major business partner threatening them): GS is a much more effective distributor and co-marketer of games than anyone else. How many release events have you seen at Walmart?

Wal-Marts do a lot of release events for the "Big Titles". Killzone 3, Halo games, Call of Duty games, etc all get release events.

Admittedly it's not as big of a deal as Game Stop since Wal-Mart is a 24/7 store while Game Stop isn't, that doesn't mean that it's any different than Game Stop doing their release events--which are for the Big Titles too.

How many displays at Target? How many Target employees have ever pressured you to pre-order any game much less every game. I'm aware that some retailers do these things but none do them so much in so many places as GS. Publishers are likely glad to hand over some token map or item in exchange for all that selling power.

I've seen quite a few displays at Target...but again, it's for the big titles. The same titles that Game Stop has displays for. Target employees have pressured me to preorder certain games, but usually the employees are people who I've played with on Live and they want to ensure that I'm going to be able to have a copy on launch day to play with them.

So we come back to a point of you defending developers/publishers rather than customers although you keep insisting it's all about what's good for the customer. The customer thinks he's doing fine at GS and he's not stupid. Neither is GS. Together, a lot of customers have gotten to play the games they wanted when they wanted to and GS has made a lot of money.

But there's the rub.

Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.

The only folks losing anything on this bonanza are developers and publishers (who also benefit from it, but they want every last drop of blood out of the stone). And the publishers' response? Screw over the customer with incomplete games and D1DLC.

D1DLC almost always applies to single player games; and inevitably it is

"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing?

No. But what exactly do you mean by shady anyway?

But they DON'T pass it on for free to players.

What? (1) I didn't say they did. (2) Why would they? (3) That still doesn't hurt anyone who can shop at GS, which is basically everyone in the continental US (as far as I know, may be more).

Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.

The first part of that argument (about "unbalanced" gameplay) is illegitimate, as I have shown above. The second part of the argument (about Ponzi inspiration) is simply baseless ad hominem.

Manchu wrote:

"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing?

No. But what exactly do you mean by shady anyway?

Is said business practice morally or economically questionable?

If yes: refer to "shady". As you pointed out: there are people who will buy the game used before the release of a new title to play it through before the new one "if they've heard enough good reviews"--and they'll be paying $10 less than the brand new title; and maybe getting $15-$20 tops back on that. That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.

But they DON'T pass it on for free to players.

What? (1) I didn't say they did. (2) Why would they? (3) That still doesn't hurt anyone who can shop at GS, which is basically everyone in the continental US (as far as I know, may be more).

Yeah, but you see my point was that "customers" isn't simply those who are buying from Game Stop. It's those who are buying the title, period.

I guess that might have been the sticking point that we weren't meeting across.

Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.

The first part of that argument (about "unbalanced" gameplay) is illegitimate, as I have shown above.

Is the multiplayer component being altered by the existence of things which the preorders for a specific business are receiving?
If yes: it's "being unbalanced".
I am by no means a "pro player", but I can say rather reliably that when an item unlocks at level 38 (and is balanced to reflect that) for everyone who did not preorder through a specific business is being unlocked the minute you start playing--with the most powerful ammunition option to boot!-- there's a balance issue going on.

The second part of the argument (about Ponzi inspiration) is simply baseless ad hominem.

Oh yeah?

Game Stop's business model right now relies upon presenting an air of legitimacy by having the new games for sale, but they make a point of "We'll buy your used games, as long as they work!" and I know for a fact that the Game Stop near me has more used titles for sale than new.

And not because they sell out of the new titles. They order a limited number (usually the amount of people who preorder, and a half dozen more tops) and make most of their sales by trade-ins/resales.

Kanluwen wrote:Game Stop's business model right now relies upon presenting an air of legitimacy by having the new games for sale, but they make a point of "We'll buy your used games, as long as they work!" and I know for a fact that the Game Stop near me has more used titles for sale than new.

And not because they sell out of the new titles. They order a limited number (usually the amount of people who preorder, and a half dozen more tops) and make most of their sales by trade-ins/resales.

I fail to see how this is illegitimate. Over the years they've realized that their most important source of revenue is in used titles. And frankly so many people pre-order these days they'd probably get by order a number of copies to match the pre-orders plus two or three more. Most people don't pick up a game in Game Stop during launch week without a pre-order.

For new games Game Stop competes with numerous retailers. In used games they're the only game in town (for the most part). Its their most important business arm and they started stepping it up several years ago. Back before, probably 2007, you'd rarely see the massive wall of used games. It would be a wall of new games + a small section of used. But people get new copies from numerous sources and most games hit their peak sales within the first month and then drop off. They design their store to meet market demand. That's not illegitimate its standard practice.

That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.

But nothing about that makes it immoral or unethical. I'd like to see you analyze GW this way, Kan.

Yeah, but you see my point was that "customers" isn't simply those who are buying from Game Stop.

As Melissia would say, "irrelevant." All customers could be, and if they want the free and exclusive bonus content, should be GS customers -- and they need to do nothing more to be a GS customer than they do to buy the game from any other retailer.

[same points about balance as before]

The feature is available to everyone who could otherwise purchase the game at launch. There is no more or less imbalance involved than not playing 24 hours a day or not starting at the same time as the very first players. And let me know of a blockbuster that has been significantly undermined by this kind of bonus content pre-order imbalance please.

Oh yeah?

Yeah. All the stuff you just posted is nothing like any kind of scheme in the sense that scheme means something illegal or even underhanded.

I say "legitimacy" because quite frankly at this point, Game Stop is little more than a rental agency for the Big Titles.

I used the term "Ponzi scheme" because quite frankly, that's what it is. They offer higher returns on "investments"(read: trade-ins), but in order to do so they need to do something to attract their customers to keep the whole system going:
Enter preorder bonuses.

It has become apparent that you do not know what a Ponzi scheme is.

Manchu wrote:

That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.

But nothing about that makes it immoral or unethical. I'd like to see you analyze GW this way, Kan.

Pft. I know GW's only in it for the money. I don't think that anything they do is about "being good for the customer".

[same points about balance as before]

The feature is available to everyone who could otherwise purchase the game at launch. There is no more or less imbalance involved than not playing 8 hours a day or not starting at the same time as the very first players. And let me know of a blockbuster that has been significantly undermined by this kind of bonus content pre-order imbalance please.

BF3's multiplayer.

Like I told you earlier: those 3 guns that early on makes a huge difference in how fast one progresses. It was enough of a difference that with the "Back to Karkand" content(which released not all that long ago), EA was basically forced to include the "Physical Warfare Package" as part of the DLC to even things out for new players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:It has become apparent that you do not know what a Ponzi scheme is.

Oh reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly now?

A Ponzi scheme is a system which is built upon the idea of promising someone a higher return upon their initial investment, with the investor being made aware that the initial investment may not be as high as they could be. As time wears on, the payouts increase steadily but require the addition of more investors lured by promises of high payouts. The initial investors will see increased returns, but it's all being paid out of the new entrants within the scheme.

Eventually the whole thing will reach a certain point where it will either be completely untenable as people have caught onto the whole shebang or because the authorities have caught on to it and stopped it.

BF3??? Seriously? Yeah, that was a total disaster for EA.

Or at least on meth it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly now?

Google FTW. But it's too late. You already revealed your true depth of knowledge by calling GS trade policy a Ponzi scheme.

GS isn't a ponzi scheme, it is just a pawn shop that specializes in video games.

But aren't pawn shops shady?

Manchu wrote:BF3??? Seriously? Yeah, that was a total disaster for EA.

Or at least on meth it was.

You didn't specify who it was a disaster for, Manchu.

I know a lot of the people I play with on consoles were utterly turned off from the game during the first few weeks because of the sheer number of rank 5s with DAO-12 shotguns and Frag Rounds. It was something that was not available to ANYONE BUT GAMESTOP customers for 37 ranks--and usually another two ranks to obtain the Frag Rounds.

Given that the server rotations for those first few weeks as well focused upon the cramped quarters of maps like Operation: Metro or Grand Bazaar--it was a special kind of hell.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly now?

Google FTW. But it's too late. You already revealed your true depth of knowledge by calling GS trade policy a Ponzi scheme.

Pft. My "Organized Criminal Activities" textbook would take offense at being called Google...

Manchu wrote:But aren't pawn shops shady?

Like GS, some are, some aren't, but they will always have an air of desperation and sadness that cling to either becuase it is where people go to sell things far below their worth to get their next fix.

Manchu wrote:It's not based on money spent.

Manchu, I think you and my dad would get along perfectly.

I'll give you an example of what my dad did.



@ melissa and kan.

You know how you guys always defend GW and say they do what they do because they are business and not charity?
So why should gamestop be any different?

You guys talk about the developers and not getting their fair share, sounds like an incident at our gas station.

See, the staff there are all students, mostly university. One day the staff captain was bribed by our competitor to walk off / quit.
In Taiwan they didnt have nice easy Unions like you guys are used to, so what did my dad do?
"All the staff that stayed behind, you guys are awesome. for this week you guys get pay quadruple, and your friends that need a job tell them to come
they'll be hired right away. And all of you are promoted. This encouraged loyalty and made them work even harder, because the new staff are all friends of the loyal staff,
the efficiency and company morale was boosted even higher.

When we found out why the original staff quited via bribery my dad during the gas industry chuckled and said that was too easy.

He is the most amazing guy to me!

And you guys are too spoiled, thats why the economy in USA is so bad, and you blame Mexicans to steal your work because they'll do what you guys are too spoiled to do :'D

TL;DR? basically I say "deal with it" to this thread, and of course

LordOfHats has presented my own opinions on this matter in a far more coherent fashion than I would have, so for that, I thank him.

it seems that even little squirrels hate Game Stop.

Ya console games is truly where the money is made.

Consumers love the used game industry but producers cannot stand it because they are making nothing off the sell of their game after it has been resold. Although producers are beginning to get money back from the producer with codes that are needed to play online or required-DLC to play online. Were seeing this with Battlefield 3, Space Marine and many others.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft does however makes it so that if you buy a game it can only be used on the console it was bought for........ That rumor has been circling about the next Xbox.........

I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.

LunaHound wrote:Manchu, I think you and my dad would get along perfectly.

Reading your examples, this seems likely. I would probably need to carry around a pen a pad to write down what he said for studying later, though.

Ahtman wrote:GS isn't a ponzi scheme, it is just a pawn shop that specializes in video games.

No, it's really not. GameStop is exactly like a used car dealer. They give you a low payment for your used goods and resell them at grossly inflated prices.

Pawn shops are basically a bank that deals in collateralized loans. The reason pawn shops are seen as shady is because they're essentially a lender of last resort, so people who can't get credit elsewhere will give up expensive collateral in order to get secure a loan, and usually won't be able to pay it back (allowing the pawn shop to sell the collateral).

I think biccat has the right analogy. GS is a lot like CarMax except the trade is in relatively inexpensive leisure items.

I do admire their model, I have to say. Although it is hard to see much of a future in selling DLC cards.

LordofHats wrote:I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.

So the publishers aren't stupid ,but they are stupid?

I think it's safe to say that publishers aren't stupid at all.