Gamestop president:"Digital games are too cheap"

[dmegatool]

not to mention that digital must have a better cut that physical retail, selling ps and xbox games only gives the developer/publisher 45% of the sale, the other 45% gets eaten by MS or sony, and the remaining 10% the retailer, which is why this mofo is complaining about, raising the prices equals a better cut for them without demanding a bigger cut to ms or sony, its a win-win for the companies and a fuck you to the customer

 

also i'm sure valve doesn't cut you 50% of the sale for using their system, must be between 25-40% and to add to that, EA with origin gets all the money for their games, they get more that twice per copy for selling a pc game that the console ones

 

I heard the 30% number a lot so you were pretty much on target  

[Guest Kloaked]

Gamestop is going to end up like Blockbuster in a few years with logic like this in their corporate offices.

 

This is why I am absolutely against people working for a company who have no idea about what they're selling and refuse to go outside of their office bubble to see what's going on in the world.

[Raboo]

I hope this does not happen anytime soon.

[Opcode]

Poor GameStop, not profiting from their retail markup. I have one where I live and barely anyone goes there. Cheaper and easier to just order online.

[Trik'Stari]

Perhaps companies should spend their money more wisely, in a way that gives great customer service, instead of spending it on bullshit "news" articles trying to convince their customers to pay more for less.

[handymanshandle]

A developer/publisher decides how much their work is worth per copy.

That's sort of wrong that the publisher/developer should raise prices in spite of making more money it should be what it's actually worth and not what they want it to be worth.

I mean I'm not really a gamer but still. 

[Prettyfinej]

not exactly, the margin for profit isn't that big for games, selling 20000 copies at full price accounts for 120 million bucks in sales and that's no where near the amount a AAA game sells on release, something like DAI must have sold 50k and up on release, what leads to shitty games is shitty management and short development periods, which lead to bugs and a broken game

 

It would take 2 million copies to sell at 60 for 120 million in sales. While there are plenty of games that easily get 2 million or more sales, it's not the majority.

 

About the article, it's pretty ridiculous that the president of gamestop would include sales well after release to bring the digital average down to $22 when an important part of their business is selling used games which is basically the physical distribution equivalent to digital sales. Except in gamestop's case, the developers don't get any of that money.

[zacRupnow]

Digital games are cheap because they need to be more convenient than torrents because torrents technically are not illegal

[AlexGoesHigh]

It would take 2 million copies to sell at 60 for 120 million in sales. While there are plenty of games that easily get 2 million or more sales, it's not the majority.

 

About the article, it's pretty ridiculous that the president of gamestop would include sales well after release to bring the digital average down to $22 when an important part of their business is selling used games which is basically the physical distribution equivalent to digital sales. Except in gamestop's case, the developers don't get any of that money.

opps i took a zero out of it, just add one to it and it makes more sense, sorry

[handymanshandle]

Gamestop is going to end up like Blockbuster in a few years with logic like this in their corporate offices.

 

This is why I am absolutely against people working for a company who have no idea about what they're selling and refuse to go outside of their office bubble to see what's going on in the world.

Well people are getting well... More lazy and find getting things from online as another way to allow more time for other crap. I want to blame it on this work first, live life lastly thing the US has going on.

[LAwLz]

Digital games are cheap because they need to be more convenient than torrents because torrents technically are not illegal

I am not sure if I am following you here. It is illegal to use a torrent to download for example a game.

[ZacDaMan72]

<<Later in the call, Bartell said that $22 is "clearly an unsustainable price point for a game that physically is at $60.">>

He forgot to mention that a $60 physical game gives the devs just about as much money as the digital copy,if not less sometimes.

I remember an interview with a game dev remaking a game from 1995-2000.He said that he had to sell physical copies with $50-60 and that they would only get around $20 from each one.Now they're selling digital copies of the new game for $20 .

Wait, so steam and the other ones don't take a cut of the pay?

[zacRupnow]

I am not sure if I am following you here. It is illegal to use a torrent to download for example a game.

not technically; since copyright laws haven't been reformed to properly address digital content, the laws regarding personal copies and sharing remain the same as they would with a physical copy.

[LAwLz]

not technically; since copyright laws haven't been reformed to properly address digital content, the laws regarding personal copies and sharing remain the same as they would with a physical copy.

Yes, it is illegal in all senses. Copyright gives the creator of a piece of work the exclusive rights to that thing. Just because copyright doesn't specifically specify that the creation can be digital doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.

Copyright on digital things has also been enforced multiple times in the past. No matter how you twist and turn, it is illegal.

[zacRupnow]

Yes, it is illegal in all senses. Copyright gives the creator of a piece of work the exclusive rights to that thing. Just because copyright doesn't specifically specify that the creation can be digital doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.

Copyright on digital things has also been enforced multiple times in the past. No matter how you twist and turn, it is illegal.

its twisting and turning that make it seem illegal but the way the law is written doesn't restrict sharing and that is the problem with torrents is that its technically legal sharing on a scale so large that it becomes a problem. The laws need to be updated to address this properly because the way they're written now only make it illegal if there is lost profit

[StingBull]

I don't support gamestop an any way, but when people won't buy any games for full price it gets iffy.

Then what that means is that the concept of full price as $60 flawed. If market wants lower price range for the maximum they want to pay for games then industry should adapt to that.

[Mao_Zedong]

Then what that means is that the concept of full price as $60 flawed. If market wants lower price range for the maximum they want to pay for games then industry should adapt to that.

That isn't how it works, if the games sell for less, companies will spend less on making them. If the companies spend less on them, they won't be as good, so less people will buy them. That will lead to the companies getting even less money so worse games, and the cycle continues.

[The Benjamins]

That isn't how it works, if the games sell for less, companies will spend less on making them. If the companies spend less on them, they won't be as good, so less people will buy them. That will lead to the companies getting even less money so worse games, and the cycle continues.

That's negative thinking. If people don't buy 60$ games its because they don't think its worth it. So the devs should make the game worth what they are asking.

[TheRetiredSlave]

And the last time I bought a physical game in a store was....... never??? (I honestly can't name any games that I bought at a physical store).

 

Wait, so steam and the other ones don't take a cut of the pay?

 

They do, but the cut from the digital distributors is generally a lot less than the total cut from all the players involved in physical distribution.

[Mao_Zedong]

That's negative thinking. If people don't buy 60$ games its because they don't think its worth it. So the devs should make the game worth what they are asking.

The problem is that to make games now, it costs significantly more money than in the past, and that people expect great graphics, story, gameplay, ect. With less money, the game won't be as good, so less people will buy it. That will lead to a lower budget for the following games, which will be worse because of it. 

[Nineshadow]

Wait, so steam and the other ones don't take a cut of the pay?

They do.

Not as much as physical retailers though.

[bob345]

Oh look, gamestop is starting to freak out because they are becoming irrelevant.

[rockking1379]

GameSpot Article: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamestop-worried-digital-games-are-too-cheap/1100-6423771/

 

Seriously!?

I think this is complete bulls**t

Why should we pay more for our games because gamestop president is worried about his company?

why should we pay the same price as the physical version? should be minimum ten dollars cheaper than the physical copy. all they do is put it on a server and pay for bandwidth which they already pay for regardless. no trucks, shelf space, disc cost, etc

[The Benjamins]

The problem is that to make games now, it costs significantly more money than in the past, and that people expect great graphics, story, gameplay, ect. With less money, the game won't be as good, so less people will buy it. That will lead to a lower budget for the following games, which will be worse because of it.

Then they should find a way to make it cheaper. You don't need a massive budget to make a game, and games are cheap to distrubute. So if they sell 100 $60 vs 200 $45 games the second one is better. To make money from games its about distribution, marketing, and market analysis.

[LAwLz]

its twisting and turning that make it seem illegal but the way the law is written doesn't restrict sharing and that is the problem with torrents is that its technically legal sharing on a scale so large that it becomes a problem. The laws need to be updated to address this properly because the way they're written now only make it illegal if there is lost profit

I have no idea who told you that but he/she is wrong. It is not sharing because you are making a copy of it. It's "sharing" in the same sense as you copying and printing new copies of let's say 50 shades of Gray is "sharing". The creator(s) of a work (digital or not) has exclusive rights to distribution of said work. In order words, you are not allowed to make a copy of the work without the permission of the original creator.

If I am wrong then feel free to point me to the loophole in the law, because as far I know it does not exist.