A number of retailers across the United Kingdom have said that, if publishers were to drop online passes and start offering better business terms, they'd be happy to offer a slice of pre-owned sales profits.
"As a retail store we would happily share part of the sale from a used game if we get something in return," said indie retailer Gamespod. "Perhaps new games at better prices and no more online codes."
Even HMV, one of Britain's large high street retailers, stated a deal could be struck: "We all know how the business model in the industry is changing. So if there is any merit in this idea then it may be worth looking into."
Bits and Pieces' Julian Slater, however, made the best point, reminding us that publishers aren't the victims they paint themselves to be: "If you want to stop these one-time codes then yeah, fair enough, we’ll share revenues. If publishers gave me a better deal, then maybe. The publishers are not the poor man here."
Oddly, in all my rants about publishers and their victim complexes, I never thought about this -- we never, ever talk about what kind of deal the publishers are offering retailers for new games. Sure, it's easy to attack GameStop for pushing used sales so hard, but are publishers even playing fair to begin with? Something tells me that they aren't quite as faultless as they claim to be when it comes to used games.
Retail: Stop online codes and we will share pre-owned revenue [MCV]
Contest:
8:20 AM on 01.11.2012 | 
I don't particularly think used games sales should be shared, but if the retailers are the ones offering it, then I'm excited at the prospect of this coming to fruition!
But I would certainly prefer retailers to share used game profits rather than publishers putting these bloody pass codes in.
Although retailers aren't all innocent.
Battlefield 3 for example, my pal bought it used at GAME to save £4 on a new copy at a supermarket (he's like that, will spend £4 in petrol to save £4). Online passes weren't mentioned ANYWHERE and to buy one costs about £8 (AFAIK) thus making a used copy more expensive than a new one.
Retailers need to KNOW and take into account online passes. If that were the case I would be totally happy with them. It's when the clerk says "I don't know, it might need an online pass? But they're only like £4." when they actually cost in some cases double that.
In fact, I was killing time at Blockbuster the other night (played Starfox on a 3DS - it was quite cool actually and my eyes can handle it fine) and asked about Tiger Woods 12. The store manager actually said, and I shit you not...
"I reckon you can buy one pass for an EA game and use it for all of the EA games" (thus completely removing the purpose of online passes)
Fucking idiot.
Can't say I blame them for trying.
Is this a good thing? If this "deal" actually happens - it benefits us, so yes. But ultimately it shows how much power these publishers have.
(Stands up and claps slowly)
Overall, I think publishers need to look more closely at the way they price their games. Just pumping everything out at $60 is obviously a bad idea for some games. I mean, which game seems more worth $60: Rayman Origins or Skyrim?
They're both awesome games, mind you, but $60 for a quirky platformer with a second-tier (at best) main character is a hard sell to your average consumer.
Maybe if the retailers *actually* band together and contact the publishers as a consortium or something. Quotes from blogs aren't gonna get anything going on this.
When you do the math, selling games new isn't sustainable for most chains and store because they don't make enough money off them. Its been this way since the 80s. The used market is a necessary evil that publishers forced retailers that weren't megachains to create.
Gamestop doesn't get the bulk deals and rain checks that Wal-Mart, Best Buy and target do. And now that Wal-Mart and Best Buy are looking into used, one has the face the plausible raality that publishers are now strongarming them and giving them less as well.
Video games are bigger than Hollywood and publishers are letting it go to their heads. Its not good way to be when price is being redefined, but on they go trying to secure more money for themselves while retailers and consumers get less and less.
Even though Gamestop seems to has found a way to get around it for the moment I'm still optimistic passes could force used retailers to drop the price of used games to what a 2nd hand unit should cost. In a time when you can buy a brand new game (I just bought Saints Row 3) for $29, no one should pay more than $9 for a used game.
If people would just stop paying $55 dollars for used games it could happen. If retailers are begging for a deal like this it might mean it is happening.
If a deal like this goes through it will make it easier for used retailers to keep their prices fluffed up to ridiculous levels.
Obviously the much bigger stores get better deals when they order in bulk, but everyone should remember that the retailer is your friend. The publisher is almost always the enemy.
Retailers are the ones who are cutting prices far more often than publishers are, and this is when they even lose substantial money on it. The publishers don't lose any money because they already sold it to the retailer. Retailers create millions of jobs. We are in a service sector economy in case you didn't notice. The truck drivers, the cashiers, the managers, and on and on and on.
The day you all allow publishers to gain exclusive control over gaming with digital distribution is the day gaming as we know it dies. If you think that everyone is going to conduct themselves on consoles in the way Steam does, you are out of your mind.
Publishers have to be making cvash hand over fist and they know it.
you dont see car manufactures asking for money on used cars. same goes for music and movies.
why should the game market be any different?
c'mon, we need someone doing this sleuth detective without a gun shit in the industry.
For some reason I very much doubt that GameStop - being the... uh... "major-est" - would just jump in when they can still rake in hilarious cash off of a product they but no production cost into. I'm not saying that GameStop is worse than any other corporation, mind, but with all the short-sightedness corporations show, the ones doing the best have the likelihood of showing the most short-sightedness.
I would like everyone to win, especially the consumer, but it would require all capitalists to SHARE the wealth. Not really part of the capitalist model.
That is all.
Prices go up and online passes happen cause publishers want more, prices go up and used sales go up cause retailers want more.
Consumer pays more because they have no choice.
Well actually they have a choice, to stop playing these games and get cheaper classic games or indie games, or give up gaming all together.
The later isn't a bad idea.
And while I won't go as far as to say that a used game shouldn't cost more than $9, they push those "$5 below retail" used titles like mad, intentionally cannibalizing new game sales for maximum profit. I'm not saying the publishers are the good guys either, just that both sides are guilty.
Mind, all this might not matter in another five to ten years. Or at least whenever consoles begin to seriously move to digital distribution. (Which is why Gamestop has been forcing its way into the digital distribution chain, so that we can still get Gamestop-exclusive pre-order bonuses when we buy our digital downloads through Gamestop...)
/Starting gaming in the 21st century.
How does this form of entertainment thrive in the face of such a dependence? Give that second hand market the ability to recycle a huge percentage (somewhere between 80% and 90%, in my estimation) of the profit it makes right back into the industry it makes that profit off of.
How do you go about fucking with that equilibrium? Hand said industry over to bean counters who think only in short term gains for their specific company, and rarely about the reverberating effects of their actions industry wide. Do this until retailers promise to give you a slice of the only profitable pie they have on the sill, and pretend like the costs won't be passed on to the end consumer.
In this case, it is almost inconceivable any large retailer would make a claim with so much money weighted on it without have a plan to offset those costs. The only rung on the ladder under the retailers is the one we stand on, and shit rolls downhill.
... though the company did manage $376 million in net income in 2009 - but that was also before the big digital sales push that seems more commonplace nowadays.
Their offer does make sense, though publishers and game devs also seem to indicate that often they don't recouperate their costs through retail sales, so I would hate to see game costs go up to accomodate a better retail slice.
They have the best terms, get the game to a good price and the publisher have to pay extra to get a better shelfplacement etc. else your just placed somewhere where no one looks.
They are assholes for short.
Yeah, and if you look back as far as Gamestop has recorded used and new sales separately (fiscal 2004), the percentage of net profit gained from used games has fluctuated between 45.X and 47.X. Note, these numbers began recording at a time where the industry was actually in a bit of a slump, and I would venture a guess that that percentage, which has remained steady for the last 8 years at least, was the norm for much longer than that (possibly always).
Moral of the story? Used games have accounted for the same percent of profit for as long as it has been recorded at Gamestop, and was steady a few years before the industry fucking exploded with growth. With this in mind, I cannot imagine Gamestop specifically would give up some of that money, considering the amount of money they make off used games comparatively has not changed for as long as they have been recording the stat. I doubt very much so that any concession made by publishers to offset potential second hand market profit sharing would actually do so, not without the consumers subsidizing it for them.
@Dinnertimeninja
Rayman Origins. I imagine it bloody works. At least on the PS3.
consumers opinions is all that matters, not your backwarded-dinosaur age of method of product selling ( looking at the entire media industry as a whole)