Gamestop, it's criminal what they get away with

Hotman

Hi,

I just went into Gamestop today to get a little cash (didn't want to go on the credit card and payday is tomorr). So i traded a couple of games for cash.

I gave them CoD:Ghosts, Red Dead Redemption, Farcry 3 and Dark Souls, finally Gran Turismo 6.

Now just to note, i bought those games new from Gamestop for the usual crippling price apart from GT6. Ghosts was 59.99, Red Dead was, 54.99, FC:3 was 54.99 and Dark Souls was 39.99. If i'd have bought GT6 in there it would have been 59.99 also, but i checked in Argos at the time and they had it (on release day) for 51.99.

Anyway, for those 5 games, they gave me 38 euro... 38. I walked out of there feeling as if someone had literally just mugged me.

I went back in, and took note of the prices they're gonna resell my games for just to see how badly i'd been treated and wanted to climb in over the counter after people.

Ghosts will sell ALONE for more 1.99 more than they gave me for all 5 games. 39.99.
cod = 40, red dead = 25, Farcry = 20, dark souls = 25 and GT6 = 30. totaling 140 quid.
So they just made 100 quid profit from me. Now thats ontop of the the money they already made from me for bying them new, considering i got GT6 8 quid cheaper on release day than gamestop, i can only assume they have some pretty tidy margains already.

So what happens if they sell all 5 of these to the next guy who comes in, he pays 140, he plays them, he needs some cash, he trades them in, thats another 100 quid profit for them when someone else buys those exact same Discs. And the length some of these games have been out, it's not too difficult to assume each disc could have been owned by 3, 4, 5 different people, ontop of the price the original owner paid for the games.

Am i the only person who see's this as literally criminal? Like if a game is 60 new, and you trade it in, they give you €14 for it, and resell it for €55...How can there not be a law against that? selling used games for 5 quid less than new ones, and then still charging 25 quid for games that have been out for 3-4 years or more ... it's literally a crime in my eyes.

Is there no way they can regulate this? Now i understand more (but totally am disgusted by what Microsoft were trying to do) about why Microsoft wanted to stop these third party resellers from making insane profits over and over for each single disc, when the publisher's and developer's arn't seeing a penny of that money after the initial sale.

Any opinions?

COYVB

Did you leave out the bit where the guy behind the counter held the gun to your head and forced you to accept their trade in price?

Hotman

COYVB wrote: »

Did you leave out the bit where the guy behind the counter held the gun to your head and forced you to accept their trade in price?

i needed cash.
some people don't have the luxury of of shopping around etc, such as kids. they need a new game, so they have to give sometimes 5 or 6 old games, just to afford 1 new one.

You have your opinions of course, and so do i

Gatling

Hotman wrote: »

i needed cash.
some people don't have the luxury of of shopping around etc, such as kids. they need a new game, so they have to give sometimes 5 or 6 old games, just to afford 1 new one.

You have your opinions of course, and so do i

The great thing about been a parent you get to be a grown up and say no

ScumLord

Hotman wrote: »

So what happens if they sell all 5 of these to the next guy who comes in, he pays 140, he plays them, he needs some cash, he trades them in, thats another 100 quid profit for them when someone else buys those exact same Discs.

Yeah, that's a best case scenario but also the most unlikely. The most likely scenario is that they're sold over a period of months and probably don't sell until the price is dropped some more.

If you want to try finding someone who'll pay more go online and you probably will find someone eventually. If you want cash in your hand right away go to the shop.

COYVB

Hotman wrote: »

i needed cash.
some people don't have the luxury of of shopping around etc, such as kids. they need a new game, so they have to give sometimes 5 or 6 old games, just to afford 1 new one.

You have your opinions of course, and so do i

You needed cash, Gamestop needed to maximize potential revenue.

Why do your needs outweigh theirs? You don't employ thousands of people globally.

Nobody is forcing you to shop at Gamestop, that's a decision you're making, so you've got nobody to blame other than yourself here.

What they're doing is perfectly legal, and you, and people like you, are enabling them to continue doing it by giving them your business over and over again.

"But it's convenient" doesn't cut it, especially when you're asking silly questions like "Am i the only person who see's this as literally criminal?"

If there's a CEX where you live you should of went there, they would of gave you €57 cash or €73 store credit.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I disagree with you. They didn't force you to sell them the games. You could have sold the games on Adverts.ie or whatever but it involves far more work and effort on your behalf. They have their own costs like staff, rates, insurance ect. You wanted instant hassle free cash and that's what you got. Paying €60 for a brand new game is simply paying RRP, they don't make €60 profit from that sale and they aren't obliged to give you €40 or whatever you expected to buy it back off you second hand. Also, I have bought Red Dead Redemption in GameStop for €15 so your calculations are off.

A general rule of thumb is you get 30% of what they will sell it for, maybe you got a little more or a little less than that? Either way, that 'profit' gets eaten into fairly quickly as that's just what happens in any retail business that has lots of overheads.


I'm not saying GameStop don't make a profit from second hand games, just that morally they are doing nothing wrong, and are certainly not behaving 'criminally'.

Dia1988

Have you ever heard of Adverts.ie ?

Gamestop must also scan the game disk for viruses, pay staff and rent, rates and electricity and tax on any profit that they might have earned from that 100 euro difference

Anyway used games are almost worthless

Look here
http://www.adverts.ie/playstation/red-dead-redemption/6228955

Hotman

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, that's a best case scenario but also the most unlikely. The most likely scenario is that they're sold over a period of months and probably don't sell until the price is dropped some more.

If you want to try finding someone who'll pay more go online and you probably will find someone eventually. If you want cash in your hand right away go to the shop.

It's not so much about how much they paid me, the point is, shouldn's what they pay me be a straight multiple of what they're resell it for?
I mean, the game has already done what it's supposed to do, sell new.
So after it's sold new, someone has paid that games cost, covering all the development, advertising etc.
So why such massive prices on it when it's second hand? thats kinda what i mean. How do they get away with selling a 60 quid new game for 55 quid, when they probably already sold that exact copy and made their margains on it.

Hotman

COYVB wrote: »

You needed cash, Gamestop needed to maximize potential revenue.

Why do your needs outweigh theirs? You don't employ thousands of people globally.

Nobody is forcing you to shop at Gamestop, that's a decision you're making, so you've got nobody to blame other than yourself here.

What they're doing is perfectly legal, and you, and people like you, are enabling them to continue doing it by giving them your business over and over again.

"But it's convenient" doesn't cut it, especially when you're asking silly questions like "Am i the only person who see's this as literally criminal?"

I'll choose to not respond to you. Im certain i represent more than myself here, so a personal attack isn't warranted.

Hotman

Dia1988 wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Adverts.ie ?

Gamestop must also scan the game disk for viruses, pay staff and rent, rates and electricity and tax on any profit that they might have earned from that 100 euro difference

Anyway used games are almost worthless

Look here
http://www.adverts.ie/playstation/red-dead-redemption/6228955

Not the case. I know 2 friends of mine who work there. You give them the pre-owned game, they check the disc, if it's finger printed, they wipe it with a cloth, they stick it in the box, tag it with it's pre-owned price and stick it on the shelf.
They don't need to do anything else, thats what the instore warranty's are for.

They literally take it in, look at it, sticker it, and sell it again.

Hotman

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I disagree with you. They didn't force you to sell them the games. You could have sold the games on Adverts.ie or whatever but it involves far more work and effort on your behalf. They have their own costs like staff, rates, insurance ect. You wanted instant hassle free cash and that's what you got. Paying €60 for a brand new game is simply paying RRP, they don't make €60 profit from that sale and they aren't obliged to give you €40 or whatever you expected to buy it back off you second hand. Also, I have bought Red Dead Redemption in GameStop for €15 so your calculations are off.

A general rule of thumb is you get 30% of what they will sell it for, maybe you got a little more or a little less than that? Either way, that 'profit' gets eaten into fairly quickly as that's just what happens in any retail business that has lots of overheads.


I'm not saying GameStop don't make a profit from second hand games, just that morally they are doing nothing wrong, and are certainly not behaving 'criminally'.

Well let's say im 11, and have no income, and i really want this new game because all of my friends have it, and im the only one who doesn't, and im missing out.
I think ok i need 55 for a used one, or 60 for a new one.
I then have to pretty much give them my entire game collection to be able to afford the pre-owned or new version.
Doesn't pre-owned mean it should be 50% or more cheaper? rather than being 90% of the cost it was when new?

Hotman

Here look you guys are defending Gamestop, the thread is closed.
Gamestop is fine then i guess. I'll continue shopping with them, thanks for making it it clear that the prices are fine.

Cheers guys.

bur

I've never understood people who do this and then cry about it when there are any number of ways to sell your games second hand directly, at the prices Gamestop do. Or swap them. Not like this is a new thing, they were ripping people off the same way ten+ years ago.

donedeal, adverts, ebay. Pick one.

Dia1988

You better report this immediately to the GARDAI as you say it is a criminal offence!

Did you get a good description of the staff member?

I traded in my car last year and they never gave me what I wanted for it either and I priced a similar model on the forecourt and it was 3000 euro more than what they were offering me for trade in.

So, guess what? I sold my car privately and got 2000 euro more than the garage offered!

Get over it!

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Hotman wrote: »

Well let's say im 11, and have no income, and i really want this new game because all of my friends have it, and im the only one who doesn't, and im missing out.
I think ok i need 55 for a used one, or 60 for a new one.
I then have to pretty much give them my entire game collection to be able to afford the pre-owned or new version.
Doesn't pre-owned mean it should be 50% or more cheaper? rather than being 90% of the cost it was when new?

What you really want is not in the best interest of what a business needs to do to make profit and survive.

Just to say, I find that 2nd hand games are quite reasonably priced in GameStop.

mfergus

They will give ridiculous prices in these places, but you must see it from their point of view.
Out of the 5 games they may only sell 2 or 3, the remaining games may be there so long that the prices get further reduced or actually taken off the shelf.

Also if somebody buys the second hand version from them it eliminates the chance that the person could have brought a new one from them!

callaway92

COYVB wrote: »

Did you leave out the bit where the guy behind the counter held the gun to your head and forced you to accept their trade in price?

This.

I can't believe the OP went to the effort of such a large rant for something which was 100% in his control. Shambolic thread.

Snake

Hotman wrote: »

Not the case. I know 2 friends of mine who work there. You give them the pre-owned game, they check the disc, if it's finger printed, they wipe it with a cloth, they stick it in the box, tag it with it's pre-owned price and stick it on the shelf.
They don't need to do anything else, thats what the instore warranty's are for.

They literally take it in, look at it, sticker it, and sell it again.

Well you're lying or your friends are. I know for a fact that's not what they do. They offer the trade price at the time which decreases as a game gets older. Go to xtra vision, HMV, CEX no one's going to give you 50 and charge 55 to resell it. And why should the devs get money from the re sale?? The developers that would be sitting on millions of dollars from the initial sale of a game should be given millions more? Don't be ridiculous.

salamanca22

Op, you sold your games and accepted the price that was offered. That is where it ends for you. Gamestop can do whatever they like with those games and if they want to put a price tag for 100 euro each on them then that is their prerogative.

There is other ways that you could of gotten more money including cex (post in if you are not near one) and adverts.

The games you traded in will not be sold right away as they will have tons of stock of every game and by the time yours is sold the price of it will come down anyway. Gamestop need to add that extra risk to their calculations. How much will this game sell for when it does in a few months.

I also don't know why you didn't use your credit card and clear it when you are paid tomorrow.

minidazzler

It's not criminal, it's simply capitalism.

Czarcasm

Hotman wrote: »

i needed cash.
some people don't have the luxury of of shopping around etc, such as kids. they need a new game, so they have to give sometimes 5 or 6 old games, just to afford 1 new one.

You have your opinions of course, and so do i

Hotman wrote: »

Well let's say im 11, and have no income, and i really want this new game because all of my friends have it, and im the only one who doesn't, and im missing out.
I think ok i need 55 for a used one, or 60 for a new one.
I then have to pretty much give them my entire game collection to be able to afford the pre-owned or new version.
Doesn't pre-owned mean it should be 50% or more cheaper? rather than being 90% of the cost it was when new?

Nobody actually needs a game OP, much less an 11 year old who cannot afford one. That's the reality of being an 11 year old - you don't always get what you want, just because you want it.

GameStop are a business, and they are in the business of making money. You needed cash quickly and they provided you with cash quickly. You cannot then dictate to them how much they should sell the games they bought from you. You have taken no account of the fact that people who are not in as quick a rush to buy new games as you will wait for the price of even the second hand games to drop.

In the meantime, while that game is sitting on the shelf, GameStop will still have to pay your two friends their wages, will have to cover insurance and utilities costs, the upkeep and maintenance of the premises, and any rents and auxiliary costs they incur, while that game still sits on the shelf. They will also have competition in the market to deal with, the very same way as before you they could have had four or five customers in their store looking for quick cash for the exact same games as yours, which will drive down the price you get for your games.

Whatever price they think they can get for the games after that is their business, and if they give you the €55 for your games, then in order to make a profit to meet their costs, they have to charge an adult buying these games for an 11 year old, more than the price of a new game, in order to cover their own costs.

So the second-hand game is more expensive than the game would be new! Does that make good business sense to you? It would be a terrible business strategy for GameStop, and they wouldn't be in business very long, and then they'd have to close down, and then you'd have nowhere to get quick cash for your games, and 11 year olds who can't shop around, still wouldn't be able to get the games you claim they need...

As the father of a nine year old who is trying to teach his child that he shouldn't give in to peer pressure, and that if he wants something he has to save up for it, your story just breaks my little heart.



(FWIW, those game you mentioned, the recommended age for most of them was 13, except Gran Turismo 5 for which the recommended age was 10)

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/red-dead-redemption

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/far-cry-3

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/dark-souls-ii

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/gran-turismo-5

lertsnim

Hotman wrote: »

Here look you guys are defending Gamestop, the thread is closed.
Gamestop is fine then i guess. I'll continue shopping with them, thanks for making it it clear that the prices are fine.

Cheers guys.

Has the 11 year old gained access to your account?

SeantheMan

Hotman wrote: »

Is there no way they can regulate this? Now i understand more (but totally am disgusted by what Microsoft were trying to do) about why Microsoft wanted to stop these third party resellers from making insane profits over and over for each single disc, when the publisher's and developer's arn't seeing a penny of that money after the initial sale.

Any opinions?

Yeah, have you not known about Gamestop and GAME and Smyths and all the rest and this practice for the last...nearly a decade now I think ?!?!

My opinion is a fool and his money are easily parted, noone here is going to feel sorry for you as it was stupid on your part, everyone knows the deal at this stage, and as someone else mentioned, noone forced you to take the money.

There was a point during the transaction where he said ..."I can give you X amount for these games"....and you said...."Yes, that is fine"

Frankly my dear

callaway92 wrote: »

This.

I can't believe the OP went to the effort of such a large rant for something which was 100% in his control. Shambolic thread.

Shambolic yet strangely hilarious. But I do feel bad for those poor 11 year olds

theteal

This is a funny one to wake up to. You'd swear gamestop were a public government service the way some people go on.

Tbh I don't think they will manage to sell those old games (the can be gotten cheaper elsewhere, red dead was on xbl for ~£7 last week iirc) so in reality, they've just given money away and not made the tidy profit of the OP

As for the hypothetical 11yr old sob story, "coz all his friends have it" doesn't wash. Before I could earn money, I got expensive stuff like that at birthdays and Christmas. Are kids that spoiled these days that they've never heard or had to deal with the concept of "no"?

CiDeRmAn

This bloody topic keeps coming up from different posters and they always accuse Gamestop of ripping them off for a transaction they could have walked away from at any point.
The fact you have CEX around the country providing an alternative trade in service should mean that no one is obliged to trade with GameStop.

And CEX are online as well, so people are just being lazy.

In the matter of what GameStop staff do with preowned games at the counter, the prices are set across the point of sale system from head office, the staff scan the games barcode, quote the price to the seller/trader and, if accepted, print the new price/barcode out and set it for filing the disk and putting the game box on the shelves.
That's it.
There's no input for the staff to alter the prices, they used to have lee way but no longer.
Any price change from what the system is telling them has to have a corresponding code they scan in with your item meaning the staff have as much control as you do with regard to prices.
And that's kinda that.

Games depreciate fast, Far Cry 3, Red Dead Redemption and Dark Souls are a couple of years old and are never going to be worth much at all.
The one game that boosted the value was CoD.

Retr0gamer

In break news today, videogame stores need to make a profit to survive.

Greenmachine

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

This bloody topic keeps coming up from different posters and they always accuse Gamestop of ripping them off for a transaction they could have walked away from at any point.
The fact you have CEX around the country providing an alternative trade in service should mean that no one is obliged to trade with GameStop.

And CEX are online as well, so people are just being lazy.

In the matter of what GameStop staff do with preowned games at the counter, the prices are set across the point of sale system from head office, the staff scan the games barcode, quote the price to the seller/trader and, if accepted, print the new price/barcode out and set it for filing the disk and putting the game box on the shelves.
That's it.
There's no input for the staff to alter the prices, they used to have lee way but no longer.
Any price change from what the system is telling them has to have a corresponding code they scan in with your item meaning the staff have as much control as you do with regard to prices.
And that's kinda that.

Games depreciate fast, Far Cry 3, Red Dead Redemption and Dark Souls are a couple of years old and are never going to be worth much at all.
The one game that boosted the value was CoD.

Years ago I traded in manhunt. At the time they were selling pre-owned copies for 19 euro. I declined the offer and sold it privately. On another occasion, I traded in a game I had bought from another chain more than a year prior, I was offered 20 when I had only paid about 12 for the game. The clerk was puzzled and had to check with his colleague who told him they have to go with whatever was on the system a win on that occasion.

COYVB

Hotman wrote: »

Here look you guys are defending Gamestop, the thread is closed.
Gamestop is fine then i guess. I'll continue shopping with them, thanks for making it it clear that the prices are fine.

Cheers guys.

Nobody is defending GameStop, but rather pointing out the massive flaw in your logic. Also, their trade in values are rubbish for the most part, and their regular prices are too high. They're an all round rubbish option, but while people continue to so there, they'll continue to do their best to get every penny they can for as little as possible.

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism in a democratic country with a free market

FutureGuy

I love these posts. I really do.

You weren't treated badly. You weren't mugged. You weren't robbed.

You knew what you were getting for the games and you still traded them in. You made the mistake. By the way, what did you think you would get for them? Red Dead is an ancient game and COD is one of the most traded in games ever. GT6 is also quite old,FC3 is free on PS+ and DS is free on XBL Gold.

They are a business. They need to make profit. If you spent 10% of the time you spent complaing here and did some research, you would have found a number of options where you could have made more money.

Lesson learned I hope!

Hotman wrote: »

Hi,

I just went into Gamestop today to get a little cash (didn't want to go on the credit card and payday is tomorr). So i traded a couple of games for cash.

I gave them CoD:Ghosts, Red Dead Redemption, Farcry 3 and Dark Souls, finally Gran Turismo 6.

Now just to note, i bought those games new from Gamestop for the usual crippling price apart from GT6. Ghosts was 59.99, Red Dead was, 54.99, FC:3 was 54.99 and Dark Souls was 39.99. If i'd have bought GT6 in there it would have been 59.99 also, but i checked in Argos at the time and they had it (on release day) for 51.99.

Anyway, for those 5 games, they gave me 38 euro... 38. I walked out of there feeling as if someone had literally just mugged me.

I went back in, and took note of the prices they're gonna resell my games for just to see how badly i'd been treated and wanted to climb in over the counter after people.

Ghosts will sell ALONE for more 1.99 more than they gave me for all 5 games. 39.99.
cod = 40, red dead = 25, Farcry = 20, dark souls = 25 and GT6 = 30. totaling 140 quid.
So they just made 100 quid profit from me. Now thats ontop of the the money they already made from me for bying them new, considering i got GT6 8 quid cheaper on release day than gamestop, i can only assume they have some pretty tidy margains already.

So what happens if they sell all 5 of these to the next guy who comes in, he pays 140, he plays them, he needs some cash, he trades them in, thats another 100 quid profit for them when someone else buys those exact same Discs. And the length some of these games have been out, it's not too difficult to assume each disc could have been owned by 3, 4, 5 different people, ontop of the price the original owner paid for the games.

Am i the only person who see's this as literally criminal? Like if a game is 60 new, and you trade it in, they give you €14 for it, and resell it for €55...How can there not be a law against that? selling used games for 5 quid less than new ones, and then still charging 25 quid for games that have been out for 3-4 years or more ... it's literally a crime in my eyes.

Is there no way they can regulate this? Now i understand more (but totally am disgusted by what Microsoft were trying to do) about why Microsoft wanted to stop these third party resellers from making insane profits over and over for each single disc, when the publisher's and developer's arn't seeing a penny of that money after the initial sale.

Any opinions?

Stylesclash07

I'm not defending gamestop but I traded in a ps4 for a mate yesterday and they gave him 392 cash for it and he paid 400 for it I was very impressed with that. My experience with games has been bad and good. I don't like trading games but for me it's a necessary evil for me to get games these days

Hotman

Hotman wrote: »

Hi,

I just went into Gamestop today to get a little cash (didn't want to go on the credit card and payday is tomorr). So i traded a couple of games for cash.

I gave them CoD:Ghosts, Red Dead Redemption, Farcry 3 and Dark Souls, finally Gran Turismo 6.

Now just to note, i bought those games new from Gamestop for the usual crippling price apart from GT6. Ghosts was 59.99, Red Dead was, 54.99, FC:3 was 54.99 and Dark Souls was 39.99. If i'd have bought GT6 in there it would have been 59.99 also, but i checked in Argos at the time and they had it (on release day) for 51.99.

Anyway, for those 5 games, they gave me 38 euro... 38. I walked out of there feeling as if someone had literally just mugged me.

I went back in, and took note of the prices they're gonna resell my games for just to see how badly i'd been treated and wanted to climb in over the counter after people.

Ghosts will sell ALONE for more 1.99 more than they gave me for all 5 games. 39.99.
cod = 40, red dead = 25, Farcry = 20, dark souls = 25 and GT6 = 30. totaling 140 quid.
So they just made 100 quid profit from me. Now thats ontop of the the money they already made from me for bying them new, considering i got GT6 8 quid cheaper on release day than gamestop, i can only assume they have some pretty tidy margains already.

So what happens if they sell all 5 of these to the next guy who comes in, he pays 140, he plays them, he needs some cash, he trades them in, thats another 100 quid profit for them when someone else buys those exact same Discs. And the length some of these games have been out, it's not too difficult to assume each disc could have been owned by 3, 4, 5 different people, ontop of the price the original owner paid for the games.

Am i the only person who see's this as literally criminal? Like if a game is 60 new, and you trade it in, they give you €14 for it, and resell it for €55...How can there not be a law against that? selling used games for 5 quid less than new ones, and then still charging 25 quid for games that have been out for 3-4 years or more ... it's literally a crime in my eyes.

Is there no way they can regulate this? Now i understand more (but totally am disgusted by what Microsoft were trying to do) about why Microsoft wanted to stop these third party resellers from making insane profits over and over for each single disc, when the publisher's and developer's arn't seeing a penny of that money after the initial sale.

Any opinions?

your simplifying there buisness and ignoring there other costs if you feel its easier open a buisness yourself should be no problem

Spazdarn

Hotman wrote: »

i needed cash.
some people don't have the luxury of of shopping around etc, such as kids. they need a new game, so they have to give sometimes 5 or 6 old games, just to afford 1 new one.

You have your opinions of course, and so do i

Selling them individually on adverts is your best bet.

Dave_The_Sheep

Funnily enough, for all the OP's bitching (and I'm sure it's not pleasant being taken for a ride like that, regardless of who initiated the transaction) - it's people who trade in games that are helping Gamestop stay afloat. Without the second hand market, I wonder how they'd be doing.

Sure, they might be assholes - but it's not like we're in the zombie apocalypse and you're forced to sell your daughter's body to bandits for food. It's a computer game after all.

Dave_The_Sheep

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Funnily enough, for all the OP's bitching (and I'm sure it's not pleasant being taken for a ride like that, regardless of who initiated the transaction) - it's people who trade in games that are helping Gamestop stay afloat. Without the second hand market, I wonder how they'd be doing.

Sure, they might be assholes - but it's not like we're in the zombie apocalypse and you're forced to sell your daughter's body to bandits for food. It's a computer game after all.

without the 2nd hand markey they would crash and burn very quickley i dont think there assholes at all to be honest staff in my local are quite friendly and helpfull

Dave_The_Sheep

Naomi Cuddly Twit wrote: »

without the 2nd hand markey they would crash and burn very quickley i dont think there assholes at all to be honest staff in my local are quite friendly and helpfull

I should probably clarify. I don't go to Gamestop, as I only play games on PC, so I'm not referring to the staff. I more mean the company.

Nody

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Funnily enough, for all the OP's bitching (and I'm sure it's not pleasant being taken for a ride like that, regardless of who initiated the transaction) - it's people who trade in games that are helping Gamestop stay afloat. Without the second hand market, I wonder how they'd be doing.

Strictly speaking it's not the people trading games in but rather the people who insist on buying their games in the stores (rather than in an online alternative at a significant discount); esp. the once who then go on complaining the games are to expensive and that they are being ripped off...

Local-womanizer

I used to work in GameStop. The number of people who came in to trade games, you gave them the price they would be getting for them games, in cash or credit, and they would stand there telling you how ridiculous it is and it's a scam, and they are getting screwed over.

I wouldn't even humour them with explaining about wages, rent and costs to run the store. I never once forced someone to trade, in fact I'd tell them to shop around if they felt that strongly about it. And plus giving out to me, who was just a store assistant earning minimum wage isn't going to change gamestops global pricing strategy.

Dave_The_Sheep

Nody wrote: »

Strictly speaking it's not the people trading games in but rather the people who insist on buying their games in the stores (rather than in an online alternative at a significant discount); esp. the once who then go on complaining the games are to expensive and that they are being ripped off...

Chicken/egg, for me. They wouldn't able to buy traded in games if people weren't trading them in, and people wouldn't be able to trade them in if there wasn't a market for them. Point taken though.

Generic Dreadhead

Hotman wrote: »

Hi,...
...Any opinions?

Yup, gonna copy/paste this out of the other thread on this

If you're going to use maths, use it right.

It's also assuming a title is still going to €50 second hand one year later which is an Absolute minority.

Game costs:
Player 1 buys game at €60 (current Gamestop take = €60)
Player 1 trades it in: Gets €30 cash back (i'm going to use cash to keep it straightforward.
Player 2 buys game at €50 2nd hand (current Gamestop take = €80 factoring in)
Player 2 trades it in: Gets €25 cash back
Player 3 buys game at €45 3rd hand (current Gamestop take = €100)
Player 3 trades it in: Gets €20 cash back
Player 4 buys game at €40 4th hand (current Gamestop take = €120)
Player 4 trades it in: Gets €15 cash back
Player 5 buys game at €35 5th hand (current Gamestop take = €140)
Player 5 trades it in: Gets €15 cash back
Player 6 buys game at €30 5th hand (current Gamestop take = €155)

So Gamestop have made €155, of which it is not all profit and a certain % must go back to the distributor, even assuming that would be 66% of the RRP (so €40) at launch time, they have still only made €115 in a year off one title that has been through the cycle 5/6 times.

I'm not defending Gamestop, I'm defending maths

um7y1h83ge06nx

Shop around.

I bought Metro Redux for the PS4 on Sunday.

That morning I checked the prices on all Irish retailer sites, a bunch of UK sites and some international sites like Video Games Plus and Play Asia.

Surprisingly the cheapest after factoring in any delivery costs was Argos at 36.99.

Gamestop was 44.99 I think.

Radiosonde

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Funnily enough, for all the OP's bitching (and I'm sure it's not pleasant being taken for a ride like that, regardless of who initiated the transaction) - it's people who trade in games that are helping Gamestop stay afloat. Without the second hand market, I wonder how they'd be doing.

Sure, they might be assholes - but it's not like we're in the zombie apocalypse and you're forced to sell your daughter's body to bandits for food. It's a computer game after all.

I don't understand why people trade-in stuff like Red Dead or Dark Souls. Annualized stuff like COD is pracrically made to be traded in, but I'd consider those two keepers, even if completed.

Randall Floyd

I've only traded in a few times with Gamestop and to be honest found them fair enough in terms of the trade-in value they offered me for my games. They are wildly inconsistent in terms of their pricing on secondhand games though and a lot of the time you could buy the games new for less elsewhere.

ScumLord

Hotman wrote: »

It's not so much about how much they paid me, the point is, shouldn's what they pay me be a straight multiple of what they're resell it for?

SAys who? They price the game based on their costs.

I mean, the game has already done what it's supposed to do, sell new.
So after it's sold new, someone has paid that games cost, covering all the development, advertising etc.

That's got nothing to do with gamestop, they don't make the games they just buy them in at one price and sell them at another. Gamestop has to pay for their staff, their shops and their overheads which have nothing to do with making games. In reality they treat you no different than they do their official suppliers, they buy the games off them for as little as they can and then sell them to the general public for as much profit as they can.

So why such massive prices on it when it's second hand?

Because thats the price people are willing to pay obvioulsy.

thats kinda what i mean. How do they get away with selling a 60 quid new game for 55 quid, when they probably already sold that exact copy and made their margains on it.

It doesn't matter what profits they made on it the first time, that sales covered the initial costs of buying and displaying the game. When they buy it back off you that starts the process again anew. As far as the shop is concerned it's a new item and has to be treated as such.

YouSavedMyLife

The OP is done with the thread and i don't think the second post needs to be echoed times 20+

Potatoeman

Hotman wrote: »

Is there no way they can regulate this? Now i understand more (but totally am disgusted by what Microsoft were trying to do) about why Microsoft wanted to stop these third party resellers from making insane profits over and over for each single disc, when the publisher's and developer's arn't seeing a penny of that money after the initial sale.

Any opinions?

I dont buy into the publisher being owed on resale. Ever buy anything second hand?

Its also a problem with steam. You cant loan someone a game even though you own it.

ScumLord

Potatoeman wrote: »

Its also a problem with steam. You cant loan someone a game even though you own it.

No but they can buy their own copy for less than a tenner more than likely.

You can also add them to a list of people that can play your games. I have two family members that have complete access to my library, it would only become a problem if we wanted to play against each other.

Generic Dreadhead

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

The OP is done with the thread and i don't think the second post needs to be echoed times 20+

This is Boards!!!! :mad::pac:

Potatoeman

ScumLord wrote: »

No but they can buy their own copy for less than a tenner more than likely.

You can also add them to a list of people that can play your games. I have two family members that have complete access to my library, it would only become a problem if we wanted to play against each other.

The sales make it worth it. I've picked up games I would not pay release day prices for.

I didnt know you could share. Can only one of you be logged in like account sharing?