"GameStop Enters Sellout Talks"

[Flojomojo]

What future do they have if they have nothing to sell?

Board games? RPGs and minatures? I'm totally serious ... I prefer video games, but seems to me there's a decent crossover between different flavors of geek culture.

 

It would be hard to scale up a place like Dream Wizards, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to see them a little more focused, and (hat tip to 80s atari guy) passionate. It's easier just to sell prepackaged crap, and upsell magazine subscriptions, of course.

 

Dream Wizards was conceived of as a creative meeting place, where people with common interests would meet up to learn and play games, participate in tournaments and leagues, explore techniques, share information, meet acquaintances and form friendships. Over the years, the Dream Wizards team has been associated with most of the Organized Play programs in the hobby game industry. One of our first large events was the Magic Mirage prerelease in 1996. Our mission is to welcome people who enjoy games with product sales and opportunities to play. Newcomers to games, casual player and serious competitors will all find opportunities to suit their style.

 

 

I remember when Gamestop (or whatever it used to be called near you before the consolidation -- Funcoland, Electronics Boutique, Babbage's, Software Etc) was overrun with Magic the Gathering cards, later Pokemon cards, and stuffed animals, and now ThinkGeek stuff. There are probably other fads I can't remember. They had movies for a little while. Did they have manga and anime for a while, too?

 

Maybe there's space for a toy and game and maybe office supply store to fill the gap left by Toys R US and Staples, too? Calling it ThinkGeek would be more interesting to me than GameStop.

 

Hey, remember when Barnes & Noble was mostly books, and had fewer toys and games, and stuffed animals? (and more retail locations?)

 

Or, they could just keep doing the same old thing, and fold, and die.

[Osgeld]

I went into a gamestop last christmas and that place was so packed with useless game related tat you couldn't even walk in the place ... oh yea and there were some games near the back corner

 

 

sooooo why not going back to selling games instead of 17$ super mario tumblers which are just shit plastic with a slip of inkjet paper shoved in the middle half assed and crooked, remember when you could buy retro games and pc games at a gamestop? I do, its the only reason I went otherwise I had to pass 5 other stores selling me "new shiny AAA title"

Edited July 1, 2018 by Osgeld

[Tanooki]

Gamestop sell physical media. Idiots in this thread want the end to physical media. Thats why many people "Bitch", because we see a future where there won't be a way to play them.

Idiots who disagree, also see a world of Unicorns, and free! magic beans for everyone because - "We've done it in the past, we can do it in the future" lol. Without proving a single solution to how you would do it.

 

When Gamestop are gone, they're gone forever, no matter how much you hate them. I don't live in the US, but I do care about brick and mortar stores still selling physical media.

I still don't get why those who only buy digital games get so angry over those who prefer physical. Why does it bother you if there is a physical games market ?

 

If digital is so wonderful, then why are digital games so damn expensive ? Why does it take a Steam summer sale, for digital games to become more affordable ? I remember when PC games were £30. Now, the norm is £49, and thats digital. I purchased GTA V on 6 DVDs for £25, yet (at the time) Steam had it for £35. Why ? how is a physical copy on sale for less than a digital copy ?

 

I honestly predict a digital-only future where games will come out at a starting price of £100. And, without any brick and mortar stores and physical media, we won't have a choice but to either buy it at £100, or hope a sale comes up.

 

This one is easily answered by the huge pile of trust into this train of logic I was given by my brother who still works in the industry as a producer. Game companies want physical dead. They're grooming people for it. They get the whale concept, they want whales only, and super whales too. Control they want entirely in their hands for distribution and price including limited sales. The argument why people who want digital only is that they ate into what the game companies want, fast, easy cheap distribution with instant access yet not caring about what happens after the fact as it can in fact be sold again at whatever price. Physical media has a risk being made, added expense. That's why digital games cost the same and often times after being on the market more. Digital they can't discount because they think people won't buy the other product so when something comes out 0 day you rarely see a $30 download and a $40 real game because it gets people angry, at least that's their justification.

 

Ideally the trust part is this. I was told that given the removal of risk, removal of second hand right of sale, removal of sharing/trading copies, removal of uncontrolled sales and the death of clearance they would drop the currently $50-60 games down to like $30 and peeled back from there for cheaper titles. The argument is, you trust us, and we will make the pricing palatable, but they don't make a public push or argument for this. Personally I don't believe it as a lie. What motivation would there to be for them to drop prices by half when they have a monopoly over their walled garden? They'd have no reason to ever do sales, or at least nothing better than usually what Nintendo does 10-20% off unless you spend digital purchase coins for a sharper discount (30-40%.) You'll see games on the market not 2 weeks at $60 with a drop when they can keep it still 2 years or even 5 years later at $60 if they chose. Why would the third party company complain? They'd just see more profit as would the first party and them as a license holder.

 

Steam is the only wrench in that, but they could easily just coerce them since many games outside indie on PC are ending up being on consoles too to just drop the heavy sales. Steam may offer huge cuts, but Capcom, Konami, Hudson, NIS, and the rest aren't required to allow a 33-66% off. They could just say 10-20 if that and be done with it.

[PlaysWithWolves]

Destroy the looms!

[Flojomojo]

How many games do you guys buy a year, anyway?

 

I'm more into indie and mobile stuff, personally -- things that don't ship on discs anymore even if I wanted them to.

[keepdreamin]

As long as companies pull the "download required" BS with physical games (I refuse to buy them as well)

 

Again, modern games REQUIRE updates and patches. That's simply due to the complexity of modern game development. You remember who made the stand that games could be released and guaranteed with no patches required? It was that Chameleon dude, who's ideas were viewed as a pipe dream not grounded in reality.

[Flojomojo]

Again, modern games REQUIRE updates and patches. That's simply due to the complexity of modern game development. You remember who made the stand that games could be released and guaranteed with no patches required? It was that Chameleon dude, who's ideas were viewed as a pipe dream not grounded in reality.

They really took a strong stance with that -- NO internet connectivity, and the console would revert to its factory state every time you turned it off. "Because lengthy firmware updates were separating gamers from their games!"

 

A simple, well programmed and well tested retro-style game is fully capable of shipping without the need to add things later. Putting aside the fact that adding things later is a lot of the fun in modern games, isn't the New Intellivision with Tommy Tallarico at the helm going to be in that vein (albeit probably with digital distribution)?

 

Not that such a thing would be sold at GameStop, if that store even survives until the New Intellivision launches.

 

[80s_Atari_Guy]

My problem, every month, when buying games is this.

Do I buy modern PC games, Console games, Handheld games, or Retro games. I often look at a PS4 release, such as Horizon Zero Dawn, or GT Sport, and wonder how many Intellivision/Colecovision/Gameboy/Game Gear games could I get for the same money.

I mean, I've spent more on my PS Vita, in June, than I have on my 3DS XL. My local CEX just keeps getting cheap Vita games. I'm bored with the Switch, it just doesn't get the games. And when they do, they're stupidly expensive, for what the system is.

 

This Steam summer sale, I have already spent about £50 ($66), on indie games, and a few AAA games.

[eightbit]

 

Again, modern games REQUIRE updates and patches. That's simply due to the complexity of modern game development. You remember who made the stand that games could be released and guaranteed with no patches required? It was that Chameleon dude, who's ideas were viewed as a pipe dream not grounded in reality.

 

That doesn't apply to every system out there. I exclusively collect Switch games. I currently have 80 or so. Not a single game "required" an update or a patch to function. In some cases the patch or update helped something (like slow load times in Monopoly) but in no case was the physical game unplayable without an update. So, these games will function without any update or patch for the most part. This means 10 years from now if I have these games and my switch dies long after the servers hosting updates are shut down I will still be able to pick up a second hand switch console and enjoy my games on it without the need to download anything. Of course that cannot be said for the people who bought into digital all of those years. They would have just lost all of their games.

 

But, I was referring to internet required titles. These games (like Wolfenstein, LA Noire, etc) do not include the entire game on the cartridge as most other games do. They only include a portion of the game and require you to download the rest when you first pop the game cart in. Those are the titles I will not purchase because in the future scenario I have outlined above those games would be utterly useless. Again I am referring to Switch games. I don't have a PS4 or XBONE so I don't know how many physical games require downloading....I am guessing more.

 

And for the people that say "hey, who cares, I won't be playing these games in 10 years", I say tell that to all of the Atari 2600, SMS, NES, Genesis, SNES and TG16 (and insert any other retro console here) collectors and game players out there. Imagine if the digital download crap happened in an earlier era and we were not able to enjoy some of those classic games today? Well, that would suck now wouldn't it? Not to mention you wouldn't have brick and mortar game stores, collections, etc. Well, that is what is happening now and only a few seem to care.

Edited July 2, 2018 by eightbit

[Flojomojo]

Of all the fragile, moving parts on the Switch, I'm least worried about the game servers. At least they'd survive if I drop my delicate portable on the concrete.

[eightbit]

Of all the fragile, moving parts on the Switch, I'm least worried about the game servers. At least they'd survive if I drop my delicate portable on the concrete.

 

 

Well all I can say is make sure not to do that

 

As with all consoles that people love, I am sure people will find ways to repair/upgrade the switch long after it is no longer manufactured. People still play with Turbo Expresses, Tapwave Zodiacs and Gizmondos afterall You can turn off servers, but you cannot turn off the desire to enjoy your physical vintage games.

[+GoldLeader]

I just found this thread...

 

Someone already beat me to the joke GameStop sold out years ago...hehee ... I still laughed...I don't know what ThinkGeek is...It's OK, I don't want to know...

 

I used to like them in the PlayStation era (Ours was E.B. back then)...Seems like they got in a lot of cool stuff, though I was into modern games then (unlike now)...And the employees were nice back then and even helpful!

 

 

So my last 2 GameStop trips were like this:

 

(Probably 2008-ish)

 

Me: Do you have Pinball Hall of Fame (The Williams Collection) for PSP?

GameStop: The computer says we have it, but I only find an empty box. Since it says we have it, they won't order another one. Are you online?

Me: You sound exactly like WalMart. Yes I'm online, but doesn't it matter to you that I'm here in your store so I don't have to buy it online?

I actually, finally got a letter published in PSM magazine (I know it had Metal Gear Solid 4 on the cover) telling the story of how brick and mortar stores were driving me to shop online ...telling this story (though there's a little more to it)...

 

And then recently...

 

I wanted to see the ATGames Atari Flashback 8...Specifically I wanted the Atari version, HD, and the one that included Paddles...I would also have considered the Activision version. Although I probably didn't realize it at the time, what I wanted was the "Atari Flashback 8 Gold Deluxe HD Console" but it was all a moot point, because like WalMart and other crap stores, They ONLY had ONE type of Atari Flashback in stock. The SD version Flashback 8. That's it! They call themselves a video game store, yet only carried one version...No Gold, No Activision, No HD, No Paddles...

 

Got the exact version I wanted at a Killer Price on eBay! But if they only had it in stock at GameStop, I probably would have paid full price to get it that day. *(sigh)*

 

Haven't been back...

[Tanooki]

How many games do you guys buy a year, anyway?

 

I'm more into indie and mobile stuff, personally -- things that don't ship on discs anymore even if I wanted them to.

Strictly speaking to physical and modern, I just have the Switch and 3DS. Switch probably averages like maybe 1 game a month. 3DS I've only picked up 1 this year, and Metroid and M&L SSS last year, so rarely. When 3DS was well more pumping out lots of games because WiiU sucked I probably averaged 2/mo. These do include me buying both new and second hand and I do buy with deals, rarely full price. Like eightbit I really do end up factoring classic games for other systems into what I get too that further limits it as cash is limited.

 

 

 

Well all I can say is make sure not to do that

 

As with all consoles that people love, I am sure people will find ways to repair/upgrade the switch long after it is no longer manufactured. People still play with Turbo Expresses, Tapwave Zodiacs and Gizmondos afterall You can turn off servers, but you cannot turn off the desire to enjoy your physical vintage games.

Agreed, though I don't think Switch has that many easy pieces to break off other than that kickstand. Just be careful not to drop it, they're not some big brick of old like the Gameboy line.

 

And Switch most definitely. Look at the Digital Foundry or other tear downs. There's a bare motherboard in there basically which has the Tegra, memory, blue tooth, wifi, and other parts of the system in a modular snap on style. IF something in 10 years breaks, someone will have the ability to get a still run (china par for the course tactic) of new parts to put in there to bring it back. The screen might be more of the hang up issue, but the rest should be cheaply and easily enough swapped out so at worst if it's got a dead panel, it can work on the TV still.

[eightbit]

Not to get too off topic (well, we are there already) I personally would LOVE to see a set top box standalone home console version of the switch like the PlaystationTV. The PSTV didn't work for everything because of the need of so many games to use the touch screen, but that need is pretty much not there for the games I have played on the Switch. A little box that connects to the TV via HDMI, accepts the game cards and syncs with pro controllers for a cheaper price (ie: $99) would be fantastic and a great way for people to enjoy the games at home in console mode for a discounted price. Would work great for people who want to play the games but don't play portable.

[+frankodragon]

Half Price Books used to have a store in an area in northern Milwaukee now considered to be a high crime area which is possibly the reason why they moved out. The location did sell video games from Atari and up. They didn't have a vast collection but at least they did have classic games than just those for current systems only as Gamestop did.

[Austin]

The PSTV didn't work for everything because of the need of so many games to use the touch screen.

False. A shortcut command can be activated that mimics touch-screen functionality. Sony simply chose to barely support the unit. If a game wasn't white listed, it won't function on the console. It was a great idea for a device, but Sony shot themselves in the foot with it.

 

There are a couple of games that do require unique Vita functionality (like the back touch pad or motion control functionality), but those are very few and far between. The PS TV can mimic the touch screen so that's not the reason many games don't function.

[Flojomojo]

I think the PSVIta was conceived mainly as a cheap way to deliver PSNOW content, for people who didn't have a Sony Bravia TV. They've dropped support for everything except PS4 and Windows PCs now. https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/explore/playstation-now/how-it-works/

 

Game streaming can't seem to get a toehold, there's a crap ton of gamer hatred around it -- especially in the "hate lag" and "want to own the media" crowd, both of which have very healthy representation on this board. Sony has both Onlive and Gaikai tech/patents in house, Nvidia has its own streaming thing, and both Microsoft and Google are rumored to be working on their own services.

 

I think the "must own the media" problem could be worked around with the right business plan, but "lag" will be harder to solve.

 

Remember when GameStop (the subject of this thread, believe it or not) felt so threatened by "competitor" OnLive (dead for years now) that they pulled OnLive coupons out of boxed Deus Ex games? http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/gamestop-responds-to-deus-ex-controversy-removes-game-from-shelves.ars

 

PSTV is still the best way to play TxK, until Tempest 4000 comes along later this month. I can't remember for sure, but I think I got my PSTV from GameStop, on a deep discount.

 

GameStop is so boring, this thread can't help but talk about other things.

[eightbit]

False. A shortcut command can be activated that mimics touch-screen functionality. Sony simply chose to barely support the unit. If a game wasn't white listed, it won't function on the console. It was a great idea for a device, but Sony shot themselves in the foot with it.

 

There are a couple of games that do require unique Vita functionality (like the back touch pad or motion control functionality), but those are very few and far between. The PS TV can mimic the touch screen so that's not the reason many games don't function.

 

When I said touch screen I was referring to to rear touch pad as well (I always thought of it as a touch screen...even thought its not a screen at all...odd). There was a good amount of pretty enjoyable games that used it and therefore are unplayable on the PSTV. Super Stardust Delta is one that comes to mind as I am a big Super Stardust fan.

[80s_Atari_Guy]

Tearaway, made good use of the rear touchpad. It almost felt surreal when you touched the rear touchpad, and onscreen your finger graphic could be seen poking through the ground. Great game.

[PlaysWithWolves]

Coincidentally, today through 07/15 is the GameStop Game Days Summer Sale.

[Flojomojo]

And July 11 is Free Slurpee Day at 7-11. Maybe I should just make a day of it, and buy some physical games for once.

 

(My GameStop is right near a 7-11 store)

[Tanooki]

Going to have to go with Austin there on the PSTV. That system was a really great idea and they neutered it hard out of the box. I remember people questioning their sanity with the kill sheet of physical (and digital) games that did not work. Quite a few had no touch functionality at all, and others had a single mode of it that could be done anyway using a PS4 controllers touch panel it had (like Uncharted.) People assumed enough, but once someone hacked the hell out of it to embarrass them with their lying story why so much would never work using a backdoor email hack of all things to soft mod it that closed the door on that hot garbage. Once people outwitted their sham story and got most of the Vita library running on the device, the truth was out there. Had Sony been honest up front and sold it totally capable, I think it would have had a better time of it.

 

I would have bought one, but I didn't want to support that and have to re-hack the machine every time it was powered off and back on again to run games I paid for so I never grabbed it. I waited awhile to see if someone would hard up hack the thing to keep it but I don't think that ever did happen. The Vita format was nice but unlike the PSP the sales struggled a lot, and I think that's probably why Sony crippled PSTV because they wanted to sell their more expensive handheld device and having that around would cut into it being a cheaper option. They should have just been happy getting paid either way as it would open the door to more game sales on those who loathe and refuse to touch a handheld gaming device.

[+frankodragon]

Near were I live, a Cash Store is strategically placed next to a GameStop probably because everyone ends up broke after spending their cash on video games and have no money to buy groceries at the local Aldi store.

 

 

[Austin]

When I said touch screen I was referring to to rear touch pad as well (I always thought of it as a touch screen...even thought its not a screen at all...odd). There was a good amount of pretty enjoyable games that used it and therefore are unplayable on the PSTV. Super Stardust Delta is one that comes to mind as I am a big Super Stardust fan.

From what I understand, very few games *require* the rear touch pad. However, many games do require the touch screen, and the misconception is often that "games weren't supported because of a lack of touch-screen functionality." That's why I wanted to clarify. It's a bummer the handful of back-panel required games won't work, but there was no excuse for the rest.

[Andromeda Stardust]

As long as companies pull the "download required" BS with physical games (I refuse to buy them as well) and people continue to embrace digital only games, Gamestop has no future. That is why this is entirely about Gamestop. What future do they have if they have nothing to sell? There is absolutely no question that digital purchases hurt places like Gamestop. One day soon digital media will be the predominant way to game and physical media will fade away along with Gamestop and other stores that provided physical games for sale...just like other brick and mortar locations that have become "obsolete".

 

I hate Gamestop and could care less about them, but I do have to say that I hate even more that people blindly embrace things without thinking of future consequences. Everyone embraced the ipod and digital purchased music for instance. That ended a bunch of great retailers like Sam Goody, Tower Records, etc. Then, years later people wanted physical music media (vinyl had made a huge comeback in recent years for example) but now we don't have many places to go to buy them.

 

You don't realize what you'll miss until its gone.

My mom told me a blurb she heard on the news the other day that CD is dying, and Best Buy plans to pull out of the CD market entirely. Which is weird because they started selling Vinyl, which is making a comeback even though it is more niche than CD. Vinyl may even overtake CD sales in coming years. So much stuff CD is available cheaply online as well, even obscure releases of new old stock that sold poorly. And yes, I collect records, but flipping that boxed set 7 times to listen to the whole thing is a pita and gets long in the tooth.

 

Digital download purchases are down too, with most people just streaming content. And it is very hard for any artist to hit platinum on a new release now. I think 1000 streams = 1 sale or 1 dowload, which is just for the song and not the album. So you need one billion "streams" to achieve platinum now, and that assumes people are streaming licensed content. It is assinine. Movie streaming hasn't affected DVD/BluRay sales in the same way, so why is it different with music streaming?

 

And there is the argument that nobody buys the record/cd because the filler content is garbage anyway. While that make be true for one hit wonders and talentless pop stars who write none of their own lyrics or otherwise excercise creative control over their music, but for artists with true talent, the B tracks are every bit as good as the A singles. Sometimes even better because the artists have the freedom to express themselves in ways they can't in radio singles.

 

I can listen to a new or old album by a legendary rocker cover to cover and enjoy every song. There was a time before 80s/90s/y2k pop scene where most music was like this. Alicia Keys, one of the greatest soul/R&B artists to emerge in the 2k, cowrites much of her own lyrics, composes, plays the keyboard, sings, and pours her heart and soul into every song. I have all her CDs and have listened to them beginning to end. Every non-single on the album is just as good as the radio play stuff. With the potential death of physical media, no one will listen to the non-single content except the die hard fans, so why put effort into the whole album instead of just the 25% of it that gets streams and radio play?