Clickbaiting on this one quote has suddenly led to media implicitly defending good old Gamestop and its contemporaries scamming little kids out of their videogame money by paying them next to nothing for games, reselling them at a huge markup and giving exactly nothing back to the people who made the games.
I guess the modern gaming press does see some parallels between themselves and brick and mortar game retailers, so maybe it’s not all just disingenuous ragebait? Which is technically worse, I suppose.
Well, that’d be on account of the previous part, where they’re self-dealing by selling the games at full price, re-purchasing them for pennies and then reselling them for near-full price again.
Here’s how weird the past twenty years have been: I can’t tell if you’re too young to remember how messed up their entire business model was or you’re an older guy who has had their brain rot rewired from “Gamestop clearly sucks” and into “but we like ownership of physical media instead of the glorified rentals of digital distribution”.
Because let me tell you, those two things can both suck at the same time. You really don’t need to take sides here.
Holy crap, we’ve turned this particular corner now? It’s not that Lemmy is surprisingly overcome with fans of meme stocks, people have legitimately forgotten how the late days of the game specialist retailer as garbage-tier pawn shop for kids worked?
Gamestop and its contemporaries scamming little kids out of their videogame money by paying them next to nothing for games, reselling them at a huge markup and giving exactly nothing back to the people who made the games.
Bookstores apparently scam readers when they buy books off of people and sell them to other people at a markup, and don’t pay the publisher or author a cent.
It is absolutely not. As I’m telling the other person with selective amnesia, Gamestop (and a couple of identical retailers worldwide) had dominant control over both the first sale and all resales and leveraged it to force abusive practices on game developers and publishers, competitors and their more vulnerable customers.
It wasn’t a used book store, it was the equivalent of Amazon also owning 80% of the physical bookstores, telling writers which books would get shelf space, refusing to keep any stock unless someone had preordered it, then proceeding to aggressively hound readers to resell every one of their books and mark them up by several times the cut they got on a first sale, then using that additional second had profit to keep buying locations and driving smaller stores out of business.
As I’m telling the other person with selective amnesia
Pointing out that you managed to precisely describe the used bookstore business model and unilateraly declare it wasn’t the same isn’t amnesia, it is having reading comprehension.
I did not. My actual response is still up there. Saying it doesn’t say what it says doesn’t magically rewrite it, that’s a very weird thing to attempt.
I mean, you know I wrote it, right? I didn’t forget, it was ten minutes ago. Nobody else is reading these.
There’s nothing intrinsically unethical about buying and selling used goods, and all buying and selling as a business needs to turn some profit.
There is absolutely a TON unethical with how Gamestop’s model went about it. From their iron grip on shelf space to their aggressive pushing of preordering to avoid having to keep any stock whatsoever to their pricing structure and targeting of kids and students in a space where reselling of this particular type of used goods was not easily handled online and as a result had next to zero upwards pressure on price.
This argument superficially makes sense in a world of used game sales as fundamentally a collector’s business mediated by online logistics companies for door-to-door sales, but that wasn’t Gamestop’s world. Gamestop existed in a world where they controlled both the first sale and all subsequent resales after having driven a bunch of smaller businesses to residual status by leveraging all the used sales money into a competitive advantage against both them and game publishers.
It sucked. It was an entirely parasytic model designed to syphon money away from everybody involved by virtue of controlling real estate. Their demise is one of very few silver linings in the world of “you own nothing” digital distribution.
Clickbaiting on this one quote has suddenly led to media implicitly defending good old Gamestop and its contemporaries scamming little kids out of their videogame money by paying them next to nothing for games, reselling them at a huge markup and giving exactly nothing back to the people who made the games.
I guess the modern gaming press does see some parallels between themselves and brick and mortar game retailers, so maybe it’s not all just disingenuous ragebait? Which is technically worse, I suppose.
Why do you think Gamestop is obligated to pay publishers? I don’t expect my local used book store to kick back royalties on used copies.
Well, that’d be on account of the previous part, where they’re self-dealing by selling the games at full price, re-purchasing them for pennies and then reselling them for near-full price again.
Here’s how weird the past twenty years have been: I can’t tell if you’re too young to remember how messed up their entire business model was or you’re an older guy who has had their brain rot rewired from “Gamestop clearly sucks” and into “but we like ownership of physical media instead of the glorified rentals of digital distribution”.
Because let me tell you, those two things can both suck at the same time. You really don’t need to take sides here.
You’ve described the business model of used book stores.
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that model.
No, I have not.
Holy crap, we’ve turned this particular corner now? It’s not that Lemmy is surprisingly overcome with fans of meme stocks, people have legitimately forgotten how the late days of the game specialist retailer as garbage-tier pawn shop for kids worked?
I was not ready.
Bookstores apparently scam readers when they buy books off of people and sell them to other people at a markup, and don’t pay the publisher or author a cent.
It is literally the same business model.
It is absolutely not. As I’m telling the other person with selective amnesia, Gamestop (and a couple of identical retailers worldwide) had dominant control over both the first sale and all resales and leveraged it to force abusive practices on game developers and publishers, competitors and their more vulnerable customers.
It wasn’t a used book store, it was the equivalent of Amazon also owning 80% of the physical bookstores, telling writers which books would get shelf space, refusing to keep any stock unless someone had preordered it, then proceeding to aggressively hound readers to resell every one of their books and mark them up by several times the cut they got on a first sale, then using that additional second had profit to keep buying locations and driving smaller stores out of business.
That’s not how used book stores operate.
Pointing out that you managed to precisely describe the used bookstore business model and unilateraly declare it wasn’t the same isn’t amnesia, it is having reading comprehension.
I did not. My actual response is still up there. Saying it doesn’t say what it says doesn’t magically rewrite it, that’s a very weird thing to attempt.
I mean, you know I wrote it, right? I didn’t forget, it was ten minutes ago. Nobody else is reading these.
Gamestop has always sucked, but nothing unethical about a business of buy low sell high on used goods.
There’s nothing intrinsically unethical about buying and selling used goods, and all buying and selling as a business needs to turn some profit.
There is absolutely a TON unethical with how Gamestop’s model went about it. From their iron grip on shelf space to their aggressive pushing of preordering to avoid having to keep any stock whatsoever to their pricing structure and targeting of kids and students in a space where reselling of this particular type of used goods was not easily handled online and as a result had next to zero upwards pressure on price.
This argument superficially makes sense in a world of used game sales as fundamentally a collector’s business mediated by online logistics companies for door-to-door sales, but that wasn’t Gamestop’s world. Gamestop existed in a world where they controlled both the first sale and all subsequent resales after having driven a bunch of smaller businesses to residual status by leveraging all the used sales money into a competitive advantage against both them and game publishers.
It sucked. It was an entirely parasytic model designed to syphon money away from everybody involved by virtue of controlling real estate. Their demise is one of very few silver linings in the world of “you own nothing” digital distribution.