Gamestop Discovers The Streisand Effect; Gives OnLive Tons Of Free Publicity In Trying To Take Away Coupons
from the epic-failure dept
Last week was an interesting week for Gamestop. As a ton of you sent in, the company decided to require all stores to open up all PC copies of Deus Ex: Human Revolution and discard an included coupon for a free version of the game via the OnLive streaming platform. OnLive and Square Enix had announced the promotion to help both companies, but apparently Gamestop was jealous to be cut out of the mix. Below is an image of the order that GameSpy, who broke that story, received:
However, the real story in all of this should be just how much free publicity Gamestop just gave OnLive in its hamfisted attempt to pretend the company didn't exist. And, of course, now it means that anyone wishing to buy the PC version of the game is probably (assuming that no coupons will be available) better off buying it from someone other than Gamestop. I've defended Gamestop's used game sales practices for years, but I'm amazed the company thought any of this was a good idea.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coupons, deus ex, streisand effect
Companies: gamestop, onlive, square enix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And all for the sake of a fistful of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it wasn't for GameStop, many developers wouldn't be getting my money. If you think I'm spending $60+ on a "chance", you're mistaken.
A series must now prove itself to me, and then will I support it. I can't stress enough of those who have sold their games making it advantageous to me to try out a title for as little as $4.99.
Because, and this is going to shock your sensibility, if the game was that good, why would anyone get rid of it?
No, the industry is hurting itself in manners like this article, where it appears it's about screwing over the competition.
(on topic)
I've no idea of all the details, but this does seem like a crap move by SquareEnix, to include coupons for a competitor's product. I don't know if Gamestop was aware of it or not, but if it wasn't, that's just insulting on so many levels.
While it does benefit the consumer (obviously), I'd be questioning the coupon because I didn't expect to see it offered. Imagine if you opened up a EA game for a coupon for a Ubisoft title. Tell me you'd think it was normal.
I'm backing Gamestop on this one. It may have been stupid to open the games and remove the coupon (rather than just pull the games), but I've yet to see Gamestop was aware the coupon existed until after the fact.
Would make sense, then.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've a $7.99 game of Fallout 3 to play. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My point is while I see your point about not promoting a competitor as you see this has driven much more business to their competitors unintentionally and they look bad in the eyes of everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To reiterate, yes, GS made a bone-headed move here, but for those who see this as "bad" are just finding another excuse to blame this company for something else.
"But it's not new!" or "Once it's opened, it should sold as used!" - Wrong. The game wasn't touched, making it new.
"But they buy it for $20 and sell it for $40" - Duh. At least they're buying it back for $20. What do the studios pay? $0. Moreso, there are other places to sell a used game.
I'm defending GS here despite knowing the issues at hand. GS has been under fire recently for doing a legitimate business. It's another example of people bitching for no reason other than the fact their business is growing while others are failing.
Perhaps if these asses would spend less time making game purchases a nightmare...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, even the coupon was part of the package. It would have been great if Square gave them a heads up about this, instead offering a "no coupon" for one of its vendors. Taking out the coupon and not giving that option to consumers after learning of the coupons, is not something a legitimate business should do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I didn't think so...
If your logic can't apply both ways (if the game is 'untouched' then I can return it as new for full refund, correct?), then you are perpetuating the 'do as we say not as we do' mentality that seems to be so common in industry these days by companies who are so full of themselves (aka 'too big to fail') so you are basically a corporate shill (hope you're getting paid for your services, and not supporting them for free... that would make you a freeshilltard)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A series must now prove itself to me, and then will I support it. I can't stress enough of those who have sold their games making it advantageous to me to try out a title for as little as $4.99.
if you buy titles used, the developer doesn't get anything from the sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you buy used, 1) you support others buying new and 2) you can cheaply try out series and developers and become a fan who might buy new in the future. The used market can be very helpful to game developers indirectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
awesome. but developers don't get any money directly from the used market.
the used market is a secondary market that game developers have zero incentive to participate in other than for PR purposes.
gamestop is basically a pawnshop. once game developers and console manufacturers go to purely digital distribution, gamestop will be an antique store, selling obsolete games and peripherals to collectors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a developer is not willing to participate in sales and marketing, then he is not going to be long in the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Providing value
I think how Gamestop handled this issue initially was hamfisted, and unintentionally put the consumer in the middle of their fight with a competitor. I think they could have been much smarter about it, and offered a better deal to folks as a trade-in for the coupon and come off looking like the good guys. Alas, that didn't think that far ahead and are paying for it. But to say that their business model of buying back and selling games used somehow defrauds developers is the most egregious hyperbole and misunderstanding of economics, the law, and how value is actually created and defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they get money indirectly because of the used market.
"the used market is a secondary market that game developers have zero incentive to participate in other than for PR purposes."
This is completely wrong. More games are sold new because the secondary market exists. That should be a significant incentive to any developer. This is very basic economics that should not be hard to understand, and applies to most long-life things we buy. Cars and houses are two obvious other examples of strong secondary markets.
Personally I think games are overpriced, and I would buy fewer of them if I didn't have a way to get some of that cost back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And authors don't get any money directly from the used book market, but I don't see any big push to try to get rid of used book stores.
Developers don't need to participate in the secondary market, they can just stop actively trying to destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't care. EA and Ubisoft will never see a dime from me again until they change their ways. I'm more than content at playing their games through the purchases at Gamestop.
Want to know who will get my money soon? 2K studios, for the next installment of Bioshock. The first two games I bought used (just recently bought the 360) and so awesome were the games, they have sold themselves (despite the locale change in the next game). The story and the gameplay were solid to me and that's worth $60.
I love the Hitman series, and despite the latest coming out around the corner, I'll never buy a Ubisoft game at full retail until they drop their crap.
It's my money. I decide where to spend it. Not them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gamestop does this really fucking often. The only difference is, that they were caught out this time.
For example, the employees are consistently permitted to try out games (i.e. opening the packaging), and THEN sell the game as "new". Then, when they get it back, they give you, oh, about $20 bucks, then sell it for $45.
And yes, I've seen this happen. I worked for a Gamestop store, so I should know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Gamestop; you happen to know if this is out on Amazon now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New or used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New or used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do realize, don't ypu, that your $7.99 copy of Fallout 3 provided precisely $0.00 to the makers of the game, right?
You're defending the "right" of a retailer to open a product, remove items of value it doesn't like, and then sell it as new. New implies 'the way it left the factory', and anything less is fraud.
So, in short, you're supporting fraud because the guilty party supports your cheap buying habits that don't even support the developers anyway. Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it is true that used sales do not directly benefit the developers. It indirectly benefits the developers because it keeps demand up, only a part of which is used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they are marketing said used car as new, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's not saying selling something used is fraud. He's saying that selling something not new as new is fraud. Which it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Riptow and Scooter
It's not the consumer's job to worry about "supporting" the developer. Do you worry about supporting Applebee's every time you eat at Chile's? scooter is exercising his right to buy a good at a price he thinks it's worth. He's also supporting the previous owner's property rights (the previous owner had the right to sell his property to whoever he wanted at whatever price he wanted).
Scooter,
In order to get the coupon the GameStop customer would have had to buy the game first. How does it harm GameStop exactly? If the customer and a "friend" decide to pool their money to buy the game so one gets the hard copy and one gets the download, becuase neither of them think it's worth the full price then GameStop just made a sale that they wouldn't have made otherwise. GameStop made their full profit on the sale and it cost the developer and OnLive money. GameStop wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This point has been brought up by Mike before.
A healthy resale market actually increases primary market sales by making the primary sale more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gamestop is the worst
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A decent comparison?
Sounds pretty fishy to me and very harmful to their customers.
Or maybe, it's like DVD+Blu-Ray titles being stuffed with a free Digital Download of the title. However, Best Buy decides to remove the digital download since they're planning an iTunes-like rental service.
I'd already sworn-off Gamestop before this loathsome act. I can't imagine any customer that would be endeared by such behavior, let alone become excited to see Gamestop start offering an online rental service for games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one small thing...
If gamestop is selling a game used, SOMEONE bought the game already. It just had to be reiterated that the entire"but developers must be paid" argument is invalid here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although I will never support it or any other service that doesn't allow me to buy my games on a physical disc or cartridge and allow me to REALLY own what I buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]