Quantcast
Leak Reveals Gamestop Is Basically Shutting Down

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Leak Reveals Gamestop Is Basically Shutting Down

Not a loss for me personally, I shopped there maybe a dozen times, probably less..



Around the Network

This was coming for a long time remember at the end of 2018 we were hearing how they made massive losses, here in the UK retailers have basically been killed off it's pretty much online now days.



A quick Google search will give you all the evidence you need to know that this is false.



Never heard of DM having an office they can lock themselves in. That they have their own desk in the backstore of their home store is one thing, but this was purely invented for dramatic reasons.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
They should try and switch they business model. Going after the videogame market when it moves more and more to digital just won't and can't work.

Instead, they should focus on all the stuff you can't get digitally: promotion material, feelies, merch, and so on. Additionally, I would suggest them turning their shops more into retrogaming stores where you can get old consoles and videogames. And no, I don't mean something like an used PS4 (though one could still take those, especially for later on), more like an used SNES or Dreamcast and games from those consoles.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't sell modern consoles anymore - just stop focusing on the modern and go for the retro.

^This, but with extra emphasis on merch.



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:


What puzzles me is how GameStop is struggling at all. The ones around here always seem to have healthy business, with consistently strong turnout at major game releases (I'm going to pick up Gears 5 from there tonight). And their financials have shown that, aside from a single-quarter hiccup recently, they've consistently been in the black. Investors are being bearish towards them (shareholders for any company always being a very skittish lot), but that doesn't mean they're struggling. Their financials are sound, even if they aren't part of a growth industry anymore. If they did shut down soon, it would surprise the hell out of me.

i don't think it's so much that they are currently doing horrible. They are still making some money, and they still have a lot of money on hand.

But everyone thinks they basically have an expiration date due to streaming and digital becoming bigger.  Because of that no one wants to invest in them.  



the-pi-guy said:
Shadow1980 said:


What puzzles me is how GameStop is struggling at all. The ones around here always seem to have healthy business, with consistently strong turnout at major game releases (I'm going to pick up Gears 5 from there tonight). And their financials have shown that, aside from a single-quarter hiccup recently, they've consistently been in the black. Investors are being bearish towards them (shareholders for any company always being a very skittish lot), but that doesn't mean they're struggling. Their financials are sound, even if they aren't part of a growth industry anymore. If they did shut down soon, it would surprise the hell out of me.

i don't think it's so much that they are currently doing horrible. They are still making some money, and they still have a lot of money on hand.

But everyone thinks they basically have an expiration date due to streaming and digital becoming bigger.  Because of that no one wants to invest in them.  

Well then shouldn't they change their business model to focus more on gaming merch?



Some days I just blow up.

CaptainExplosion said:
the-pi-guy said:

i don't think it's so much that they are currently doing horrible. They are still making some money, and they still have a lot of money on hand.

But everyone thinks they basically have an expiration date due to streaming and digital becoming bigger.  Because of that no one wants to invest in them.  

Well then shouldn't they change their business model to focus more on gaming merch?

This is what they been doing gradually, but their stores and their fixtures are not adapted for this kind of products because of their range of types and sizes.

They have to invest massively in renovating their stores for that, this will definitely be costly.



abronn627 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Well then shouldn't they change their business model to focus more on gaming merch?

This is what they been doing gradually, but their stores and their fixtures are not adapted for this kind of products because of their range of types and sizes.

They have to invest massively in renovating their stores for that, this will definitely be costly.

Fuck. -_-



Some days I just blow up.

sethnintendo said:

Not a fan of what they've turned their stores into. They are mainly half filled with bobble heads and figurines. Then they tried branching out to tablets and other stuff. Just too much random shit in their stores now.

Reminds me of party store Spencer's that they had in malls.  Just a bunch of random shit and then the company went bankrupt I believe.

Spencer's is still around, and as far as I'm aware of they never went through bankruptcy.

Hiku said:

I don't think Gamestop going away will have any impact on physical media for console games.
For starters, Gamestop's influence is not as big in other countries as it is in the US. In Sweden we have 41 GameStop stores across the whole country. It's not a very large country, but that's a small amount of stores regardless. If I look at any given large electronics chain, they all have significantly more stores across the country. Which leads me to my second point.

Your experience buying games at Walmart sounds strange to me. When I go to a large store like that (we don't have any Walmart here) to buy a game, the process is simple. I go to the shelf that has the games. I take the game I want. Then walk over to the register and pay for it.
That's it.

Things must be a lot different in Sweden. Here in the States, Walmart keeps their games locked behind a glass case. They've been doing it that way since the 90s. You need to get an employee to get the game for you, and if nobody is in electronics (or the one employee they do have there is busy with a customer) you could be waiting a while. Meanwhile, at GameStop it's far quicker and straightforward process. Best Buy doesn't lock their games away, either, but the one in my area doesn't have nearly the selection of titles as any of the GameStops around here. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a game from Walmart. Maybe when I worked there and could use my employee discount, but I haven't worked there since 2005.

vivster said:

It will only go down from here. Digital only gaming is inevitable. Not that it would make much difference considering that physical media is already basically useless on its own.

Yes that's one form of DRM. Other forms of DRM include: Not being able to backup media on your own physical storage, not being able to access content on the media, not being able to transfer digital content between consoles(offline). Physical is nothing but an illusion of freedom because they need an extremely closed platform to run on. It's kinda poetic that digital games on PC fulfill the desires of people who prefer physical much better than actual physical media on consoles.

Digital-only is only inevitable if the console makers force it. There's no reason to assume that digital's share of console software sales must necessarily continue to grow until physical is all but dead. Sure, that happened with music, but when it comes to books digital's share actually stopped growing years ago. And the music industry, despite physical album sales having declined 93.6% from 2000 to 2018, hasn't stopped making physical copies and forced everyone to download MP3s or subscribe to a streaming music service if they wanted to enjoy the latest music. I don't buy much music anymore (because my ears are old and so I hate most modern music), but when I do I buy it physically.

Also, physical is not the illusion of freedom. Physical actually gives you more freedom over your purchase. Here in the U.S. at least, physical console games are protected by the first-sale doctrine, which is a part of federal law. Said laws do not pertain to digital copies. The relevant text of the law is as follows:

109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration of copyright or, with respect to reliance parties, before publication or service of notice under section 104A(e), may be sold or otherwise disposed of without the authorization of the owner of the restored copyright for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage only during the 12-month period beginning on—

(1) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of the notice of intent filed with the Copyright Office under section 104A(A), or

(2) the date of the receipt of actual notice served under section 104A(2) (B), whichever occurs first.

(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.

(B) This subsection does not apply to—

(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

Basically, books, movies, music recordings, and console games (but not PC games and software) are treated as "sold, not licensed," and are treated as the property of the one legally possessing the copy. They are ours to dispose of as we wish. We can sell, lend, trade, or gift our copies at our own discretion, and there's nothing the copyright holder can legally do about it.

However, the federal government has made it clear that these laws pertain only to physical copies. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated:

"The common-law roots of the first sale doctrine allowed the owner of a particular copy of a work to dispose of that copy. This judicial doctrine was grounded in the common-law principle that restraints on the alienation of tangible property are to be avoided in the absence of clear congressional intent to abrogate this principle. This doctrine appears in section 109 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Section 109(a) specified that this notwithstanding a copyright owner's exclusive distribution right under section 106 the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord that was lawfully made under title 17 is entitled to sell or further dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

But goes on to explain that:

"The underlying policy of the first sale doctrine as adopted by the courts was to give effect to the common law rule against restraints on the alienation of tangible property. The tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first sale doctrine and critical to its rationale. The digital transmission of a work does not implicate the alienability of a physical artifact. When a work is transmitted, the sender is exercising control over the intangible work through its reproduction rather than common law dominion over an item of tangible personal property. Unlike the physical distribution of digital works on a tangible medium, such as a floppy disk, the transmission of works interferes with the copyright owner's control over the intangible work and the exclusive right of reproduction. The benefits to further expansion simply do not outweigh the likelihood of increased harm."

This position is supported by current U.S. jurisprudence (namely the precedent set in the Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. case).

As long as the law exists as-is in the U.S., digital copies will continue to be treated as "licensed, not sold." The purchaser of a digital copy has no right to sell, gift, lend, or trade that copy as the law treats the copy as the property of the copyright holder, not the purchaser. It is legally the completely inverse of the situation with physical. Because of the state of U.S. law, digital cannot benefit from a second-hand market like physical can. With digital, you own nothing and therefore control nothing. You are completely at the mercy of the copyright holder.

Furthermore, the nature of physical gives it certain practical advantages over digital. Hard drives don't last forever, and most won't even last you a lifetime. Not even close. Sooner or later, it's possible that you could end up losing a digital copy due to reasons outside of your control. Your ability to re-download your purchase is entirely dependent on the digital storefront you bought it from A) still existing, and B) still allowing you to re-download the title. When my Halo 2 DLC mysteriously vanished from my 360's hard drive in 2010, I was unable to re-download the maps as MS had discontinued the OXbox's digital storefront, and with it the means to get my maps back. There was however a physical option as the maps were released on a disc format (that disc is still available second-hand). I somehow doubt I'm the only one this happened to as well. This scenario can almost certainly happen again with the Wii in the future. If someone loses any of their downloaded games on the Wii, that's it. They're gone forever. There are various Virtual Console and WiiWare games that have never been made available on more recent Nintendo systems and have never had a physical release, so if anyone loses those games for whatever reason, that's it. They'll have been permanently erased from existence. There is absolutely no guarantees that this situation will not befall games on other platforms in the future, either. Even if MS has actively been trying to make sure digital purchases keep carrying over from previous generations, they could just as easily stop doing so, and even if they don't, many titles simply won't carry forward. Will my 360 still be able to access the Xbox Marketplace 20 years from now if my HDD fails and I lose my copy of the TMNT arcade game, which was de-listed years ago? There's no way of knowing, but I won't hold my breath.

And for any digital game, if it has been de-listed from digital storefronts, well, you better hope you got it while the getting was good, or else you ain't getting it. Ever. There are numerous games that are simply no longer available for purchase digitally, many of which never had a physical option. If you missed out, you're just shit outta luck.

And streaming is even worse. Imagine everything wrong with always-online games applied to literally all games. If your internet goes out or the service you're using goes down (which happened to Xbox Live last night), then you can't play anything. And if a game is de-listed from a streaming service, it really is gone forever. You don't even have the luxury of a local copy. When my internet goes out, I can still crank up any offline game and play it, or watch a Blu-ray. Always-online is not a good thing for gaming.

Meanwhile, any reasonably responsible human being can maintain a collection of physical copies for their entire life. Cartridges and pressed optical discs, if property maintained, have a shelf life exceeded the average human lifespan. I have NES games that are 30+ years old that still run just as good as the day I got them. I have CDs older than some of my co-workers that still read just fine. If something does happen to my physical copies, there is still the option of a second-hand market. When a physical release goes out of print, those copies don't simply vanish into the ether. Most console games everybody has heard of are still obtainable years or even decades after they've gone out of print. Maybe not always at a reasonable cost if it was a particularly rare title, but available nonetheless. Even if it's a game you heard of but decide 20 years later you want to play it, you can buy it second hand. That's the great thing about having a second-hand market. And it's something completely impossible with digital.

the-pi-guy said:

i don't think it's so much that they are currently doing horrible. They are still making some money, and they still have a lot of money on hand.

But everyone thinks they basically have an expiration date due to streaming and digital becoming bigger.  Because of that no one wants to invest in them.  

That's why they should consider going private again. Console gamers are still primarily purchasers of physical copies, enough to where GameStop has been profitable every quarter except that one recent one. They still have the potential to keep persisting for a very long time, but being a publicly-traded company will do them no favors when actual or potential shareholders see that they're part of a zero-growth market.