GameStop: 'Publishers Can Participate' In Used Biz Via DLC

CEO Dan DeMatteo doesn't believe DLC opportunities are much of a deterrent to used game buyers, anyway: "Through our years in the used business, we have learned that the second-hand user is a value-oriented consumer... we don't believe that a $10 add-on piece of DLC is compelling to a used game buyer," he said on the company's call to analysts alongside its 2009 financial results today.

"Publishers can participate in our used business by offering add-on content for the most popular used titles, creating a win-win situation for publishers, retailers and consumers," he adds.

GameStop announced late last year that it will also begin offering console DLC downloads in its stores, and DeMatteo says that's another upside for publishers.

"We can market and execute DLC sales right in-store," he says. "There's a tremendous opportunity for us to encourage software developers and publishers to create DLC because we'll be able to market it. It's very difficult to discover, find... add-on content with the tools available [currently]."

DeMatteo envisages DLC being part of the regular add-on upsell GameStop employees are obligated to push at checkout. Store staff will take responsibility for educating consumers on available DLC for individual games, and on encouraging them to purchase the downloadables that go with the games they're buying in-store.

Source  [Gamasutra]

Would DLC really be sufficient enough to make up for lost sales in the after market? I doubt it.

Lol they don't even make enough on dlc to make up the loss.

I don't think failing to produce games that people keep (and not trade in) is sufficient enough to justify the whining by the videogame market for a place like Gamestop using trade ins to reduce the cost of news games.  Why does the videogame industry expect people to shell out $60 for 10-20 hours of gameplay TOPS?

"creating a win-win situation for publishers, retailers and consumers,"

Not for the consumers if content is taken out of a game on purpose in order to deliver DLC which makes us pay for stuff that we could already get for the inital price. I am all for DLC created to expand the experience further within a game though.

The game industry really needs to get off GameStop's case. Gamers are not going to pay $60 for every game they want to play. And the game industry needs to accept this.

If they start bundling free DLC with new copies (while charging owners of used copies for that DLC simultaneously), all they are going to do is drive the price of used games down even more. Making used games even more attractive to penny-pinching gamers.

Honestly though used games are not that attractive to begin with. ESPECIALLY at GameStop! $55 used vs. $60 new? Get the fuck outta here. I bought like one used game last year (ebay, not gamestop!). And that's only because the game still cost almost full price in Canada at the time while it was already reduced price in the states. And I wanted to avoid paying taxes (customs rapes you hard) so I went with the version that cost under $20 (used) so that I didn't have to pay taxes, duties and handling fees.

The problem with game publishers is that they don't really understand the mind of the mainstream gamer. Look at the charts. In 2009, the 360 sold about 77m in software in North America and there were 21+m 360s at the end of the year there. And the PS3 sold about 47m in software in NA and there were 12+m PS3s at the end of the year there. That's about 4 new games bought in 2009 per HD console. The average gamer doesn't buy that many games. So why the hell are these publishers investing huge budgets in so many games? When the average HD console owner is only gonna buy 4 games a year? It makes no sense! That's the problem with the industry. They cater so much to the hardcore gamer, the gamer that buys a lot of games, but the hardcore gamer is a small demographic in a sea of casual HD gamers who just wanna play Call of Duty, Halo, Madden, Assassin's Creed, etc.

I spent more money this gen than I ever did on any other gen. The only dlc I download is VC/WiiWare games and that's it.

Some things to think about.

First of all, developers need to make games that people want. Some do a very good job at that while others complain because their experiences are not not as desired by the gaming public.

The used game should not be sold argument means that developers/distributors want to retain ownership rights to the game and have you pay for a license to use. While that model has worked with computer software, it has not been well-received by gamers.

So what needs to be done. If you go to a licensing model, then prices cannot be supported at their current levels and sales will go down because people will often be hesitant to take a chance. (It should also be noted that computer entertainment software is often cheaper and sometimes much cheaper than console games because there is no disposal value. Similarly, most computer titles do not sell nearly as well as their console counterparts -- with MMOs being the exception).

Digital distribution is at its essence a variant of this. The elimination of the need of physical games SHOULD reduce costs but often is just turned into a convenience cost (meaning increased profits for the gaming company and less for their money for the gamer). Similarly, locking a game to a single console (for which Sony holds a patent and Ubisoft's on-line required could also be used in this manner) is the most onerous form of this and would eliminate any disposal value of the software (short of the inevitable "cracks" that would be developed to circumvent this).

Another option is the DLC model. However, as has been stated, DLC itself is not enough to change people's behavior. Many a gamer traded in Grand Theft Auto IV after they had completed the main game before the DLC was released. The value-added model may work, if this is something that would normally be sold and not something cut out of the game just to reduce disposal value. (It would do that -- and would move closer to the computer gaming model which means lower prices, lower sales, and probably lower profits).

But while gaming companies may complain, I have never heard of publishers trying to eliminate public libraries or used book stores. And movie studios make deals regarding the renting of their products. Instead, they are acting more like the recording industry, demanding more and more money for everything. But given its current state (stalled sales and stale products), that is an industry that should NOT be emulated.

Finally, given the price difference between console games and computer games, maybe gaming companies have already figured into their price structure the second-hand sales. But they still want more. Such is the work of greed.

Mike from Morgantown

One last point to ponder.

There is little profit in selling new games for stores. They typically make their money on used games. If used games sales disappear, so to do the stores which promote the industry.

It would be akin to cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

Mike from Morgantown

I try to run into a Gamestop, buy my game, and run out. Even then, I end up having discount cards shoved at me (despite paying for my game with the discount card), strategy guides (despite the fact that there is this thing called the internet that they want me to log on to and talk about my shopping experience --it has all of the strategy guide info), and pre-order offers (despite the fact that I've gone to buy a game and not found it on day 1 a grand total of zero times.....but "this game is going to be big and you don't want to be left out!").

Do they honestly think that I want to hang out with that group of "cool guys" while I wait for DLC to download? And download onto what? My Hard Drive? Am I supposed to bring my console to the store so that they can try to sell me my console that I obviously brought from home?

No dice.