How exactly could Gamestop "focus" more on new games? They heavily stock all major releases, and generally will get a few copies of even the most obscure titles. Saying they "only stock for pre-orders" is just wrong. Those games do get shelf space, but stores don't get as many copies, because by nature, they don't sell as many copies, so how can they "focus" more? By having TWO cases of each game instead of one? Well, people already bitched about the "opened" new copies, and stocking more on the shelves makes for more of those. (The reason they do that, is that Gamestop as a whole doesn't use security cases like a Best Buy or other major retailer, so they don't leave live copies of games out on the shelf, or they'd have a nasty habit of growing legs and walking right out the door on their own.) Should they stock large quantities of niche titles they'll never sell through? That would just be a complete waste of company resources.

Having 50% of space dedicated to new games, and 50% dedicated to used makes sense, since very often, you have the same games out there. You can't force people to stop trading in games, and you can't force more new games out onto the shelves if it isn't a game worth carrying, since nobody will buy it. It's business sense, and Gamestop is incredibly savvy when it comes to dedicating their shelf space intelligently. Used games are far and away the biggest part of their bottom line, and frankly, I'm amazed that they still dedicate half their shelves to new games. At the Gamestop I managed up until a few years ago, we had a tiny store, and we had to waste stupid amounts of wall space on new PS2/Xbox/Gamecube games which had no chance of selling, while basically stocking our used game sections bookshelf-style. (Only the spines of the cases showing.)

Bitching about this is fine. Go ahead, don't shop at Gamestop anymore, and give it to a "nice" company, like Best Buy or Walmart. But, truth be told, though I have no love for the company as a whole (I quit after having intolerable working conditions forced on me. 70 hour weeks on salary? No thanks.) but their used game program is well done. You may only save 5 bucks at first, but if you have the discount Game Informer card, you can knock another 5 bucks off, and you're now at $10 cheaper. Throw in the far better guarantee (7 days return, no questions asked, and 90 days against defects) and it's a no-brainer, since with any new game you buy anywhere, once you open it, you're generally screwed if it has a problem. You're lucky to get a lot of retailers to exchange it for a copy of the same thing.

It's bizarre that someone who probably has more justified, rational dislike for the Gamestop corporation than anyone on here has to be the one to point out the common sense inherent in their company policies.

I have to go to work so sorry for not integrating all relevant info into the post but:

(A) Gamestop's used prices are still completely ridiculous
(B) There's a series of videos called "Zero originality" that has a very detailed litany of reasons to hate gamestop, including why the card isn't a great deal.

I intend to do a better post later.

gamestop isn't the only one with a return policy.

As a reward zone silver member I have a 45 days return window for any purchase at Best Buy..

Yeah, of course the secondary market is making publishers lose some sales.

So bloody what? Life isn't fair. You can't go changing the way an entire, long-standing retail industry works just because the way it presently works robs you of a few bucks.

I has the solution! Make good games.

At my nearest EBGames, there are about a thousand copies of DK Bongo Blast on the shelves, but at most 1-2 copies of games like Super Mario Galaxy or Metroid Prime 3. There's an obvious correlation there.

Make good games that people don't want to sell right away, and you won't have to compete with the used market very much. Make crap or disposable products (like the yearly sports games) and you'll have LOTS of competition from used games.

Good games aren't made if the publisher doesn't have the money to pay for them. Publishers aren't willing to branch out if they are scrambling to put themselves in the black each quarter. Oh the vicious cycle.

Besides, many genres -- RPGs are probably the best example -- aren't keepers even if they ARE great, due to their resale value.  Making a great story replayable is... a bit of a conundrum.

If the publishers are struggling so much, then maybe they should start blaming, oh, you know, themselves.

Maybe you should write a book on how to make good business decisions, as a video game publisher.  I'm sure it'll sell zillions.

It's far easier to blame others than to blame yourself, and to try to solve your problems by making them other peoples' problems than by actually resolving the problems.

The key to making a video game not get sold off quickly is to give it lasting value to the user, even after a successor comes along. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses get this stupid idea that a quality product which the users love will harm the sales of future products (an explanation of the irony of this belief is forthcoming). The one company that consistently tries to make products to this specification, Nintendo, also has the fewest issues with their products succumbing to resale issues.

Most companies work on the model of making what you might call "obsoleting products", or products which are guaranteed to no longer be valued by the consumer after a set time. And honestly, when you make a product by those specifications, you should expect to see a lot of used sales of the product. Meaning that, by making obsoleting products, they are in fact hurting the sales of their products (both present and future). That was, incidentally, the ironic bit of the whole matter.

It may not sell zillions, but it probably won't lose billions of dollars either. So I guess we can conclude that Garcian Smith knows more about business than a crapload of game publishers.

I'd also add that Garcian Smith's post amounts to "if publishers can't stay in business, they're doing something wrong." I see no flaw in that argument.

On topic, I have little sympathy with this man or any other publisher crying foul about the used games market. If your current market model isn't working, find a new one. Don't go looking for the most convenient scapegoat to cover your own failures: used games have been an active market for years now, so why is it only recently that publishers are starting to care? Look to what caused the variable to suddenly become problematic, and fix that. Don't whine that something that's been around for a while are suddenly intolerable.

Having companies trample consumers' rights just because they can't adapt to the business environment they're in? Not a good solution.