7 ms·

> Most people don't realize this but GameStop was actually very bad for console game developers. And I feel 0 empathy for you. With the digital platform you ar

by monksy 6y ago

> Most people don't realize this but GameStop was actually very bad for console game developers. And I feel 0 empathy for you. With the digital platform you are stripping away ownership rights from the purchaser. From your statement I feel that you're whining about missing sales that you never could have actually had. Do the 7-9 extra sales translate to 7-9x more sales on digital platforms? No.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ABeeSea 6y ago
This argument is misleading because even if it’s not the full 7-9, it is certainly greater than 0. We can argue what the exact percentage is, but saying there was 0 lost sales is just as wrong as saying 7-9 lost sales.
- monksy 6y ago
  It is slightly more, yes. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's as significant as they claim. The people buying used games don't feel that the game is worth risking the new game price. Also, it gives them more freedom to sell if they didn't like it. The digital platform is about locking the user in no matter what. No chargebacks, no ownership, etc. Do a charge back Sony bans your console and locks you out of the games you "purchased". End of.
  - hobs 6y ago
    The middlemen are just as bad, they'll buy a game for a dollar and turn around and sell it for 20, so I dont really care either way - steam sales are saving me me much more than resales ever paid me back.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Except you can get a refund for a game from GameStop without being banned. You can sell it back for some, non-zero amount of money. If you don't like their price, you can try selling it yourself. That's a huge swath of ownership rights given up for a 15% discount.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    I think it’s larger than you claim. If someone is willing to pay for new, but offered a lower price for used, they will likely pick the used copy. And yea chargebacks aren’t a mechanism for getting a refund. They are essentially a fraud accusation. Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing.
    - monksy 6y ago
      When you are sold a game that does not work and not refund, there is fraud. (I.e. Cyberpunk PS4) Or how there are only only games that have a really poor effort to make a non-online portion. (Those are dependent upon the PSN subscription). The only time Sony gives money back is when their reputation is majorly hurt. Amazon from my experience doesn't tend to let it get this far. (Although they are terrible in their own right)
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing. That's the problem; when there's a legitimate cause for chargeback you still can't do one, because the big platform is going to retaliate.
      - ABeeSea 6y ago
        Why would a company keep doing business with someone that went to their bank and accused that company of fraud? Making a chargeback is a serious claim of malfeasance by the company that has to then be arbitrated by the third party bank. It’s not a mechanism for getting a refund; it’s an accusation of fraud who’s remedy may include a refund.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        The problem is company you bought from through the big platform did fraud, and the platform was too lazy to care. It's fine being blacklisted from that tiny fraudulent company. It's anti-consumer when a legitimate chargeback can't be filed because some giant company processed the credit card and will bring their wrath upon you.
- guywhocodes 6y ago
  And console game prices already reflect this, it is priced in by design. Everyone in this business collectively chose this model together.
mikestew 6y ago
I don't read parent as looking for empathy, but rather explaining why "you like grinding? We hope so, because you're going to grind for that next $PIECE_OF_CHEESE lest you finish the game quickly, turn around and resell it."
pizza234 6y ago
Well, if we put things in perspective, there's a paradox here. If we take the case of a game that is resold a few times on average (not even 7+ times), users are waiving ownership on their own will - they're effectively renting. In these specific conditions, a hypothetical (digital) game rental would actually serve best both the producer and the consumers. Note that I don't make a general statement, but I'm referring to this specific case. I'm also not familiar with game rental, but at least until a few years ago, I've seen a physical shop offering it.
- zaksoup 6y ago
  Buying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it. In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    As a kid, buying and selling games was the only way I could play most games. Used to make good money on Prodigy. Then my dad switched us to AOL. It was too competitive for me; I went back to waiting for birthdays and Christmas.
xwdv 6y ago
You feel zero empathy? Good, because developers will also feel zero empathy when they strip away your ownership rights.
- monksy 6y ago
  They're already doing it by pushing digital only consoles. Which I'm not buying. There is no evidence that they intend on protecting the interest of the customer.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    Do you want to play games or own them? Given the growing backlog of unplayed games people have on Steam these days I’m not sure which one is the answer.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Which should be illegal.
forrestthewoods 6y ago
Do you want free-to-play with micro transaction bullshit? Because this attitude is how you get f2p with mtx bullshit. Software has a marginal cost of zero. In a supply and demand world we add arbitrary restrictions (copyright) to constrain supply to incentivize the creation of new supply. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks. Sony has been making big story heavy games. There’s nothing wrong with a $60 narrative experience that lasts 20 to 30 hours. The Last of Us 2 is exactly that. Some gamers will buy that game on Tuesday and finish by Friday. Should GameStop sell that disc for $55 and collect all the proceeds when the game hasn’t been out for a week? Avoiding the used sale is why devs tack-on all kinds of bullshit the game doesn’t really need. Fuck GameStop. Garbage company that has caused more harm to gamers than people will ever know.
- monksy 6y ago
  I don't think you understand my stance. I'm all for used video game retailers. GME happens to be a pretty crappy one. But they are one that has availability of used games when a console isn't fashionable anymore. Got max payne for $4 and vanquish for under 8 a few months ago. (PS3) Sony is stopping their online store for the PS3. (Go figure) > Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks. Where's the harm? Their ability to sell it for $55 is capped at the total stock they have. Dev companies can print near unlimited amounts of copies for a low price.
  - forrestthewoods 6y ago
    > Where's the harm? Their ability to sell it for $55 is capped at the total stock they have. Dev companies can print near unlimited amounts of copies for a low price. If Sony prints and distributed TLOU2 for $5 and sells it at GameStop for $60 they make like $40 give or take. If someone plays that 30 hour masterpiece in two days they can sell it back to GameStop for like $20. GameStop can resell it for $55 and pocket every penny. GameStop has now made more money in launch week than the developer. GameStop is incentivized with every fiber of their existence to be a middleman than squeezes every dollar of profit. Game developers respond with digital, micro transactions, tack-on half-assed multiplayer, etc. GameStop is a middle-man that seeks to prevent as many dollars as possible from going to the actual content creators. Sony can print an infinite number of TLOU2 copies for almost nothing. They could let you download the game for less than a nickel. Obviously you can not make a game like TLOU2 if you only charge a nickel to play it. I would have zero issues with GameStop if they limited sales of used games to games that are 1 year old. Hell I might even be fine with six months! But selling used discs less than a week from launch is despicable and I wish them nothing but pain and suffering. GameStops entire business is predicated on being a middle man that adds zero value but extracts value for “used” sales of relatively new games. Fuck em. I used to make games so I am extremely biased. But IMHO I am not wrong!
NikolaNovak 6y ago
I don't know, I personally do feel empathy. If Company A makes a product people are willing to pay for; and company B makes multiple sales/profit off of it, it does trigger some kind of empathy/moral/something spidey-sense in me. We are not talking about piracy where we use argument "that 12 years old wouldn't have paid for your game anyway". These customers DID pay for the game! Just not to the developer; that money did not support development of new fun content. Not to say I disagree with the notion of digital platform stripping away ownership; but I think that specific wrong doesn't make the other situation right :-/
- monksy 6y ago
  Do you feel these customers own the game? > new fun content I would only say that's neccessary if they No man skyed it. (Screwed up the release)
- asdff 6y ago
  You must hate used bookstores too
  - NikolaNovak 6y ago
    No; and I don't hate used game stores either. My statement was specific - I feel empathy for the developer. One can feel empathy toward multiple parties, even in situations of conflict or disagreement (I'm kind of with Ender on this one :-). This was in particular a response to the commenter that "felt 0 empathy toward developer" - which I found curious and perhaps unfortunate.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Every video game I have ever bought has been used. Then again I buy all sorts of things used—probably 10x more than I buy new. I don’t see why a good’s manufacturer should expect to skim profit every time one of their goods changes hands, and I resent the lengths (DRM) some of them go through to try to do so. I should be able to buy used and to sell to someone else when I’m done with it.
  - 6y ago
staplor 6y ago
I think it makes sense that video games shouldn't be resold. Do you think you should be able to resell a movie ticket? I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. In the same way I think purchasing a game should give you a right to download a game from your account.
- DanBC 6y ago
  The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales. When a game costs $50 and I can't get any of that money back when I've finished playing the game I need to think really carefully before buying it. If I know I can get some money back by selling the game it makes it easier for me to buy it. > I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
  - staplor 6y ago
    > The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales. Digital games have their own benefits — sales. If games can be resold, one person may buy a game and then sell it to another person. With non resealable games, both of the people in the above example would buy the game later in a sale. Sales are one of the best uses of price discrimination; practically everyone gets to play a game eventually if they want to, but those who especially want to can pay more. > So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch? I don’t see how my statement implies this. Single use tickets and subscriptions services are different things.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Think of it like buying a movie, like it actually is. Of course you should be able to sell on used copies.
- Mumps 6y ago
  I think there are many more counter examples than supportive to your argument here: - should you be able to resell a book? - resell a CD? - board game - lego - badminton racket _ad nauseum_. the idea of a movie ticket, is that it provides a closed-in-time temporal experience. The movie screens at those given times in a theatre and then never there again (be it months or whatever post-release). A video game is an experience made whenever wherever a person wants.
chrischen 6y ago
The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. In theory you could sell a $60 copy of Grand Theft Auto and then just pass that around to every person in the world. In this scenario Rockstar makes less than <$60 and Gamestop would take a constant % cut of every license exchange. This obviously is an extreme example but my point is to point out the disproportional economics.
- gpderetta 6y ago
  you could make the same arguments for books or movies on a physical medium.
  - astura 6y ago
    And 35 years ago this argument was made with video rental stores, who also rented video games. As in the same physical copy was played by (gasp!) hundreds of people.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    Yep and that industry has also shifted to a license per viewer/screen model as seen with Netflix et al.
- prepend 6y ago
  > The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. I counter this with the reality that it is working and has worked for decades. As measured by numerous thriving game developers and publishers. I don’t even think it’s revenue maximizing for game devs to not allow transfers as I suspect that being able to transfer games to friends increases overall sales due to word of mouth, press, etc. Like how shareware increased net sales.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    At least for PC games the model has switched to licensing per player. Steam doesn’t allow you to resell games and this has created an explosion of indie games and developers. Especially for small developers imagine how hard it would be if the handful of players just passed around a few copies. It essentially forces everyone to make online multiplayer games.
rawbot 6y ago
I think the problem isn't being able to resell games. It's the fact that it became "industrialized" reselling. Gamestop grew so big, and incentivized used sales so much (so much that on release day, unopened new copies of the game were opened by employees to sell as used for $5 less), that the sheer volume caught every game publisher off-guard. Used games stores have been a thing much before it became a problem (I remember selling games at EB Games). But because of Gamestop's growth and their aggressive pursuit of making sure their customers only dabble in the used games section, it became a serious issue. The 7-9 resales by Gamestop might not translate to 7-9x extra sales, but I would bet it is at least 2x. I know a lot of people that stopped buying their games new, but wouldn't buy them used unless they were from Gamestop (so basically no grey market, e.g. ebay or craigslist), because it was more convenient. In some cities, Gamestop had some many stores, that they had to compete between themselves.

by monksy 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ABeeSea 6y ago

This argument is misleading because even if it’s not the full 7-9, it is certainly greater than 0. We can argue what the exact percentage is, but saying there was 0 lost sales is just as wrong as saying 7-9 lost sales.

monksy 6y ago
It is slightly more, yes. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's as significant as they claim. The people buying used games don't feel that the game is worth risking the new game price. Also, it gives them more freedom to sell if they didn't like it. The digital platform is about locking the user in no matter what. No chargebacks, no ownership, etc. Do a charge back Sony bans your console and locks you out of the games you "purchased". End of.
- hobs 6y ago
  The middlemen are just as bad, they'll buy a game for a dollar and turn around and sell it for 20, so I dont really care either way - steam sales are saving me me much more than resales ever paid me back.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Except you can get a refund for a game from GameStop without being banned. You can sell it back for some, non-zero amount of money. If you don't like their price, you can try selling it yourself. That's a huge swath of ownership rights given up for a 15% discount.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  I think it’s larger than you claim. If someone is willing to pay for new, but offered a lower price for used, they will likely pick the used copy. And yea chargebacks aren’t a mechanism for getting a refund. They are essentially a fraud accusation. Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing.
  - monksy 6y ago
    When you are sold a game that does not work and not refund, there is fraud. (I.e. Cyberpunk PS4) Or how there are only only games that have a really poor effort to make a non-online portion. (Those are dependent upon the PSN subscription). The only time Sony gives money back is when their reputation is majorly hurt. Amazon from my experience doesn't tend to let it get this far. (Although they are terrible in their own right)
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing. That's the problem; when there's a legitimate cause for chargeback you still can't do one, because the big platform is going to retaliate.
    - ABeeSea 6y ago
      Why would a company keep doing business with someone that went to their bank and accused that company of fraud? Making a chargeback is a serious claim of malfeasance by the company that has to then be arbitrated by the third party bank. It’s not a mechanism for getting a refund; it’s an accusation of fraud who’s remedy may include a refund.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        The problem is company you bought from through the big platform did fraud, and the platform was too lazy to care. It's fine being blacklisted from that tiny fraudulent company. It's anti-consumer when a legitimate chargeback can't be filed because some giant company processed the credit card and will bring their wrath upon you.
guywhocodes 6y ago
And console game prices already reflect this, it is priced in by design. Everyone in this business collectively chose this model together.

mikestew 6y ago

I don't read parent as looking for empathy, but rather explaining why "you like grinding? We hope so, because you're going to grind for that next $PIECE_OF_CHEESE lest you finish the game quickly, turn around and resell it."

pizza234 6y ago

Well, if we put things in perspective, there's a paradox here. If we take the case of a game that is resold a few times on average (not even 7+ times), users are waiving ownership on their own will - they're effectively renting. In these specific conditions, a hypothetical (digital) game rental would actually serve best both the producer and the consumers. Note that I don't make a general statement, but I'm referring to this specific case. I'm also not familiar with game rental, but at least until a few years ago, I've seen a physical shop offering it.

zaksoup 6y ago
Buying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it. In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.
- treeman79 6y ago
  As a kid, buying and selling games was the only way I could play most games. Used to make good money on Prodigy. Then my dad switched us to AOL. It was too competitive for me; I went back to waiting for birthdays and Christmas.

xwdv 6y ago

You feel zero empathy? Good, because developers will also feel zero empathy when they strip away your ownership rights.

monksy 6y ago
They're already doing it by pushing digital only consoles. Which I'm not buying. There is no evidence that they intend on protecting the interest of the customer.
- xwdv 6y ago
  Do you want to play games or own them? Given the growing backlog of unplayed games people have on Steam these days I’m not sure which one is the answer.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Which should be illegal.

forrestthewoods 6y ago

Do you want free-to-play with micro transaction bullshit? Because this attitude is how you get f2p with mtx bullshit. Software has a marginal cost of zero. In a supply and demand world we add arbitrary restrictions (copyright) to constrain supply to incentivize the creation of new supply. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks. Sony has been making big story heavy games. There’s nothing wrong with a $60 narrative experience that lasts 20 to 30 hours. The Last of Us 2 is exactly that. Some gamers will buy that game on Tuesday and finish by Friday. Should GameStop sell that disc for $55 and collect all the proceeds when the game hasn’t been out for a week? Avoiding the used sale is why devs tack-on all kinds of bullshit the game doesn’t really need. Fuck GameStop. Garbage company that has caused more harm to gamers than people will ever know.

monksy 6y ago
I don't think you understand my stance. I'm all for used video game retailers. GME happens to be a pretty crappy one. But they are one that has availability of used games when a console isn't fashionable anymore. Got max payne for $4 and vanquish for under 8 a few months ago. (PS3) Sony is stopping their online store for the PS3. (Go figure) > Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks. Where's the harm? Their ability to sell it for $55 is capped at the total stock they have. Dev companies can print near unlimited amounts of copies for a low price.
- forrestthewoods 6y ago
  > Where's the harm? Their ability to sell it for $55 is capped at the total stock they have. Dev companies can print near unlimited amounts of copies for a low price. If Sony prints and distributed TLOU2 for $5 and sells it at GameStop for $60 they make like $40 give or take. If someone plays that 30 hour masterpiece in two days they can sell it back to GameStop for like $20. GameStop can resell it for $55 and pocket every penny. GameStop has now made more money in launch week than the developer. GameStop is incentivized with every fiber of their existence to be a middleman than squeezes every dollar of profit. Game developers respond with digital, micro transactions, tack-on half-assed multiplayer, etc. GameStop is a middle-man that seeks to prevent as many dollars as possible from going to the actual content creators. Sony can print an infinite number of TLOU2 copies for almost nothing. They could let you download the game for less than a nickel. Obviously you can not make a game like TLOU2 if you only charge a nickel to play it. I would have zero issues with GameStop if they limited sales of used games to games that are 1 year old. Hell I might even be fine with six months! But selling used discs less than a week from launch is despicable and I wish them nothing but pain and suffering. GameStops entire business is predicated on being a middle man that adds zero value but extracts value for “used” sales of relatively new games. Fuck em. I used to make games so I am extremely biased. But IMHO I am not wrong!

NikolaNovak 6y ago

I don't know, I personally do feel empathy. If Company A makes a product people are willing to pay for; and company B makes multiple sales/profit off of it, it does trigger some kind of empathy/moral/something spidey-sense in me. We are not talking about piracy where we use argument "that 12 years old wouldn't have paid for your game anyway". These customers DID pay for the game! Just not to the developer; that money did not support development of new fun content. Not to say I disagree with the notion of digital platform stripping away ownership; but I think that specific wrong doesn't make the other situation right :-/

monksy 6y ago
Do you feel these customers own the game? > new fun content I would only say that's neccessary if they No man skyed it. (Screwed up the release)
asdff 6y ago
You must hate used bookstores too
- NikolaNovak 6y ago
  No; and I don't hate used game stores either. My statement was specific - I feel empathy for the developer. One can feel empathy toward multiple parties, even in situations of conflict or disagreement (I'm kind of with Ender on this one :-). This was in particular a response to the commenter that "felt 0 empathy toward developer" - which I found curious and perhaps unfortunate.
ryandrake 6y ago
Every video game I have ever bought has been used. Then again I buy all sorts of things used—probably 10x more than I buy new. I don’t see why a good’s manufacturer should expect to skim profit every time one of their goods changes hands, and I resent the lengths (DRM) some of them go through to try to do so. I should be able to buy used and to sell to someone else when I’m done with it.
- 6y ago

staplor 6y ago

I think it makes sense that video games shouldn't be resold. Do you think you should be able to resell a movie ticket? I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. In the same way I think purchasing a game should give you a right to download a game from your account.

DanBC 6y ago
The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales. When a game costs $50 and I can't get any of that money back when I've finished playing the game I need to think really carefully before buying it. If I know I can get some money back by selling the game it makes it easier for me to buy it. > I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
- staplor 6y ago
  > The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales. Digital games have their own benefits — sales. If games can be resold, one person may buy a game and then sell it to another person. With non resealable games, both of the people in the above example would buy the game later in a sale. Sales are one of the best uses of price discrimination; practically everyone gets to play a game eventually if they want to, but those who especially want to can pay more. > So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch? I don’t see how my statement implies this. Single use tickets and subscriptions services are different things.
freeone3000 6y ago
Think of it like buying a movie, like it actually is. Of course you should be able to sell on used copies.
Mumps 6y ago
I think there are many more counter examples than supportive to your argument here: - should you be able to resell a book? - resell a CD? - board game - lego - badminton racket _ad nauseum_. the idea of a movie ticket, is that it provides a closed-in-time temporal experience. The movie screens at those given times in a theatre and then never there again (be it months or whatever post-release). A video game is an experience made whenever wherever a person wants.

chrischen 6y ago

The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. In theory you could sell a $60 copy of Grand Theft Auto and then just pass that around to every person in the world. In this scenario Rockstar makes less than <$60 and Gamestop would take a constant % cut of every license exchange. This obviously is an extreme example but my point is to point out the disproportional economics.

gpderetta 6y ago
you could make the same arguments for books or movies on a physical medium.
- astura 6y ago
  And 35 years ago this argument was made with video rental stores, who also rented video games. As in the same physical copy was played by (gasp!) hundreds of people.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Yep and that industry has also shifted to a license per viewer/screen model as seen with Netflix et al.
prepend 6y ago
> The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. I counter this with the reality that it is working and has worked for decades. As measured by numerous thriving game developers and publishers. I don’t even think it’s revenue maximizing for game devs to not allow transfers as I suspect that being able to transfer games to friends increases overall sales due to word of mouth, press, etc. Like how shareware increased net sales.
- chrischen 6y ago
  At least for PC games the model has switched to licensing per player. Steam doesn’t allow you to resell games and this has created an explosion of indie games and developers. Especially for small developers imagine how hard it would be if the handful of players just passed around a few copies. It essentially forces everyone to make online multiplayer games.

rawbot 6y ago

I think the problem isn't being able to resell games. It's the fact that it became "industrialized" reselling. Gamestop grew so big, and incentivized used sales so much (so much that on release day, unopened new copies of the game were opened by employees to sell as used for $5 less), that the sheer volume caught every game publisher off-guard. Used games stores have been a thing much before it became a problem (I remember selling games at EB Games). But because of Gamestop's growth and their aggressive pursuit of making sure their customers only dabble in the used games section, it became a serious issue. The 7-9 resales by Gamestop might not translate to 7-9x extra sales, but I would bet it is at least 2x. I know a lot of people that stopped buying their games new, but wouldn't buy them used unless they were from Gamestop (so basically no grey market, e.g. ebay or craigslist), because it was more convenient. In some cities, Gamestop had some many stores, that they had to compete between themselves.