I said selling newer games only(and only certain newer games) was thinking short term....it's them appealing to what's new and trendy in gaming to make a quick buck.....but those games eventually either become unpopular(and make them less money) or become old enough to where they stop selling them(in their physical stores) at some point.

Their stores aren't even filled mostly with GAMES anymore......the stores I went to were around 60-65% toys and other merch.....last I checked people come to GAME stores to buy games. :)

People will always want older games for various reasons: Nostalgia, a perceived or actual better quality of said games vs. ones made now, etc

Maybe, but some would likely want a specific game...and if GS doesn't stock it then people will go to those who DO stock it...thus losing them sales.

(Also PS3 games and XB360 games still sell decently well on online stores, so I don't think one would be down to 1 customer a month levels of sales)

More and more games become "old" all the time, so that niche is likely to grow over time....also a good compromise would be a store that sells old and new games and keeps the most popular(old and new) more in stock and the less popular titles can be ordered online and picked up at the nearest store(as an example).

You must have checked a long time ago, then, because last I checked, people don't go to game stores much. I think GameStop is not getting any different data, otherwise they wouldn't be slowly dying out.

I don't get you, GameRager, you very often seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, something that's absolutely of no interest to me. Then I end up finding myself explaining things as if to a child, which makes me feel weird, because I know you're definitely not a child and I hate sounding patronising.

GameStop is not allergic to making money. They didn't one day stop selling PS2 (and now mostly PS3) games because they personally hate you. They noticed very few people buy them. So they stopped buying them because they weren't able to sell them. Then they slowly sold off what stock they had, then they got rid of the leftover stock and replaced it with newer games that were actually selling. They also noticed people don't buy a lot of games in brick and mortar stores in general, so they attempted to branch out by selling other merch.

Saying selling older games is a solution to long term success (or even long term survival) does not gel with reality.

first reply: game companys dnt sell games based on nostalgia cos otherwise you would see super mario 64 and mario kart 64 etc cos they was very popular, also nostalgia doesnt turn a profit as much as current gen games do.

second reply: cos xbox 360 and ps3 are last gen consoles as soon as the xbox x and the ps5 come out i bet you game shops will stop selling ps3 and xbox 360 games, and also what u gotta remember with newer consoles is backwards compatibility aswell.

Well, Gamestop has on multiple occasions tried to get into the retro-game market -- in fact at one point stating that a portion of each store would be dedicated to "retro-games." But like most of their schemes in recent years, it's never been fully implemented. Once in awhile they have some "retro sale" via online. While I think there is indeed a market for retro games, Gamestop's retro strategy isn't a winner.

What happens in your neck of the woods is not necessarily indicative of the general trend of such consumption of gaming products.

Please stick to the topic at hand and try not to delve into personal jabs.....if the topic/my replies is/are bothering you that much then we could leave the debate between us as is & end it here if you want.

I never said they hate me(or anyone)...now did I?

Also people DO buy them....they just wanted to make more money from new game and console sales, which gave them quick and large influxes of cash before they started to fizzle out(due to there only being so many new games/systems out at one time).

Sidenote: They still buy them, but they then only resell them through their website, not the physical stores.

Fewer newer games, leading to quicker market saturation of said games, and by not carrying many other games(in their brick and mortar stores) it is causing them to lose money as a result.

Also not many want to buy cheap plastic junk they can buy elsewhere for cheaper.
(There is literally a store selling the same stuff right next to one such gamestop near me, for cheaper prices)

Then why do they keep selling them through their website? And why do other smaller game stores do so(and websites as well) that also make a profit from it?
========================================

Then explain console stores selling those exact games for high prices and people still gobbling them up.

Also it does turn a profit as they can resell games people love to those same people or newer generations and make money reselling the same disc over and over again to new people.

Let's be real...console makers dislike backwards compatibility...they'd rather you re-bought your games on their digital stores.
========================================

Agreed

What is my neck of the woods?

Bother me? I am not bothered. I said I don't understand you, and therefore having to respond to you feels weird. There was nothing derogatory. Do you feel attacked?

Then what are you saying? I still don't understand. Do you think they are morons?
According to your timeline, at one point GameStop sold old games, but they...what? Weren't earning fast enough?
So they stopped selling old games? Why? Why choose old games to stop selling? Why not stop new games? Or stop magazines? Or start selling game-themed pies?
They stopped selling old games, and then continued to not earn fast enough, so they continued to not sell old games, and started selling toys.
Then they still didn't earn fast enough, so they started going out of business, but didn't sell old games?

Here, let me provide you a more coherent timeline:
Gamestop wasn't being able to sell old games. Gamestop stopped selling old games.
Of course, eventually Gamestop will not be able to sell new games either. Then they will Gamestop.

Quick and large influxes of cash as opposed to what? One copy sold a month (and decreasing) out of the 200 old games in stock?

Yes, we are all talking about brick and mortar stores here. If GameStop was a purely online thing, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm sorry, the data doesn't back that up. Physical PS4 sales for the first quarter of this year were almost at 50 million units. Add to that Switch and Xbox and extrapolate to the rest of the year, and you have pretty significant numbers. There's no "market saturation" of new games.

Websites don't require shelf-space. All you need is a huge warehouse somewhere with crates of games. Nobody was talking about websites here.

Nintendo sells those and several remakes and sequels in their own store for play on their consoles. So yeah, those are for sale.

I meant your country/area where you live.

Not attacked per se, but you brought unneeded personal things about me into the conversation, which is not proper form when debating. If you want to debate me on the topic then I am totally up for it, but please leave any personal criticisms "at the door"(out of the conversation) if you please....I am not here to talk about me, but about gamestop/it's choices. :)

1. They didn't stop selling old games entirely...they still buy them from people and then sell them on their website, but not many know of that.

2. Exactly, they weren't making enough money fast enough by selling older games so they chose to focus more on(in their stores) selling the latest new/hot games to get that quick inlux of cash & less on older games(n their physcial stores)....and by doing so/other things they started to lose money.

The numbers don't lie....when they sold older games they were more profitable and doing better overall....not they are doing worse overall.

A sale is a sale, and such people(including myself) would often buy multiple games and not just one in one trip.

And as I said, some of us want that phsycial store experience to save time(vs online ordering) and for the nostalgia...there is a niche to be filled, as with GOG and DRM free older games.

There's only so many players to go around per game....also they make very little on sales of new consoles and even new copies of games...they make more on USED copies of games(newer ones and older ones)....and as they stock fewer titles that means they hit market saturation(i.e. all players who want a copy getting a copy of all games they have on offer in their stores) much quicker.
=======================================
Example(then versus now)

Back years back they had around 5 systems or more selling games at once(non handheld, full size systems), and hundreds of unique titles(used and new) for all systems COMBINED in their stores....so there was a higher chance when you went to a store you'd find a game you wanted to buy(or several) & gamestop made more money as a result.

Now they stock only 3 main full sized systems(PS4/XB1/Switch), and maybe 30 or so titles for each.....and usually only the biggest/hottest titles get more than 2 copies sent per store(for people to buy). As such there are many less games to choose from and odds are people won't find something they like unless they are only into the latest and most popular titles alone, and they get there before said titles sell out.

(Even new console releases net them little money as they take slim profit margins and even losses on those in the hopes that people will buy games for said consoles)

As a result of this shift they make less money and more sales go to sites like eBay/amazon/steam/etc.

Yes, I know what the expression means. I was asking where you think that is. Because you've often brought it up during our forum interactions, and it seems to be a hang-up for you.
For your future reference, (and this too seems such a weird thing to have to flex, but) I've lived and gamed in over a dozen places during my life so far (including 3 of your states), and visited and bought (or looked for) games in 2 dozen more. So I'm not speaking from a position of isolationism and unawareness of the wider world.


What personal things? "Not getting you" is personal? Your arguments make no sense to me, so I try to get a grasp of where you're coming from. Like your phrasing here- you use the word "debate". I'm absolutely uninterested in debating you or anyone on the internet. Are you seeking a debate?

Yes, back when the paradigm was away from online purchasing and more towards brick and mortar shops, they were more profitable. It's got nothing to do with selling old games, or what "some of us" want. I keep having to repeat this: people who go to brick and mortar shops to buy old games are a niche, they're not a business model (unless you flagrantly overcharge them for 'retro').

God I hope sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Waypoint, RockPaperShotgun go bankrupt in the future. They produce absolutely nothing of value and use their platform to disseminate left-wing political propaganda disguised as video game analysis. I don't use any video game news/review sites anyhow tbh, just getting some YT gameplay footage is enough for me.

It's not a hang up, per se, but a sticking point/focal point on this bit on our conversation as trends in ONE part of the world don't always match those in every other part of the world to an exact 1:1 degree(often they can be close, but not always 1:1).

Yes, but have you lived/shopped there recently?

These bits, for instance, of post 62: "you very often seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, something that's absolutely of no interest to me. Then I end up finding myself explaining things as if to a child, which makes me feel weird, because I know you're definitely not a child and I hate sounding patronising."

I don't know how this would sound in your locale(of origin, not current locale), but in conversations online it is often seen as lower level/form of conversation to bring up someone's quirks/"faults"/etc in a conversation online, as many times(in general, I mean) it is used to unfairly discredit someone or their points/stances when the other person has a weak "argument" or point of their own.

Now none of this is to say you are doing any of those things on purpose for bad reasons, but seeing as how many have used such tactics online as unfair "debating" tactics one(in general) should be able to see why i'd be wary of such.

That is what it is usually called when two or more people argue or discuss a topic online with points and counterpoints, as we have been doing, as that is the usage of the term as I am using it. :)

Did you read my example in the last post? With more of a selection they can(and used to) appeal to a wider demographic and have a higher chance of making a sale.

Now(as they are now set up) they have a good deal less of a chance to do so, and new console sales net them very little(they expect people to buy games and merch to make more money from that stuff) & newer game sales can only net them so much if they stock very few unique titles in their stores for said newer systems.

They could easily make a good buck if they stocked LIMITED quantities of older system's games(popular ones more so than others) in store or allowed people to ship to store from online even....and those are just some example I came up with off the top of my head.

All in all, what they are doing isn't working as well as before, and before they were selling many more older games. Obviously that model was profitable and changing it to chase the fast buck from new game sales didn't work as well and as long as they hoped. Now will they realize that and mold a new business model to recover their lost "vigor" in the gaming market? Who knows. I sure hope they can, or that some new store comes along to fill the niche/void they are slowly leaving unfilled.

==================================

Fair enough, but the talk is now on brick and mortar GS locations. ;)

Being someone who plays games primarily on console I'd be sad to see Gamestop go. While far from perfect (many working in the stores know nothing except anything but COD and Fortnite, prices are often skewed too high, and used stock has been dwindling), the store experience has turned me on to many games I'd never have paid any attention to without a physical box in my hands... and some sales -- like the one where I found Shadow Tactics Blades of the Shogun for $5 -- will definitely be missed.

Having talked to some managers of stores near me...

... their stores are profitable but many in low-foot traffic areas aren't. Seems the company expanded too much without factoring Amazon and growing digital sales (plus Sony disallowing them from selling PSN game codes). They seem to think the next console generation can "right the ship" for awhile. Sadly, toys and clothing seem to be much higher profit margin than games ATM

And sadly those new systems only come out every 5+ years or so, and don't net them any money(or much)....the games(mostly the used copies more so) do that, along with any merch they sell(which likely isn't much, seeing as other stores usually in the same malls/area sell the same stuff for the same price or less).
(Also an aside: Check yer PM and plz reply as listed when/if you could. ;))

I think the Gamestop situation is a reflection upon the game-industry in general:

1. Consoles have lots of drive-space these days, so many users are just downloading content from proprietary servers; a lot of the content are games that you usually won't find in a Gamestop, such as legacy titles for older consoles. Even contemporary titles can be downloaded if space permits. This is really convenient for folks who live in rural areas.

2. Amazon Prime.

3. Small game-libraries. I think Gamestop stock is trading around 6 bucks today, its IPO was $18.00. When it traded highest was in 2007-2008. . . PS2/PS3, Wii, and 360. . . that was a HUGE friggin library of titles; I would say PS2 games comprised half of that library, with a lot of fantastic titles. The PS2 was like the WinXP of consoles. . . just wouldn't die. The Wii was incredibly innovative: interesting interface and some pretty decent titles including. . . SKYLANDERS; sigh, it still couldn't play a DVD, but it did have streaming/media services available. . . for awhile. And, then there was the release of the 360, which COULD play DVDs, and had incredible internet media support, and. . . built-in WIFI. Lots of games, lots of good games, lots of innovation at this time.

4. I-phone/I-pad. Apps, apps, and more apps. . . don't really need to get the kids a console anymore. . . just feed them an I-pad or I-phone.

Today, it seems consoles have relatively small libraries of games. . . I mean, good games. Nintendo's stragtegy I haven't understood since the Wii; the Switch seems pretty clever, but like its predecessor, has a very small library of decent titles.

I'm sure there's other significant factors I've overlooked, but that's the general pattern I observed.

You make some decent points, but I want to focus on this one for now:

The problem with this is that some have slow speeds or DL caps...plus if the console dies and the licenses cannot be transferred to a new one the games are essentially lost(and tbh they are akin to steam rentals anyways due to being tied to one's console/account). :|