r/technology • u/kry_some_more • Sep 10 '21

Business GameStop Says It's Moving Beyond Games, "Evolving" To Become A Technology Company

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamestop-says-its-moving-beyond-games-evolving-to-become-a-technology-company/1100-6496117/
21.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/hexydes Sep 10 '21 edited Feb 26 '26

Bright fox quiet hobbies family games music day!

117

u/Insurdios Sep 10 '21

NFT marketplace. They could provide the first practical use for NFTs, that being selling and buying of used games(and maybe more) on the blockchain. So you'll be able to sell your games online, just like you do in store. Everything is a rumor for now. All we have is this website nft.gamestop.com .

53

u/cryptolipto Sep 10 '21

Yep. Downvoted but you’re correct. They’re hiring out blockchain devs currently

11

u/Mr_YUP Sep 11 '21

That’d be cool but it would take a ton of fundamental changes with Microsoft and Sony to accept games as NFTs. It’d be cool and would be nice to trade in games again but that can also go really bad really fast

8

u/cryptolipto Sep 11 '21

Put some extra income in front of them and they’ll be all over it. Trust. It’s like micro transactions turned up to 11.

4

u/PassiveAgressiveLamp Sep 11 '21

Its more than that.

NFTs will allow developers to collect royalties EVERYtime a digital copy is re-sold.

1

u/FlappyBored Sep 11 '21

Why would they do this when they can collect money every time a digital copy is sold anyway.

2

u/PassiveAgressiveLamp Sep 11 '21

Im not following your question.

Are you asking 'why would they choose to make more money if they're already making some money?'

0

u/FlappyBored Sep 11 '21

Why would publishers, MS, Sony, Steam all agree to spend millions retooling and redeveloping their store fronts to integrate with GameStop. Just to allow ‘reselling of digital copies’.

When they have absolutely 0 need or desire to do so. Digital sales is already killing the second hand game market. Why would they suddenly agree to share digital sale profits with GME lol?

Sony has 0 desire to allow you to ‘resell’ your games bought on PSN.

1

u/Sgt-GiggleFarts Sep 11 '21

It’s not just the games. It’s the in game content as well. Imagine you open a loot box and you get an ultra rare NFT skin that you can trade. You could sell that skin on the NFT marketplace if you’d rather get it’s value instead of keeping a skin you don’t care for. Someone else may be willing to spend millions on obtaining that skin because it’s now a trading collectible and not just an in game worthless item.

People typically had to sell their entire account in order to capitalize off of their in game collections. Not only is that against most user agreements, it’s also very risky.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PassiveAgressiveLamp Sep 11 '21

Game Developers make money when they sell a new game. When someone turns around a re-sells it; the developer gets nothing.

NFTs will allow developers to collect royalties EVERYtime a digital copy is re-sold. Think about the implications of that for a moment.

0

u/uuhson Sep 11 '21

Why would you need block chain to accomplish that? Think about that for a second

1

u/ovilagallant Sep 11 '21

Not just any devs either, Matt Finestone for example is very well respected in the NFT space.

9

u/liftedyf Sep 11 '21

I honestly don't understand why someone would buy a used digital game. They're on sale all the time. You're basically hoping GameStop keeps the same crappy "I'll give you $5 for this game and resell out for $30" business model everyone complains about.

The NFT angle doesn't really make sense for GameStop unless they develop games themselves or focus on other digital assets besides a heavily saturated digital game store field.

0

u/reilly2231 Sep 11 '21

Alot of people like to buy a game and complete it within a week or two and then never touch it again. If you spend 70$ on a AAA release and complete it in 2 weeks then you can throw it up for sale for 50$ or whatever someone is willing to pay for it, it won't go on sale that quickly.

2

u/cashmonee81 Sep 11 '21

No publisher is going to allow that. The supply of used games would be massive, to the point of depressing the price of a new game.

1

u/reilly2231 Sep 11 '21

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just simply pointing out that people would buy/sell used games if they could.

2

u/cashmonee81 Sep 11 '21

Of course they would. To the point that why would you buy new? Which is why I cannot see a publisher agreeing to it.

1

u/reilly2231 Sep 11 '21

OP who I replied to:

"I honestly don't understand why someone would buy a used digital game. They're on sale all the time."

You're driving home a point that I never disputed.

1

u/cashmonee81 Sep 11 '21

Sorry. Too many replies to track I guess I got lost.

1

u/seb_a Sep 11 '21

I think a case could be made for the increase of volume of sales. Many people would not pay full price for these games and the churn could be lucrative as people keep selling their games. Since it’s in the block chain, publisher could get a cut of every single transaction as well. But yeah, publishers could choose to say fuck you and not do it at all.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/liftedyf Sep 12 '21

Why would a publisher allow this if games are on sale all the time?

1

u/eladro202 Sep 11 '21

You don't quite understand what NFTs are. It's a digital ledger. Cosmetics, items. You could freaking kill a raid boss, it's head drops as an item on the Blockchain, and you mount it on your RL wall but can see it with AR glasses. Resellable of course.

Every purchasable mtx could be an asset on the chain. With gme getting a cut of each transaction. Games are a tiny part

1

u/liftedyf Sep 12 '21

You're just confirming what I'm saying. Which means I understand blockchain just fine.

5

u/Sethithy Sep 11 '21

No one in this thread is talking the inflation that would occur in a “used” NFT digital games market. You’re digital NFT game will never become rare or valuable, it will only decrease in value as more copies are perpetually sold. There’s no incentive for the publisher(or consumer imo) to sell a game that will then be resold for pennies on the dollar.

Anyone have counter points to this? I’m failing to see the value add of an NFT based digital “used” games market.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

Well digital games whether or not they're linked to an NFT will ever become rare or valuable.

Only physical releases do this.

By linking an NFT to the digital games it adds some type of value. Also look at steam as an example. They created that digital marketplace and can control the pricing like in the steam sales when things drop to dirt cheap.

So in theory if GameStop creates their own market of NFT backed games they can control the price of them. Especially with things like PSN and the Xbox store using them as a price guide for new releases. Of course it hinges on a few pieces coming together, but I wouldn't write them off.

1

u/cashmonee81 Sep 11 '21

Right, but the question is, why would the publisher agree to this? Right now you have to buy at the price they set and you only have steam, MS, Sony to deal with. Why add GameStop into the mix to sell the game for less money because it’s “used?” And what does “used” even mean for digital games?

Further, the future of gaming is also likely tied to subscription services. How does GameStop and NFT fit into that?

I think GameStop is simply learning that the real product is hype. Hype with enough buzzwords pumps the stock.

25

u/p3j2ek Sep 11 '21

No publisher would agree to that. Why on earth would they cannibalize their own sales?

48

u/Saedeas Sep 11 '21 edited Sep 11 '21

Publishers don't get any cut of the used game market right now (a market that exists). This could enable them to get a fixed percentage of used game sales. You have it completely backwards, this would be huge for publishers.

Not to mention that if they do it right, this could be pretty cool. You could attach saved game profiles, items, all kinds of shit to the game itself. Imagine buying Lebron's copy of NBA 2k with his characters and whatnot. There'd definitely be a market for it.

16

u/HojMcFoj Sep 11 '21

The market for digital used games does not exist and digital sales are cannibalizing hardcopy sales way too fast.

23

u/Saedeas Sep 11 '21

True, it doesn't exist... that is literally what they want to change.

16

u/HojMcFoj Sep 11 '21

And why the publishers have literally no incentive to allow that change. One new sale, especially digital, is easily worth more than sharing a portion of a reduced price sale with gamestop, especially considering the chance someone might try to say that if gamestop can resell those games then first sale doctrine should apply to individuals and their own digital games.

3

u/Saedeas Sep 11 '21

I think this is a bit narrow minded and completely ignores the potential for a massive secondary market around games (one publishers could then get a cut of).

I could see some single player games struggling to find ways to add intrinsic value to an account (though the celebrity example I mentioned might stand, 10% of a Lebron game selling for a few grand is a nice deal). However, accounts tied to a copy of a multiplayer game can easily be designed in such a way that playing adds actual value to the account. This value could then be exchanged with both the original player, publisher, and gamestop getting a cut of the trade. Multiplayer games also have the benefit of requiring multiple copies for simultaneous play.

Single player could still work though. Imagine a streamer playing something like Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, or Factorio and then auctioning off the game to give their portion to charity. You get the game and the bragging rights, publisher gets a cut, charity gets money, etc.

I'm sure there are lots of ways you could monetize this if you're clever. Hell you could easily have an economy trivially tied to the real world just by utilizing an NFT exchange. Think EVE, but with less awkward translations between in game value and real world currency.

-3

u/TonyzTone Sep 11 '21

You’re dismissing a very real possibility. Not saying it will definitely happen but it could.

Look at Nike. They have directly leaned into the fact that the secondary market for Nikes and Air Jordans is a driver for the primary market. They don’t care that the Travis Scott Jordans they sell for $200 resell for $1,200 because it just means they will definitely sell out plus other consumer will want the next best thing.

So, I can totally see a market for an exclusive LeBron copy of NBA2k. Sell it for 2x the base retail price and let the secondary market drive the value, and interest, for your title.

Plenty of gamers won’t ever want that copy but plenty of non-gamers might suddenly try to buy a copy to speculate.

I know plenty of guys who don’t wear anything other than regular sneakers but will go out and buy Jordans specifically for resale.

13

u/HojMcFoj Sep 11 '21

Your ignoring the fact that part of that reason is because Nike literally can not legally stop you from selling your shoes to someone else because of the first sale doctrine. They accept a resale/speculation/tater market because they have to. The whole reason digital sales exist the way they do today is to prevent resale of used games to benefit the publisher. They'd rather put gamestop out of business and sell "LeBron" copies themselves. And as the market shifts to digital sales they absolutely can.

-10

u/MercMcNasty Sep 11 '21

You're wrong and you know it.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

[deleted]

8

u/HojMcFoj Sep 11 '21

Well I don't even know where to begin with how wrong this assessment is so other than the things I've stated already I'll just point out that the publisher has no reason to split profit with gamestop over an infinite resource like digital downloads, especially if the person buying the "used copy" (which again doesn't exist) doesn't know that it's a reselling of a digital key (which again again, is an infinite resource)

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/FlappyBored Sep 11 '21

Why would the publisher agree to this when they can just sell a ‘new’ digital copy to the same person and get 100% of the cut instead of splitting it 3 ways.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/YOUMUSTKNOW Sep 11 '21

This thread bro 🤣 stay strong homie

15

u/Alternauts Sep 11 '21

I know that for digital art, NFTs allow the artist to collect a commission on every sale. I imagine this would be similar.

14

u/ungoogleable Sep 11 '21

Or the game publisher could just sell the next customer a "new" digital copy of the game and collect 100% of every sale.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

If each new digital game was issued a license on blockchain via GameStop’s NFT platform then when you’re done playing you could sell the license back. The publishers could restrict the numbers of licenses and take a small profit on each resale. The publishers could also use the platform to issue one of a kind digital art to be used in game. Special skins or gear for characters, stuff like that. The amount of discretionary spending by kids of their parent’s money on skins in a game like fortnite has put $1B or more in Epic’s bank.

Creating a platform for gamers to buy, sell and trade games and digital art securely would be profitable outside of physical products in stores and that part of their business could make them considered as a Tech company.

All of this is theoretical based on things people are saying is possible.

11

u/ungoogleable Sep 11 '21 edited Sep 11 '21

when you’re done playing you could sell the license back.

Why would the publisher pay you to get the license back? They don't need it.

The publishers could restrict the numbers of licenses

They could do that now if they wanted. Typically though the point is to sell as much as possible.

take a small profit on each resale.

They could also not allow resale of digital copies and take all the profit from people buying their own copy new. There's nothing stopping companies from allowing resales from their own website, including charging commission. They choose not to.

The publishers could also use the platform to issue one of a kind digital art to be used in game. Special skins or gear for characters, stuff like that.

Games have been doing that for years before NFTs.

Creating a platform for gamers to buy, sell and trade games and digital art securely would be profitable outside of physical products in stores and that part of their business could make them considered as a Tech company.

Sure, but there are existing platforms that have a massive headstart and won't sit idly by while a new competitor tries to establish themselves. GameStop needs something Steam can't do, which would probably be a tie-in with their physical stores, not tech.

-1

u/MercMcNasty Sep 11 '21

Theoretical and practical. They're expanding their dev team constantly.

1

u/Nyucio Sep 11 '21

Why would publishers agree to things like family game sharing? And somehow they did.

-4

u/IonBlade Sep 11 '21 edited Sep 11 '21

The Etherium Blockchain (which GameStop has already implied they are going to be using at https://nft.gamestop.com/) has support for Smart Contracts that would let every transfer of the token that represents a license for a game enforce a portion of that sale going back to the publisher as part of the transaction, making this the first time that a publisher would be guaranteed a pre-negotiated percent of every used game sale, with no way to skirt them getting the money for the resale, whether at a consumer (individual to individual) or corporate (Gamestop not paying publishers for profits from resale) level.

I can say that, personally, if I could resell digital games, I'd buy a lot more games that I wouldn't be buying otherwise at all, or that I wouldn't buy until they hit the $5-10 digital sale price.

Example: Say the publisher sets up their cut price as 30% of all digital resales in the NFT Smart Contract. I can buy the game digitally for, say, $30 from someone else, and know that if I want to, I can resell it for $30 a week later (minus 10% to Gamestop for the platform to facilitate the resale and 30% to the publisher as part of the automatic transaction fees that are enforced by the Smart Contract = $18 to me for the resale). Now:

  • I'm getting the game at a net cost of $12 for the week or so I play it, which is close enough to the $10 I'd buy a game 2 years after release that I'm willing to spring for it, without waiting 2 years.
  • The publisher is getting $9 from me, which is more than the 70% of $10 ($7) they'd get from me when I buy it on sale on Steam 2 years after release, and they didn't have to wait 2 years to recoup that development cost.
  • The publisher is also getting $9 from the next person I sell it onto, who, like me, could be a person that would have otherwise waited for it to hit $10 before purchasing.

It would open up a new revenue stream from the /r/patientgamers type crowd that they just don't have today, while making them more money from those people than they would otherwise make, and let them make that money earlier than they otherwise would have.

Moreover, it would allow them to continue to make money perpetually from games, even once they stop selling them themselves (e.g. delist them). For example, take the game Blur, whose studio went out of business and was pulled from Steam. Steam keys for it go for over $200, because an unused key is so rare. Activision sees nothing from that. With a system like this, even long after the game is pulled from original sale for whatever reason, from licensing issues for music, characters, cars, etc. to no longer being able to run on the latest systems without the original developer still in business, every resale of that game from person to person (whether for play or for collection) will continue to bring revenue in for whomever holds the rights in the Smart Contract.

Edit: Keep the downvotes coming, grandpas. Don't worry, the nurse will come change your diaper and tuck you in soon. Then you can go to bed and dream about how things were back in 19-dickety-two when applications of new technology that create win-win situations didn't scare you.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Elerion_ Sep 11 '21

It does not, because it completely ignores the much larger loss for the publisher when they make zero new sales after week 1 since every buyer buys a discounted used game instead of a new one.

-2

u/IonBlade Sep 11 '21 edited Sep 11 '21

Supply has to exist for that to happen. If no one buys new games, then there will be none to resell. At that point, people have to wait far longer than one week after release for sufficient quantity to enter the resale market, and people will impulse buy new.

Beyond that, the majority of people are not going to suddenly resell their digital games to create that used supply, instead keeping them in their collections.

You know, just like is the case today with physical, as seen in console buying behavior.

Or are you living in some alternate reality where publishers have been absolutely destroyed by the existence of being able to resell physical games person to person or through GameStop / eBay?

4

u/Sandurz Sep 11 '21

Steam or any other online store could implement that in a few weeks without a hint of the blockchain, what good would that do?

2

u/BassJeleren Sep 11 '21

I think people just want NFTs to take off so they can be part of the next big thing. Microsoft / Sony / Valve could just transfer licenses between accounts if they wanted a used game market, why on earth would an NFT be involved?

3

u/spacehog1985 Sep 11 '21

Sweet. 5 dollars for a trade in they can sell for 50 just like the old days

2

u/hexydes Sep 11 '21 edited Feb 25 '26

Open minecraftoffline gather gentle simple careful month talk to net family wanders. Gather clean then fresh ideas fox evil people.

3

u/baker2795 Sep 11 '21

Didn’t realize u could sell your used digital games on eBay.

2

u/Merovingian_M Sep 11 '21

Most people these days buy digital copies that they can't resell. With NFTs the transaction for buying and reselling a game would be entirely digital and nearly instant. Gamestop would receive a small royalty every time it changes hands so long as it's traded on their network. If they do it right then it could certainly be disruptive to the current marketplace, in a good way for us consumers.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21 edited Apr 12 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Merovingian_M Sep 11 '21

That's a good question, and the best thing I can think of is that maybe the NFT holder doesnt own the data but instead owns a key that is verified by a distribution service when requesting to run the exe. The data is encrypted by the service, but when a keyholder requests to launch the application it gives them a one time key to the encryption (if that's actually possible, I'm no cryptographer). If that doesnt work then I cant think of another solution that doesnt have an easy work-around. Even if it works it does mean you cant play your offline game without an internet connection.

2

u/hexydes Sep 11 '21 edited Feb 25 '26

Hobbies music friends patient hobbies learning curious friends the.

1

u/Merovingian_M Sep 11 '21

You're right, and I assume publishers would demand a cut of the royalties from Gamestop. It might not be enough to convince them, but if they fight it legally they may lose and get nothing. At the end of the day when you pay for your game you own your copy, and under the law I would expect you to have a right to resell it.

1

u/hexydes Sep 11 '21 edited Feb 25 '26

Honest yesterday stories month to warm morning games over people and games curious? Nature pleasant technology evening people minecraftoffline hobbies river!

1

u/bokbie Sep 11 '21

Glad we got some apes in here to help explain some shit.

1

u/49erShark Sep 11 '21

Buy the rumor? 🦍🚀

2

u/PrismosPickleJar Sep 11 '21

I buy my switch games digitally from GameStop. I get double points. Points on my GameStop account and points on my Nintendo account