Trade-in values becoming rediculous...

thelordofcheese

brim4brim wrote: »

I think we should just compare it to movie sales as it is a very similar market with just as much possibility for piracy in this day and age.

You don't see preowned movies very often and there is a very good reason. People hang on to movies they buy because they are worth less to begin with and it wouldn't be worth selling them on.

Also in many cases, its because they perceive that the product has a value after being watched as they can watch it again and enjoy it.

The strength of the second hand game market shows most games don't have replay value and are in fact just poor products and the developers don't deserve anything for making a poor product. If a developer makes a good game and supports it well then people won't sell it on.

That's a hell of a leap, sparky.
The same accusation can be made of films, there are a hell of alot god awful films made every year. The common denominator here seems to be people buying things that you think they shouldn't.
But hey, blame the developers for people being fickle mush-heads, that's clearly the cause.

brim4brim wrote: »

The second market is good for the games industry at the moment as it is making them see the need to add after sale and replay value.

ooookay, that's an interesting take. I think you're wrong, but lets go with it.

brim4brim wrote: »

Activation codes so a product can only run on one console should be made illegal. This only harms the consumer and the market.

Explain how.
Seriously, how do you think this will harm the market? More to the point, i think this is not only possible, but likely and can be done in a manner similar to systems we already have. So, why shouldn't it be done?

brim4brim wrote: »

More people should go the way of Valve and offer updates and content after the game is released and support the gaming community and gamers will not want to trade in the product.

you can't trade in valve products anyway, due to steam. So, would i be right in saying you're ok with no trade-ins at all, provided you have a system like steam to give you patchs, free demos, videos, friends and that?
'Cos that sounds suspiciously like Xbox live to me.

brim4brim wrote: »

The whole problem is games are being made to play once and discard by a lot of developers at the moment.

Once again, you could say that about films. And more to the point this isn't a new thing in the slightest, i don't know why you think games were ever meant to be played more than once, unless you really like it.

Thing is 'replay value' is a myth, you invent it for yourself. You don't need to play any game more than once, the story won't change, it'll be the same old thing. You an try to add interest by purposefully limiting yourself, but that's your call.

I don't know where this sense of entitlement comes from "I bought your game, now keep giving me content!", you say that locking games to a console shouldn't be done because "This is not how the consumer market works in any other area", where else does the consumer get petulant if they don't get a constant stream of free stuff after they've bought the product?

thebman

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's a hell of a leap, sparky.
The same accusation can be made of films, there are a hell of alot god awful films made every year. The common denominator here seems to be people buying things that you think they shouldn't.
But hey, blame the developers for people being fickle mush-heads, that's clearly the cause.

I'll let you calm down shall I :rolleyes:

Explain how.
Seriously, how do you think this will harm the market? More to the point, i think this is not only possible, but likely and can be done in a manner similar to systems we already have. So, why shouldn't it be done?

Are you serious? Single use games won't reduce the size of the market? I for one would not buy a license to play a game on one machine. Such an implementation would be incredibly misleading to the consumer who expects when told they are buying a game that they are buying a game.

That they are buying a license to play the game on one machine would need to be clearly stated on the box with a disclaimer saying note your not buying this game but a license to play this game on one machine. Basically you can't change the way an entire market works and not at least try to inform the consumer of your change to your product like EA have done with Spore and its 5 install limit.

This is misleading to the consumer in so many ways and should be illegal (basically already is). You can't advertise a product for sale and then say well actually you didn't buy that, you bought this piece of paper with a code on it :rolleyes: That is misleading to the consumer and not what the box said they were paying for.

you can't trade in valve products anyway, due to steam. So, would i be right in saying you're ok with no trade-ins at all, provided you have a system like steam to give you patchs, free demos, videos, friends and that?
'Cos that sounds suspiciously like Xbox live to me.

You can gift Valve products. You can sell the game and gift it to the person when they give you the money. Valve have not come out against this practice to my knowledge.

So no its not like Xbox Live in that regard but yes it does offer the other features of Xbox Live free to consumers.

Once again, you could say that about films. And more to the point this isn't a new thing in the slightest, i don't know why you think games were ever meant to be played more than once, unless you really like it.

Thing is 'replay value' is a myth, you invent it for yourself. You don't need to play any game more than once, the story won't change, it'll be the same old thing. You an try to add interest by purposefully limiting yourself, but that's your call.

Right because no game ever featured multiplayer and nobody ever played a multiplayer game more than once.

Also like a good movie, people will play through a game with a good story again if they feel like it.

Most games however feel story lines are just there as an excuse for the next level. Its up to the consumer if they want to buy that tripe but I still think there are ethics to selling a product and if the games industry doesn't want to follow them then they'll have to be introduced as rights for the consumer IMO.

I don't know where this sense of entitlement comes from "I bought your game, now keep giving me content!", you say that locking games to a console shouldn't be done because "This is not how the consumer market works in any other area", where else does the consumer get petulant if they don't get a constant stream of free stuff after they've bought the product?

Consumers reuse products and as I stated most games don't have replay value and aren't supported after their released. I don't know many other industries that release completely broken products with the intention of patching them post release either. Comparisons to other industries is largely irrelevant given games don't exist except in code and textures.



The real question is why should they be allowed to change it? Why should consumer stand by and let that occur? It doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned to stand by and let something happen that I don't want to occur so of course I'm going to object to it and try get something done.

Most consumers would consider buying a game on disc to be most like buying a movie on disc. You just get a license but you can play the disc in multiple places and sell it on if you wish. That is the model for years and I don't see the justification for changing that.

Neither does Valve or the numerous people that oppose Spores 5 install systesm obviously.

cian1500ww

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Seriously, how do you think this will harm the market? More to the point, i think this is not only possible, but likely and can be done in a manner similar to systems we already have. So, why shouldn't it be done?

There is several reasons why this is a pointless idea. What if a console breaks on a person and they get a replacement. New one comes but none of their games will work on it due to the activation code,you can't swap a game with a mate for a while etc. Just not possible with consoles. It would ruin the market because any console that implemented that would see their sales plummet.

thebman

cian1500ww wrote: »

There is several reasons why this is a pointless idea. What if a console breaks on a person and they get a replacement. New one comes but none of their games will work on it due to the activation code,you can't swap a game with a mate for a while etc. Just not possible with consoles. It would ruin the market because any console that implemented that would see their sales plummet.

Exactly Sony has a patent on this and actually before the release of PS3 and when gamers found out about it they were up in arms to the point that Sony released a press statement saying that it wasn't going to be in the PS3 for fear it would affect sales.

Its not what consumers want so it could never survive in the long run and its bad for a market that is still trying to expand its market and succeeding judging from Wii sales.

thelordofcheese

brim4brim wrote: »

Are you serious? Single use games won't reduce the size of the market? I for one would not buy a license to play a game on one machine. Such an implementation would be incredibly misleading to the consumer who expects when told they are buying a game that they are buying a game.

That they are buying a license to play the game on one machine would need to be clearly stated on the box with a disclaimer saying note your not buying this game but a license to play this game on one machine. Basically you can't change the way an entire market works and not at least try to inform the consumer of your change to your product like EA have done with Spore and its 5 install limit.

This is misleading to the consumer in so many ways and should be illegal (basically already is). You can't advertise a product for sale and then say well actually you didn't buy that, you bought this piece of paper with a code on it :rolleyes: That is misleading to the consumer and not what the box said they were paying for.

This is the way it already works, you never buy the game, just the license to use it, i know i keep saying this, but people never seem to listen. Yes, it's not the way things are done everywhere else but those rules don't apply to software.

Secondly, i still don't get why single use games will reduce the size of the market, you've said it, but not why. I mean, lets look at it this way. Game X sells 100 copies. of the 100 people that bought the game 25 sell it on. So now 125 people have played the game, but the publisher has been paid for the same 100 copies.
In a single use market, 100 copies are sold, the publisher gets paid for 100 copies. Nothing changes, the market size stays the same.
You claim you wouldn't buy a single use game and this protest would reduce the market size, right? Well i say you would, you'd just make justifcations to yourself.
Gamers do it all the time. I still remember people claiming steam was the great satan and it shouldn't be used and if we all boycotted it we wouldn't have to jump through unessicary hoops to play the games we had just paid for.
They now don't bat an eyelid at steam and generally have a massive hardon for it.

Also, roll-eyes are the sign of a diseased mind, don't use them.

brim4brim wrote: »

You can gift Valve products. You can sell the game and gift it to the person when they give you the money. Valve have not come out against this practice to my knowledge.

So no its not like Xbox Live in that regard but yes it does offer the other features of Xbox Live free to consumers.

So there's a small market for 'gifting' games based on trusting people not to be dicks? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's so goddamn tiny that valve can't be arsed caring.

But basically, what i'm getting at here is that most people love steam, why would they then rage so hard against a similar system being implemented on consoles? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.

brim4brim wrote: »

Most games however feel story lines are just there as an excuse for the next level. Its up to the consumer if they want to buy that tripe but I still think there are ethics to selling a product and if the games industry doesn't want to follow them then they'll have to be introduced as rights for the consumer IMO.

Do you have any idea how petualant you sound? "All games don't live up to my standards therefore the games industry is being unethical! We should enforce my standards on the entire industry!"
I have no words for how goddamn retarded this stance is.

Also i want to draw your attention to this:

Also like a good movie, people will play through a game with a good story again if they feel like it.

Your problem is you don't realise that this is entirely subjective. You can't quantify good in a universal sense, some people love terrible things and will play them to death.

Lets take spore. I love spore, i've gotten hours upon hours out of it. Most people hate spore for a myriad of reasons. Now, does that mean spore has no replay value? Well clearly it does, i've replayed it and i'm not the only one.

So we can either be sensible, and realise replay value and the worth of a game is entirely subjective, or we can be a bunch of cocks and assume our opinion on a matter of taste is the definitive one.

brim4brim wrote: »

Most consumers would consider buying a game on disc to be most like buying a movie on disc. You just get a license but you can play the disc in multiple places and sell it on if you wish. That is the model for years and I don't see the justification for changing that.

Neither does Valve or the numerous people that oppose Spores 5 install systesm obviously.

"That's the way it is" is never a good justification for anything, if you want things to stay the same there has to be a justification for it. There has to be a reason that change would be bad for the industry.
Gamers have shown an amazing ability to rage one second and then love what they've been opposing the next. See: Steam, DLC, Consoles games that need HDD's etc etc.

If there is no good reason to keep things the same, then they will change.

thebman

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This is the way it already works, you never buy the game, just the license to use it, i know i keep saying this, but people never seem to listen. Yes, it's not the way things are done everywhere else but those rules don't apply to software.

I never said that it didn't work off licenses. You just didn't read my post fully.

I quite obviously said there was no need to move from a scenario where people buy a physical DVD/Bluray copy of the game and can use it on any console.

To address the steam issue, it isn't limited. You can install that game on any machine once you install steam and you can have it installed on multiple machines at once.

In fact you can go around to a friends house and install steam on a computer there and download the game and as long as you log in with your user id, you can play the game fine and then go home afterwards and play on your machine. Activation codes for console games won't support this type of system so they aren't the same thing at all. Your just pretending they are :rolleyes:

Secondly, i still don't get why single use games will reduce the size of the market, you've said it, but not why. I mean, lets look at it this way. Game X sells 100 copies. of the 100 people that bought the game 25 sell it on. So now 125 people have played the game, but the publisher has been paid for the same 100 copies.
In a single use market, 100 copies are sold, the publisher gets paid for 100 copies. Nothing changes, the market size stays the same.
You claim you wouldn't buy a single use game and this protest would reduce the market size, right? Well i say you would, you'd just make justifcations to yourself.
Gamers do it all the time. I still remember people claiming steam was the great satan and it shouldn't be used and if we all boycotted it we wouldn't have to jump through unessicary hoops to play the games we had just paid for.
They now don't bat an eyelid at steam and generally have a massive hardon for it.

Its quite simple, the total will decrease. One unit sold will still be one unit sold but less people will buy the games. Its more likely that Pc piracy will increase along with Pc gaming and if they refuse to release on Pc, people will go back to playing indie games and old games and mod them until a company with the right attitude releases games with restrictions people can live with.

Steam was crap when it came in and broadband wasn't available in most areas especially in Ireland. What happened is Steam changed to suit the consumer and BB became more available. Steam was hated when it came out precisely because it was too harsh on consumers and many hacked HL2 because of it. As Steam changed, people started to like the changes and felt it was becoming a more acceptable system which is why they are trying to use it.

It isn't rocket science :rolleyes:

Also, roll-eyes are the sign of a diseased mind, don't use them.

I only use them when quoting people that I think have a mental disease :rolleyes:

So there's a small market for 'gifting' games based on trusting people not to be dicks? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's so goddamn tiny that valve can't be arsed caring.

Hurray for you. So your allowed make assumptions and we should accept these as facts because they came from you? :rolleyes:

But basically, what i'm getting at here is that most people love steam, why would they then rage so hard against a similar system being implemented on consoles? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.

Its not a similar system. Your just ignoring the differences to suit your argument. Its basically trolling TBH. :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how petualant you sound? "All games don't live up to my standards therefore the games industry is being unethical! We should enforce my standards on the entire industry!"
I have no words for how goddamn retarded this stance is.

Didn't say that at all. Your just not reading my post properly. You really should look into that.

Also i want to draw your attention to this:

Your problem is you don't realise that this is entirely subjective. You can't quantify good in a universal sense, some people love terrible things and will play them to death.

That isn't my problem. I can clearly see that. The majority of people will still like the same thing. That's the way almost every system in the world works, it would be crazy to suggest there are no trends in gaming that work like this.

Some people can continue loving crazy things if they want. I'm not going to stop them.

Lets take spore. I love spore, i've gotten hours upon hours out of it. Most people hate spore for a myriad of reasons. Now, does that mean spore has no replay value? Well clearly it does, i've replayed it and i'm not the only one.

So we can either be sensible, and realise replay value and the worth of a game is entirely subjective, or we can be a bunch of cocks and assume our opinion on a matter of taste is the definitive one.

Again I never said it wasn't subjective. Your just making this up as you go along. I'm just stating that I don't believe it is the general opinion. As you have just stated yourself, most people don't like Spore and most people is what I'm talking about.

"That's the way it is" is never a good justification for anything, if you want things to stay the same there has to be a justification for it. There has to be a reason that change would be bad for the industry.
Gamers have shown an amazing ability to rage one second and then love what they've been opposing the next. See: Steam, DLC, Consoles games that need HDD's etc etc.

If there is no good reason to keep things the same, then they will change.

No there has to be a reason for change? Why would you change a perfect working system. I know lets put the wheels on top of the car instead of the bottom, if your against it then your against change with no justifcation. :rolleyes:

When they come with an implementation that isn't crap, I'll listen. One install per console per user is an incredibly cruel system that I believe the majority of people would be opposed to. You might love in which case you should definitely promote it and start up your own club or something with badges and yearly membership licenses that meant you never own the badges.

Good luck with it, I'm sure it will be very popular. :rolleyes:

noodler

Use of Roll eyes only makes your argument look weaker.

witnessmenow

You definitly over used my ol buddy here :rolleyes:


BTW, wii fit will get €65 in cash off game apparently

MOH

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Secondly, i still don't get why single use games will reduce the size of the market, you've said it, but not why. I mean, lets look at it this way. Game X sells 100 copies. of the 100 people that bought the game 25 sell it on. So now 125 people have played the game, but the publisher has been paid for the same 100 copies.
In a single use market, 100 copies are sold, the publisher gets paid for 100 copies. Nothing changes, the market size stays the same.
You claim you wouldn't buy a single use game and this protest would reduce the market size, right? Well i say you would, you'd just make justifcations to yourself.

Suppose a new game costs 40 quid, you know you'll get at least 25 second hand in the first week or two after release.

So the net cost to you is 15 quid if you finish with it in the first week. And you're only risking 15 quid if you're not sure whether you'll play it or not.

You'll still get a tenner for it in 6 months time.

Take away second hand sales, the game costs you 40 quid regardless. It's effectively more than doubled in net cost. So you're certainly not going to take a chance on buying any game you're not sure of, and as you're losing out on second hand sales of games you've finished with, you've less cash to spend on new games in general.

Sure, there's a chance some of those people who would have bought the game second hand will buy it new, but most of those were buying it second hand because they couldn't afford to buy it new, and since the net cost to them is now higher, you're not going to recoup too many sales there.

It's pretty obvious to me you're going to lose sales.

Atavan-Halen

Yeah, but if you were to lock games to one console, if your console breaks and you get a replacement, that means you have to go and shell out another €50 - 65 for a new game

Soby

Bit off topic but in Tesco yesterday i saw BioShock brand new for 70 euro:eek:...i mean what fool would that???And then have like Fifa 09 just out for around 40 euro

kendragon

Soby wrote: »

Bit off topic but in Tesco yesterday i saw BioShock brand new for 70 euro:eek:...i mean what fool would that???And then have like Fifa 09 just out for around 40 euro

Yeah tesco can be pretty behind in the times for game prices but the worst offender in my mind is Zavvi. Case in point, Up to a couple of months ago they were selling the original gears of war for 70euro... That was one of the first xbox360 games that came out for crying out loud... and that's only one example of the overpriced games. Also they are cheeky with their special offers. if they are offering a buy one get one free they will inflate the price of the games in that offer so they are no longer a bargain. I honestly don't think I've ever bought a game off them (well their bricks and mortar stores at least)

witnessmenow

kendragon wrote: »

gears of war for 70euro... That was one of the first xbox360 games that came out for crying out loud

A dear price yes, but GOW came out nearly a full year after the 360 launched

Linku

Anywhere giving anything decent for Fallout 3? I assume not as it's €35 new in some shops at the moment.

I bought it at launch, and then bought the CE for €35, so I have a spare sealed copy. Seems like too much hassle to sell it on adverts/ebay but if somewhere was giving €30 I'd be happy

Mitch Connor

XtraVision would only offer me €10 euro for Fallout 3, so i decided to keep them game, €10 is a freaking joke.

Star Lord

Wandeded into Gamestop in Stephens Green the other day, and saw that they have a sticker on the new Wii Animal Crossing game saying it's €3 if you trade in 2 Wii games...

They have the same sticker on the €45 game, and the €70 game + Wii speak box...

Atavan-Halen

I those "trade in 2 games get one free" are stupid, in all places the games your trading in have to have a minimum trade in value (they generally have to be new games) so theres no point really

super_furry

Got offered €23 for Star Wars the Force Unleashed and Mercenaries 2 in GAME today. That's €23 for both.

I've given up on trading in and put them both on eBay.

cian1500ww

Try gamesnash.ie They give very fair prices.

Galvasean

You think game trade in values are bad you should try DVDs. If the movie is over a year old you'll be lucky to get a euro for it.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

super_furry wrote: »

Got offered €23 for Star Wars the Force Unleashed and Mercenaries 2 in GAME today. That's €23 for both.

I've given up on trading in and put them both on eBay.

Try gamesnash.ie They give very fair prices.

€56.00 plus postage allowance would be the current trade in value of those 2 games with ourselves.

krudler

http://www.gamesnash.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=60_25&products_id=315


Yeah right!:eek:

you can pick that up for 20 quid new in Zavvi

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

krudler wrote: »

http://www.gamesnash.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=60_25&products_id=315


Yeah right!:eek:

you can pick that up for 20 quid new in Zavvi

Without being too smart go to Zavvi so

They are the retails being set by the current wholesale cost prices. If Zavvii are sitting on a lot of stock they will be selling their remaining stock below cost price to shift it ( knowing that they have made their money on the title already from the few thousand units they already sold ) It would make financial suicide for us to price match every retailer who was clearing stock out if it meant selling below cost for ourselves.

Thats the best price we can currently do on the title so its there if our customers want it. ( Not many will at the moment if they can pick it up in Zavvi at €20 but we would rather sell 0 at that price than 100 at a loss )

Y2J_MUFC

TBH, I'm not sure why people would ever buy a new release from Gamesnash. I could pick up pretty much every new release on the front page of the 360 list of games for cheaper than they are selling it.

Fallout 3 for 56.99? Its being sold for 37.99 in GAME in Limerick, Gamestop in Limerick for heavans sake. I have seen places selling FIFA'09 new for the same price they are still trying to sell last years FIFA for.

Seeing as nearly all GAMEs, HMVs, Gamestops (and some Xtravisions) have dropped the asking prices for most new releases from 60, to 50-35 (in the Limerick area at least) Gamesnash is now waaaaaaaaaaay overpriced.

Maybe they have to sell games at this price to make a profit, but unless they bring down their prices to match the traditional bricks and mortar retailers, they are more expensive for pretty much all new games.

noodler

Well I hope you guys are hanging in there at Gamesnash anyway. I mean you have some high prices as well as great value for trade ins so I almost wonder how you are remaining viable!

I for one simply can't afford to use you at the minute. I do hope though that you can stick out and eventually get to the stage where you csn source your stock at a much cheaper level.

Y2J_MUFC

noodler wrote: »

I for one simply can't afford to use you at the minute.

To be fair, even if I could afford their high prices, I would choose to give my business to the cheapest place.

At the moment, they are looking like the most expensive for new releases.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Thanks for the feedback guys. We've been open and transparent with our customers from the start and will continue to do so.

The traditional bricks and mortar stores being referred to our huge multi million euro businesses that a) can buy stock cheaper than us and b) can afford to loss lead to clear out any large amounts of remaining stock a few months after release. They also do not have to put up with the higher credit card charges for an online retailer nor the delivery costs too.

Fallout 3 as an example costs us vat inclusive €48.74 to buy in. At €56.99 we make €3.01 per game. ( Allowing for delivery costs / credit card processing fees etc )

We dont carry huge amounts of stock so having to clear out stock from a release that has not sold as well as expected is not an issue for us. We can only price based on our own cost prices. So if fallout 3 is still costing us €48 we are not going to be selling it at €38 - even though it is incredibly frustrating to see other retailers selling something cheaper than we can buy it at !!!! It is very true to say that some of the high street stores have lowered their retail prices recently in the face of a declining economy etc - a lot of this is due to the fact that they have committed to or have bought a lot more stock than they find they can sell. This will balance out early in the new year.

We are growing our business steadily based on our customer service level - ie new releases being delivered on or before release day. We also try our best to be as competitive as possible - there are times that we simply cant beat a price - if we tried to everytime we would go out of business !! Some people prefer shopping from home and taking the hassle away from a crowded shopping centre. I suppose the only way we can put it is that our target market is one that is service driven.

That said it is not the case that every item we sell is dearer than every retailer out there as some readers may get that impression We have our own offers and prices which beat other retailers.

Our plan is to keep going, keep growing the customer base and offer the best prices we possibly can. As we grow, our purchasing power grows which means we can pass on those savings.

When we started we looked at how were we going to compete with the big players. We knew we would not be able to compete for every item on price alone but we decided that if we could not beat a price we would beat the service. The economic times we currently live in are a very big challenge to us because price is becoming more of an issue than service.

Its something we are aware of and it is something that may force us to rethink our business plan which was to grow to the volumes the bigger guys have from our own efforts. It may be that we need to take in a large cash investment to get the purchasing power we need to compete on price as well as service sooner rather than later. I've probably said too much in that last paragraph but suffice to say we are looking into all avenues.

Either way we remain committed to our goal - which is to be an Irish retailer based in Ireland who not only offer the best prices but offer the best customer service too. We will get there.

/ shakes fist defiantly

Y2J_MUFC

Well, at least you are being honest. Nearly every time someone asks where to buy a game on this forum, 20 people reply with Gamesnash is great, etc, etc, which is all well and good, but I just wanted to point out, that for new releases, its smart to look around as some real bargains can be got else where these days.

You do seem to offer value for people looking to trade in games though, so fair play for that.

Now if you could only match the usual suspects new & lower prices (GAME, Gamestop, etc) with your high value offered for trade-in's.....you'd be onto a real winner there.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

Well, at least you are being honest. Nearly every time someone asks where to buy a game on this forum, 20 people reply with Gamesnash is great, etc, etc, which is all well and good, but I just wanted to point out, that for new releases, its smart to look around as some real bargains can be got else where these days.

You do seem to offer value for people looking to trade in games though, so fair play for that.

Now if you could only match the usual suspects new & lower prices (GAME, Gamestop, etc) with your high value offered for trade-in's.....you'd be onto a real winner there.

That's more than fair to say. Your absolutely right that there are bargains to be had - its a consumers world out there at the moment and if you have the time / energy to really look around there are savings to be made

It's great for us to see the positive feedback when it comes. The 20 people replying to those threads are proof to us that what we're doing is working so far for them. The further lowering of the prices we're sure we can achieve in the next year so again we're confident of a bright future.

krudler

Gamesnash.ie wrote: »

Without being too smart go to Zavvi so

They are the retails being set by the current wholesale cost prices. If Zavvii are sitting on a lot of stock they will be selling their remaining stock below cost price to shift it ( knowing that they have made their money on the title already from the few thousand units they already sold ) It would make financial suicide for us to price match every retailer who was clearing stock out if it meant selling below cost for ourselves.

Thats the best price we can currently do on the title so its there if our customers want it. ( Not many will at the moment if they can pick it up in Zavvi at €20 but we would rather sell 0 at that price than 100 at a loss )

surely the fact that Assassins Creed is now a budget title means you're selling it way over its retail value? its brand new for less than 30 euro in hmv, game,gamestop,zavvi,xtravision and pretty much anywhere selling games, its not the fact they have it to sell its the fact it simply isnt that price anymore