I fail to see how dwadle is radically different from the GameStop model. They only make 12% on a used game sale, so what? They are just cheaper than GameStop. They have the same incentive advertising the purchase of used games over new games as GameStop does. I don't think they are in a position to point fingers at their competitors as is done in the article.
It is nice that you get real cash instead of store credit. On the other hand, as a seller you are competing with other sellers so you don't get instant credit like at GameStop.
It's a choice everyone interested should be able to make for themselves. The remarks towards GameStop are uncalled for though. They should compete on a service/product level and not pull out some twisted ethical argument how they are better for the gaming industry.
No, if a new game sells on Dawdle for $60, we make $7.20. If a used game sells on Dawdle for $55, we make $6.60.
Technically, we'd favor new games because our commission dollars are higher. But our margins are not. We're like the real estate broker; we make money by finding market-clearing prices. Higher prices are naturally better, but we can't control that. Our goal is to reduce friction.
Lastly, there absolutely is an ethical argument here. The publishers send traffic to GameStop, then GameStop sales reps push used games. That's what gets Dave Perry and all the other publishers who are willing to speak out so angry.
Dawdle is a good thing for gaming culture because it stocks classic games that are valuable to people who seek to broaden their horizons with a wider variety of titles. GameStop merely pushes the "hot" games. GameStop doesn't even sell games that don't get preordered at their stores. GameStop is utterly devoid of any real cultural value to gamers.
Which is sad because it didn't always feel this way. GameStop still employs gamers, so it is easy to miss this. The racks they keep for the previous generation consoles isn't as prominant anymore.
Funcoland had a great feel to it. They always had several TV's with games on them. I think I played Super Mario RPG first there. It was weird compared to what I expected, but that was a great game.
Moreover, its a ridiculous comparison even if you leave aside the "More Profits Are Evil" hidden agenda.
Gamestop is retail. They need higher margins to pay for retail rents. Dawdle is online. It should be cheaper. This is called positioning. It doesnt make one side better or worse ethically, and to shine Gamestop in that light is absurd.
I could find the same item in Boutique stores, on Amazon, or at target for many things -- but I would expect different prices at these stores based on my level of convenience, their operating model, etc.
Moreover, to say that any second-hand market is 'bad' for the new-item market is a big who cares to me. Its not my problem as a consumer that the economics of the retail game trade make more sense for me than they do for game publishers -- its their problem to adapt around it.
I'm not trying to sound rude, but this whole article is written like a kid having a tantrum. The fact that Dawdle is more economical should be enough of a point, they dont need to get into how 'bad' gamestop is for the world. Not only does it confuse the issue about addressing superior model (according to them), it also leads the reader to discount the whole article becuase of inane bias.
