EXTREMELY bad news for CAGs and all bargain lovers

[quote name='Strell']Haha I like this statement, and question its origin.[/QUOTE]Squidbillies, oddly enough.
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']Can I smell hate towards conservatives? :lol:

I'm not against or pro any side, but yes this does suck... will it have a huge impact... I doubt it until 5 or 10 years from now.[/quote]

Truth be told I hate the entire two-party system. All it is like Bloods vs. Crips, just with old guys in suits who like interns.
 
[quote name='Graystone']This is a sad day. This is goodbye to small business, and to CAG. Well its been fun .[/quote]

I don't understand these "woe is me goodbye to this website!" posts.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']While it will suck for us in the short-run, it probably won't have too much of an impact on the overall market. You go to sites that make you add something to your cart to get a cheaper price, right? It's the same thing. Store will add coupons, discounts, special offers to get around these agreements if the items aren't selling short-term, and will renegotiate lower floors long-term, or the suppliers risk not having their product sold at all.[/quote]

Bingo. Don't everybody get too worked up over this. If this does end up becoming a problem for retailers (and it will if suppliers/manufacturers really push this) they'll just stop agreeing to the pre-arrangements and the market will correct itself. The US economy is a juggernaut that can't possibly be reigned in by a limited number of greedy, short-sighted individuals.

This opinion is comng from someone who is very much a fiscal conservative.
 
[quote name='jmcc']As I understand it that's not exactly true in practice. It would be called "not giving a crap what they say." They have no enforcement power and should they come up with a wacky judgement like "negroes banned from public schools" the enforcement bodies would be free to say "take that weak shit to the park, maybe the squirrels will care."[/quote]

Well, of course. It's not like there's a Supreme Court Army. And many times their judgments must be interpreted and implemented by the legislative or executive branch (or, as in this case, lower courts). But in terms of legal decisions, they're the end of the road, bub, and only they have the power to controvene their own decisions (or previous Supreme Court decisions).
 
It probably won't make a big impact, and if it does it probably won't be anytime soon. Like everyone is saying if crappy products won't sale and they are taking up space, it's either destroy them or mark them down. Still a load of BS though.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Bingo. Don't everybody get too worked up over this. If this does end up becoming a problem for retailers (and it will if suppliers/manufacturers really push this) they'll just stop agreeing to the pre-arrangements and the market will correct itself. The US economy is a juggernaut that can't possibly be reigned in by a limited number of greedy, short-sighted individuals.

This opinion is comng from someone who is very much a fiscal conservative.[/QUOTE]

I'll be in Atlanta next week. Still want me to bring the wheel?
 
[quote name='mikej012']I think that's when Congress would pass a new law saying they could go to public schools. But then the supreme court would rule the law unconstitutional. But then Congress would pass a new amendment. But then the president would veto it. But then Congress would override his veto....[/quote]

Supreme Court names George Bush president...President George Bush names two conservatives to the Supreme Court.

:cry:
 
i doubt you will see much impact...

Now

1 million games

50 bucks 400,000 sell
40 bucks 100,000 sell
30 bucks 150,000 sell
20 bucks 250,000 sell
10 bucks 100,00 sell

They put a price floor at 30 .... that now means every game they make they will get 350,000 copies back

if that happens i think your going to see the game market dry up pretty quickly

and i think most compaines would rather have 6,000,000 bucks in cash then 350,000 copies of their game just taking up space

There might be a law but i doubt you will ever see it get inforced
 
[quote name='slidecage']i doubt you will see much impact...

Now

1 million games

50 bucks 400,000 sell
40 bucks 100,000 sell
30 bucks 150,000 sell
20 bucks 250,000 sell
10 bucks 100,00 sell

They put a price floor at 30 .... that now means every game they make they will get 350,000 copies back

if that happens i think your going to see the game market dry up pretty quickly[/quote]

Wait...Seeing visions of...E.T......desert....
 
In theory this has no effect on USED games through, right? They never had any say on that in the first place.

Therefore, you're still going to have b2g1 free and weird pricing in the second hard market.
 
This pits the retailer and the distributor against each other.

Lets say that Retailer has too much stock and wants to lower the price but they cant get the other end to agree.

From this point, you have several options:
1) Sell it anyway and subsidize the loss yourself
2) Bully the manufacturer regarding the future carrying of their products
3) Do like Target and donate it to Goodwill and write the retail value off on your taxes.

The market continues to work.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In theory this has no effect on USED games through, right? They never had any say on that in the first place.

Therefore, you're still going to have b2g1 free and weird pricing in the second hard market.[/quote]Your Gamecrazy(rush?) credit has been zero'ed.
 
[quote name='I AM WILLIAM H. MACY']Uh oh.

Well, goodbye Cheap-Ass-Gaming community. If this is indeed true, this site, FW, SD, and all the other bargain sites are done. We shall see how much longer this site has left[/quote]How fast does the sky fall in your world?
 
eBay, Gamestop, Gamecrazy... all these places will still sell the used copies cheaper.

It will be senseless to have games set at $50 forever if they don't sell. This means the cheapest we will probably find games NEW is $19.99 if the game sellers don't allow for "clearance" type prices... which sucks ass.
 
slidecage your theory is wrong. retailers will now have the OPTION to set price floors, it's not compulsatory. I could see something like you described being done for the AAA titles, but not for every single game. I also think that the outcome would be different than you describe. I'm no fan of this, but it's not like it hasn't been going on already, it's just not discussed as such. Anti-trust laws haven't been stridently enforced for a while now. You always see the AD saying "price too low to advertise," because the manufacturer made the retailer sign a contract providing for the lowest advertised price. which is "effectively" a price floor.

I do see this being a problem for the Lion games of the world though. No longer can retailers take a loss on a product by passing the savings onto the consumer in order to advertise, because they won't be able to sell it at that lower price. If Halo 3 can only be sold for $50 bucks everywhere, I'd go take to target and pay 50 bucks and get a 10 dollar gift card rather than just pay tony 50 bucks. Big retailers will find a way around this ala 1600 points for 5 bucks, giftcards, etc. It's the mom and pop that will suffer. Like always.

I wonder how this will apply to the used market as well. Anything in the decision regarding the resellers?? Could large e-bay sellers be included if that is the case?

The Free market will one day Fall! I want to play the videogame of the proletariat!
 
This could really hurt the warehouse stores like Sams & Costco. Places that buy big quanities of merchandise so they can sell cheaper will no longer be able to do so if the price is fixed at a base price.
 
[quote name='Krymner']This could really hurt the warehouse stores like Sams & Costco. Places that buy big quanities of merchandise so they can sell cheaper will no longer be able to do so if the price is fixed at a base price.[/QUOTE]
Sam's Club is owned by Wal-Mart...I'm guessing they'll make it through somehow, if only because of the sheer power Wal-Mart has. It's probably better to bow to them than to try and ignore a retailer that's got that big of a grasp on the market.

I think it's too early to predict how or when we'll see the effects of this ruling. For the time being, I'm going to sit back and see how this unfolds.
 
[quote name='Moxio']Better service? Yeah I'm pretty sure my local WalMart will start giving a shit about me now.[/quote]


i was just thinking this probably has alot to do with walmarts. one of walmarts biggest weapons against smaller stores is being able to supply the same goods at lower prices if everyone is selliing things at the same price then what would be the reason to go to a walmart over a mom and pops store? but aside from that this is bullshit and its hard to look at this and not see how were being screwed from basic rights and liberties left and right.

its like bush is doing his best to screw everyone over with the little time he has left in office. or maybe this is the way they keep the have nots from affording the things that the haves want to own exclusively. but then again wouldnt not allowing stores to sell things at whatever price they want to be a violation of their rights as well?
 
I like how people just make things up about what will happen. I had a long-ass reply to some of the statements made in this thread, but it's kind of pointless, ain't it? I'll say this:

1. The sky isn't going to fall on cheap games. I wouldn't expect a ton of CC $5 clearances, but don't expect a $50 Madden 2009 in 2011.

2. Prices aren't going to go up and down like many of you seem to think they will. It seems like many of you think that if on Tuesday they want to set the price of X to $X, it'll be $X Weds. That's not the case. Prices, like wages, are rigid downward.

3.The problem with price floors in relation to prices is not in the realm of high-margin consumer eelctronics, it's in goods with relatively inelastic demand functions.

4.Price floors can cause a re-allocation of resources. History shows us this, and it starts from the Mercantile period. The console price issue doesn't work as it is a tenuous agreement between the producer and supplier. They are not regulated to keeping it a certain price, but if they discount it it can cause a falling out between the two. A company is not required to sell to a business, and if it's a popular product the distributor is caught up. I'd almost call that vicarious collusion.

5.Price-Floors, while allowing small businesses to form(offering at best economies of scale, and more reasonably, constant returns to scale), also destroys them
. If Small Store has only good X, and Big Box Retailer has good X and Y, and you need both and they're both the same price then (assuming location etc equal) there's no need to go to store A. Essentially, this favors major chains(most specialty retailers are excluded from this as they relatively do not have to compete at the price level since they serve a niche market more willing to pay MSRP). Then there's internet retailers, hell, it even says it'll pinch them in the damn article.


Expect an increase in retail prices of goods that you need instead of goods that you want, not immediately, but within the next year or two. Also, if you have a favorite item that you only buy when "on sale" and you always see them overstocked; expect them to disappear and something else to come out as the producer tries to rework it or move into something else.

It's not doom and gloom, but it sucks. And, for the record, government does not need to stay out of business completely. Sometimes markets fail.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']While it will suck for us in the short-run, it probably won't have too much of an impact on the overall market. You go to sites that make you add something to your cart to get a cheaper price, right? It's the same thing. Store will add coupons, discounts, special offers to get around these agreements if the items aren't selling short-term, and will renegotiate lower floors long-term, or the suppliers risk not having their product sold at all.[/quote]

Eggsaklee. Supply & Demand controls the market at the end of the day, not some dipshits in Washington. They can take away low prices if they want, people just won't buy as much and prices will eventually have to fall. Simple economics.
 
[quote name='Zenithian Legend']Eggsaklee. Supply & Demand controls the market at the end of the day, not some dipshits in Washington. They can take away low prices if they want, people just won't buy as much and prices will eventually have to fall. Simple economics.[/quote]

Yup! That's why gas is so cheap!






Oh. Wait...
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In theory this has no effect on USED games through, right? They never had any say on that in the first place.

Therefore, you're still going to have b2g1 free and weird pricing in the second hard market.[/QUOTE]


I wonder if stores would just start ripping open new games and saying they are used : ) away to get around the law
 
[quote name='Tybee']You can't appeal a Supreme Court decision. That's what makes it the SUPREME COURT. :roll:[/quote]

That's what happens if you don't read it entirely and throughly. My bad.
 
I predict riots and rebellion when 1000s of copies of Generic DS Puzzle title #3927, Tom Clancy's Terrorist Killing Game 23, and Madden 2008, 2009, and 2010 are pouring out the windows at retailers everywhere, with full price tags attached.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']When did our demand for gas suddenly drop off again? :roll:[/quote]

That's my point. The demand for milk, bread, meat, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. is not going to drop off, or even decline slightly. These are things people need, and (to a degree) people will be forced to pay whatever price the market can get away with. Will they become completely unaffordable? No. But they will demand a greater portion of the average household's income -- as gas has over the past decade -- outpacing the price inflation of non-essential goods.
 
While this is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen, it shouldn't do anything to game prices.

Game companioes thrive off new release sales and even though prices drop relatively fast new games still sell really well (I never understood why)

Nobody on any side of the equation is going to keep the minimum price high on older games because they won't sell. Every game that hits $20 greatest hits racks sells a ton more once it does.

Also the major retailers will fight back if they aren't allowed to clearance items due to a floor and ask for some kind of return policy for unsold games (far worse for the company)

As others have said this would hurt milk and bread prices far more than games. What I wonder is what companies are going to band together and be the first to set a floor on a major product and deal with the media backlash.
 
Having worked at the corporate level for a large retailer I can tell you that there are companies, most notoriously Apple, that have been practicing similar methods unofficially for years. It's a part of brand maintenance, in that having stores habitually sell the item at a reduced price will dilute the brand power and make customers less likely to pay usual MSRP prices. Sale prices are usually approved by, and sometimes even subsidized by, the producer. The main difference I can tell from looking quickly at the ruling is that producers can now enter into binding contracts with retailers, where as previously they would simply refuse providing the retailer with any future stock. With many of these products though the retailers wouldn't sell it at much below MSRP anyways, since for example on something like the iPod the margin is so low that dropping the price will give the store a loss on the sale.
 
[quote name='rickc25']Having worked at the corporate level for a large retailer I can tell you that there are companies, most notoriously Apple, that have been practicing similar methods unofficially for years. It's a part of brand maintenance, in that having stores habitually sell the item at a reduced price will dilute the brand power and make customers less likely to pay usual MSRP prices. Sale prices are usually approved by, and sometimes even subsidized by, the producer. The main difference I can tell from looking quickly at the ruling is that producers can now enter into binding contracts with retailers, where as previously they would simply refuse providing the retailer with any future stock. With many of these products though the retailers wouldn't sell it at much below MSRP anyways, since for example on something like the iPod the margin is so low that dropping the price will give the store a loss on the sale.[/quote]

Good example. I've wanted an Mac for years, but when I look at what it would cost to get one and compare that with the specs of a PC I could get for the same price (or even half the price), I can't justify the expense. Now what happens if Dell and HP and other computer producers start leveling the same kinds of price floors? Theoretically, this might stimulate competition, but I think in the process the overall price of computers in general will rise.
 
Was away for awhile, so apologies if this has already been brought up, but if the next generation of console/PC gaming is heading towards direct-to-hard-drive only, this would soon be pretty moot for 'us', no? Of course, that scenario would instantly kill sites like this, so...let's not think about it too much.
 
[quote name='rickc25']Having worked at the corporate level for a large retailer I can tell you that there are companies, most notoriously Apple, that have been practicing similar methods unofficially for years. It's a part of brand maintenance, in that having stores habitually sell the item at a reduced price will dilute the brand power and make customers less likely to pay usual MSRP prices. Sale prices are usually approved by, and sometimes even subsidized by, the producer. The main difference I can tell from looking quickly at the ruling is that producers can now enter into binding contracts with retailers, where as previously they would simply refuse providing the retailer with any future stock. With many of these products though the retailers wouldn't sell it at much below MSRP anyways, since for example on something like the iPod the margin is so low that dropping the price will give the store a loss on the sale.[/quote]
Good points. I'm enjoying the irony of this being argued on a videogame board. All videogame console pricing is done exactly this way!!:rofl: The prices don't drop until Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony say so. I'm not saying I want to see this happen marketwide, I just can't believe no one has pointed this out in 5 pages.:lol:
 
in one way this could possibly be good for us. As was mentioned earlier in this thread store's offering coupons, rebates and such would likely not be bound by this law. IE there will likely be many times where said coupon will be able to get used for something else giving us some new items for cheap kinda like the Target raincheck policy.

hmm we will see I guess
 
[quote name='neocisco']The prices don't drop until Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony say so.[/quote]

Yeah, but the general fear is that now big companies will have little to no incentive for the kind of "fire sales" or significant discounts CAGs are used to. Whether that fear has any basis in reality is the debate, and I am on the side that things aren't going to change much for video games since they are not considered "essential" items that people will tolerate that kind of behavior. As others already pointed out, PS3 is one example (though it's still selling okay despite the high MSRP).

My concern is more the sudden sway the Bush Administration and Conservatives now have on the Supreme Court. I'm not against republicans by any means, but if these kinds of long standing rulings are now going to get overturned...well, let's just say I'm not ready to go all Chicken Little on Washington now, but I am concerned.
 
[quote name='Tybee']That's my point. The demand for milk, bread, meat, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. is not going to drop off, or even decline slightly. These are things people need, and (to a degree) people will be forced to pay whatever price the market can get away with. Will they become completely unaffordable? No. But they will demand a greater portion of the average household's income -- as gas has over the past decade -- outpacing the price inflation of non-essential goods.[/QUOTE]


None of those industries are ran by a cartel outside of the US either though. Nor are they taxed like gas.
 
Well, that sucks...

I don't know much about business, but can't the retail stores just send the products that don't sell back to the manufacturer? The manufacturer would then have to drop the minimum price just to keep their product in stock.

If that's how it works, we should still see cheap video games and other things, but I do worry about how this will affect the pricing of our necessities rather than our wants.
 
[quote name='yukine']
I don't know much about business, but can't the retail stores just send the products that don't sell back to the manufacturer? The manufacturer would then have to drop the minimum price just to keep their product in stock.

[/QUOTE]

Most products do not work that way, especially video games. I don't remember what site it was, but remember that place that stopped selling games online for that very reason? They could not send a game back and just had to deal with dropping the prices and taking the loss.
 
[quote name='Satoru Iwata']...once the suggested retail price is announced, we should stick to it.... If the suggested retail price of any and all software is marked down in 6 months or 9 months, the customers will learn the cycle and wait for the discounting which will simply aggravate the decreasing sales of new software.[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name=' Satoru Iwata']...once the suggested retail price is announced, we should stick to it.... If the suggested retail price of any and all software is marked down in 6 months or 9 months, the customers will learn the cycle and wait for the discounting which will simply aggravate the decreasing sales of new software.[/QUOTE]

...
 
[quote name='Scrubking']...[/QUOTE]

Are you honestly implying a businessman in Japan has something to do with this?
 
Well I don't think in the long run this will affect most video games. I mean, first you have to get all/most retailers in a meeting and I'm sure not all will participate. Then you have to say things like, "Let's agree not to sell Suikoden V for under $10 k?" They then all have to agree, and it's not like the agreed price floor is a law. So some will probably cheat (at least I hope so). I guess what I'm trying to say is, the chances of this applies to games, especially non-mainstream ones (which is most games), is rather low IMO.

Lastly, anyone know if the "Game Theory" applies to this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top