They already de-facto did this. There were times where Best Buy and Walmart had supply, but you had to sign up for a subscription service like Walmart+ to be able to purchase. GameStop had a few "bundles" with a bunch of items that you wouldn't otherwise purchase, effectively raising the price. It just didn't make a dent when the actual eBay margin was $X00 over the retailer pricing
I don't find that a very convincing case, and $50 sounds like a pipedream even then.
BestBuy already exists and sells all that stuff. Along with Newegg, Amazon, Steam, Epic, Greenman gaming, Origin, etc. How do they avoid just becoming another also-ran?
Another company that had pretty good e-commerce side, with some pretty attractive deals on good stuff, that's going through bankruptcy right now is JCPenney(being sold).
The GameStop brand is prob their most valuable asset. Maybe their best bet is to position for a sale.
I'm kinda curious what role Gamestop would be considered essential when you have alternative ways to purchase games such as Steam, XBox/Playstation stores and just simply Amazon.
At this point it wouldn't be worth the risk to allow people to get games at a slightly better price because it is used at Gamestop.
Right, Gamestop used to have an advantage in being the retailer that did trade in games, but from what I've seen -- both Best Buy and Walmart have expressed interest in getting into that end of the business. So I think that not only will that advantage eventually go away, but they might become less competitive. Gamestop derives all their business from games whereas competitors do not. They might be able to offer better trade in prices than Gamestop.
That's what I meant about the economics of it. Of course, that's only part of the picture. It's true that resale value must figure into the new value, but it also might depress demand for new sales.
Coming at it from another angle, Gamestop makes a lot of money from second-hand sales. That's money that the game and console makers don't get to make and they want it.
I was wondering if GameStop would use their once in a lifetime overpriced valuation to raise money to invest in a game streaming platform (ie Netflix for games).
I wonder if this will kill the second hand games market the same way Netflix murdered Blockbuster.
I don't really know how quickly you can buy a second hand game for a reasonable discount, but if games people currently buy second hand appear in a subscription instead I think that means GameStop is dead since that's their main driver of profit AFAIK.
No gamer loves GameStop, where’d you get that idea? They are known for buying back your 60$ blockbuster game after a month for $3, and reselling for $55.
They should be dead in the water, and the shorts will eventually be correct, if they can’t pivot to a digital presence (which they can’t, because why would anyone go outside of the native platform stores?)
GameStop can issue shares at the higher price and use the cash to revitalise their business. Note I'm not familiar with the company so I can't assess whether the company is salvageable.
Why would anyone accept Gamestop stock as compensation for anything right now? Especially when they almost-definitely wouldn't be able to turn around and sell it right away.
Wouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
Yes there is. At current prices it would be a disaster and Ryan Cohen and his 2 other mates on the board would likely block that. If share price hits $100 would make more sense. In effect GameStop would save the shorts who wanted the company to die in the first place.
Also, for this to stop the short squeeze the company would need to issue 30% of their float and then the shorts would still need to find another 100% of float to cover fully. The shorting emperors are left without clothes any way you cut it.
reply