GAME UK blackmails publishers to release games on Steam later

[BlueStar]

GAME are dicks.

- Firstly they have "lowest price guarantee" on all of their price stickers, in spite of the fact that they retail all new games at their crazy £44.99 or whatever RRP and they're cheaper pretty much anywhere else. They say the claim means they'll price match a shop in the same area (ignoring the fact that it's always cheaper online). But why would you do that when you could just go to the other shop? It's just to fool parents into thinking "Oh, this must be the cheapest you can get it then." Of course it might be the lowest price you can get in the area because...

- They've bought up most of the compeition in a move that should never have gotten past the monopolies and mergers commision. Since they gobbled up EB there were two dedicated games stores on your high street competing, Game and Gamestation. Game then bought GameStation, so instead of having a Game, and then three shops down a Gamestation, where customers coulld make a choice, you basically have a Game and then another Game, with a different name, on the same street. In many places they completely control every specialist game retailer in the city. Lukcily in the north you have Grainger Games - which started off as a small stall in Newcastle's smelly Grainger Market and has become a decent competitor. But this market stranglehold allows them to pull shit like the OP and...

- They sell rip off bundles when no other stores can get consoles. Remember the Wii and DS Lite were sold out everywhere over Christmas? Game used their dominant market position to demand huge stock levels, which they horded. Very quickly they sold out of consoles. But they still had "bundles" funnily enough. So if you wanted a Wii or DS ite for your kid for Christmas, you could ONLY get them at Game and you could ONLY buy them as part of a bundle including loads of shit you didn't want, like 5 shovelware titles, two crappy cases, an extra stylus set, a charging dock and all kinds of shit.

 

[Deleted-188346]

It's amazing that people actually believe the OP, when it has absolutely no sources, and Game have denied it too. If anybody had proof, or even any evidence that this was remotely true, then somebody would have challenged Game on their denial already.

- They've bought up most of the compeition in a move that should never have gotten past the monopolies and mergers commision.

This happens all the time. Companies don't buy out other companies so they can give the employees a better life. They do it to eliminate potential or current competition. It's just how business works. The Competition Commission will only step in if they pull off something similiar to Microsoft.

 

[BlueStar]

It's amazing that people actually believe the OP, when it has absolutely no sources, and Game have denied it too. If anybody had proof, or even any evidence that this was remotely true, then somebody would have challenged Game on their denial already.

Because they've got form for it, as I listed above. Also, from a guy off another board who used to work at the Game in my home town.

GAME have done shit like this for as long as I can remember. When I worked there they used to blackmail EA all the time to get lower buy in prices. Be like:

"You really think we're going to pay £37.65 a unit for this game?"
"Yes."
"No. In fact, to punish your insolence, we're going to remove all EA titles from the shop floor for a week, and then replace them on a lower shelf space."
QUOTE

- They've bought up most of the compeition in a move that should never have gotten past the monopolies and mergers commision.

This happens all the time. Companies don't buy out other companies so they can give the employees a better life. They do it to eliminate potential or current competition. It's just how business works. The Competition Commission will only step in if they pull off something similiar to Microsoft.

Don't know what it's like over there, but taking control of all of a certain type of business in one city is exactly the kind of thing the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission intervenes in on a regular basis to maintain a healthy level of competition. That's why there are rules ensuring you can't have two of the same type of supermarket within so many miles of each other. If every supermarket you go to for 50 miles is a Tesco, Tesco can charge you whatever they want.

Business does not "work" by totally wiping out competition and removing customer choice.

 

[Psyfira]

This makes no sense, I don't buy many PC games so I might be wrong but the last time I looked GAME and Steam were both charging RRP on new releases, whereas other online retailers were often a few quid cheaper and still delivered on release day.

I'm not saying it isn't true, but I dont think Steam is the one they need to worry about.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Because they've got form for it, as I listed above. Also, from a guy off another board who used to work at the Game in my home town.

Form isn't evidence. There is no proof at all, it's just unbased, sensationalist, and ignorant assumptions based on what people "think" they are doing.
Did this guy work at Game in the retail stores? Or working at Game in the offices?
Infact, either way, he wouldn't have known. When a company is performing blackmail, it generally isn't passed around the office casually.

Business does not "work" by totally wiping out competition and removing customer choice.

I never said that anybody bought out "all" the competition. But companies do buy out the competition, and it is a part of business.
There is, however, a limit on how far a company can go. If that threshold is reached, then The Competition Commission will step in. Obviously, Game has not reached that threshold.

Unless...oh mah gawd, The Competition Commision is also being blackmailed by Game...!? *posts new thread, labelled as fact*

QUOTE

GAME have done shit like this for as long as I can remember. When I worked there they used to blackmail EA all the time to get lower buy in prices. Be like:

"You really think we're going to pay £37.65 a unit for this game?"
"Yes."
"No. In fact, to punish your insolence, we're going to remove all EA titles from the shop floor for a week, and then replace them on a lower shelf space."

Again, what department did this guy work in? The most common position that forum posters hold is retail, and given that the retail outlets of a significantly large company generally do not negotiate price with publishers, I'm somewhat suspicious that he is lying.

Even if the retail store DID negotiate with the publisher...why would EA care if a single Game store was playing hardball?
Infact, wouldn't EA just inform The Office Of Fair Trading if Game openly stated that?

 

[BlueStar]

Form isn't evidence. There is no proof at all, it's just unbased, sensationalist, and ignorant assumptions based on what people "think" they are doing.

What proof have Game given? The acid test will be when the games in question come out, will it not?

Did this guy work at Game in the retail stores? Or working at Game in the offices?
Infact, either way, he wouldn't have known. When a company is performing blackmail, it generally isn't passed around the office casually.

He worked in store. If you're going to take products off store shelves, you need to tell the people working in the stores about it. It's not illegal blackmail, it's negotiation. But it's not the kind of negotiation customers would like to think goes on. If you think rank and file staff would not be informed about this kind of thing, I doubt you've worked for a big ccompany, if you're old enough to have a job.

QUOTE

I never said that anybody bought out "all" the competition. But companies do buy out the competition, and it is a part of business.
There is, however, a limit on how far a company can go. If that threshold is reached, then The Competition Commission will step in. Obviously, Game has not reached that threshold.

Oh, well. Obviously OJ Simpson didn't murder those people. Obviously Saddam Hussain had WMDs, because otherwise we wouldn't have invaded.

Takeovers have been blocked for much, much less and there was great surprise in the industry when the takeover of GameStation was allowed to go ahead.

In the anti-trust act, the main argument that tipped the ruling in Game's favour in 2007 was that competition would still come from WH Smiths and Woolworths, even though there were no other games-only retailers. Woolworths no longer exists, and WH Smiths have now closed their games section.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Blackmailing? Well, its pure business lol.
They wanna sell more copies..
Here in the UK bigger businesses have the power to prevent any possible competition from getting to the stage where they genuinely pose a threat. That's one of the reasons that Google Talk and Netflix aren't yet available to us.
Sure it's in their interest to make money, but there is a point at which measures like this are labelled as dick-moves and are genuinely abusive. - Unfortunately this point still offers a little flexibility before legal measures can be taken.

Hehe Game over in Australia doesnt have that sort of power!
Not yet, but if they ever feel that Steam is a threat (and I know quite a few Australians who exclusively buy PC games from Steam), then similar moves may be taken.

QUOTE(spinal_cord @ Aug 25 2011, 12:57 PM)

1. Don't buy PC games from Game
2. Don't by games from THQ (is there even a single good non-wrestling THQ game?)

1) Nobody in their right mind should be doing this anyway
2) Nope.


It's a real shame that legacy companies like GAME can't get with the program, I mean at least Dixons/PC World/Currys has attempted to start a Digital Distribution store (and you don't see them stifling the competition - although that could be because the majority of their competition is self created). Why bother going to a store and buying a game when you can load a game shortly after pre-ordering, and play the second it's released?

 

[Jamstruth]

I'm getting really confused by the language of this entire discussion. Namely one word: Blackmail. I have seen no mention of ANY relation to blackmail. They've talked to publishers regarding the release of their games on Steam and this appears to have resulted in them being unavailable in the UK (makes sense and GAME is a UK retailer). There's no evidence of them forcing publishers to stop releasing the games on Steam. What hold could they possibly have over them anyway? Game: "Give us 1 month of retail only release or...we'll not stock your game at all!!" Publisher: "So we'll sell it to other retailers and make money off our Direct to Drive sales as well. Its you who loses out in the end".
Here's what MAY have happened though. GAME paid them to do this. Makes more sense than blackmail, don't you think?

 

[BlueStar]

I'm getting really confused by the language of this entire discussion. Namely one word: Blackmail. I have seen no mention of ANY relation to blackmail. They've talked to publishers regarding the release of their games on Steam and this appears to have resulted in them being unavailable in the UK (makes sense and GAME is a UK retailer). There's no evidence of them forcing publishers to stop releasing the games on Steam. What hold could they possibly have over them anyway? Game: "Give us 1 month of retail only release or...we'll not stock your game at all!!" Publisher: "So we'll sell it to other retailers and make money off our Direct to Drive sales as well. Its you who loses out in the end".
Here's what MAY have happened though. GAME paid them to do this. Makes more sense than blackmail, don't you think?

Game have a huge amount of muscle in the industry because they own every single games shop in all but a small part of the country (The north/north east and central Scotland). And yes, you and me may buy games off Steam, from play.com or whatever. But there's a huge audience who literally just walk into a shop and make their decision on what to buy for themself or someone else based on what's there. If Game doesn't stock FIFA, thousands of people will (rather than going to buy FIFA online) buy Pro Evo instead. So if Game tells you to do something or they won't shift your units in the UK, you do it.

 

[Deleted-188346]

What proof have Game given? The acid test will be when the games in question come out, will it not?
What proof could Game possibly give? A tape with a recording of white noise, labelled "the conversation regarding blackmail with Steam publishers"?

He worked in store. If you're going to take products off store shelves, you need to tell the people working in the stores about it. It's not illegal blackmail, it's negotiation. But it's not the kind of negotiation customers would like to think goes on.
I'm sure when the Head Office called to inform the store, they told the staff about how they're punishing EA, and then they all laughed, and laughed, and laughed, while smoking huge cigars.

Oh, well. Obviously OJ Simpson didn't murder those people. Obviously Saddam Hussain had WMDs, because otherwise we wouldn't have invaded.

Takeovers have been blocked for much, much less and there was great surprise in the industry when the takeover of GameStation was allowed to go ahead.

Well, it happened. I'm sure they had their reasons for allowing it.
Infact, it's a wonder that nobody has asked the reasons for allowing it. Because it would ruin the controversy.

QUOTE(Jamstruth @ Aug 27 2011, 05:14 PM)

I'm getting really confused by the language of this entire discussion. Namely one word: Blackmail. I have seen no mention of ANY relation to blackmail. They've talked to publishers regarding the release of their games on Steam and this appears to have resulted in them being unavailable in the UK (makes sense and GAME is a UK retailer). There's no evidence of them forcing publishers to stop releasing the games on Steam. What hold could they possibly have over them anyway? Game: "Give us 1 month of retail only release or...we'll not stock your game at all!!" Publisher: "So we'll sell it to other retailers and make money off our Direct to Drive sales as well. Its you who loses out in the end".
Here's what MAY have happened though. GAME paid them to do this. Makes more sense than blackmail, don't you think?

Absolutely correct.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

I'm getting really confused by the language of this entire discussion. Namely one word: Blackmail. I have seen no mention of ANY relation to blackmail. They've talked to publishers regarding the release of their games on Steam and this appears to have resulted in them being unavailable in the UK (makes sense and GAME is a UK retailer). There's no evidence of them forcing publishers to stop releasing the games on Steam. What hold could they possibly have over them anyway? Game: "Give us 1 month of retail only release or...we'll not stock your game at all!!" Publisher: "So we'll sell it to other retailers and make money off our Direct to Drive sales as well. Its you who loses out in the end".
Here's what MAY have happened though. GAME paid them to do this. Makes more sense than blackmail, don't you think?

GAME and GameStation are the two names that come to mind whenever you mention games or buying games to the average person, and plus they're also referring to multi-patlform releases. Sure HMV, Zaavi, Tescos and other stores might sell games too, but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.
Funnily enough this works the other way round too, some Publishers/Developers will only grant review samples/copies if the recipient can guarantee the review/rating will meet certain minimum criteria.

 

[BlueStar]

What proof could Game possibly give? A tape with a recording of white noise, labelled "the conversation regarding blackmail with Steam publishers"?

They could continue to stock the games even after publishers release them at store date on Steam.

I'm sure when the Head Office called to inform the store, they told the staff about how they're punishing EA, and then they all laughed, and laughed, and laughed, while smoking huge cigars.

QUOTE

Absolutely correct.

See my reply at the bottom of the last page. You don't seem to understand how much sway they have in this country.

 

[Deleted-188346]

but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.
My understanding of blackmail is:
"Do this, or we'll ."

They could continue to stock the games even after publishers release them at store date on Steam.
I wasn't aware that they were going to not stock games if the publishers released them on store date. A new development in this imaginary, unbased situation?

QUOTE(BlueStar @ Aug 27 2011, 05:27 PM)

See my reply at the bottom of the last page. You don't seem to understand how much sway they have in this country.

As I said, they must have had their reasons.
Seems that there is a lot of opinions in this thread, and absolutely no facts.

So, here are some facts:
- Game are successful.
- Game have purchased companies, which may or may not have been in financial trouble.
- Online distribution is competition to Game.
- Physical stores in general are under threat from online distribution.
- Certain games have been delayed on Steam in the UK.

That is all. The rest is unbased speculation.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.

My understanding of blackmail is:
"Do this, or we'll ."

Your prior posts in this thread have shown how little you actually know about businesses; Believe it or not, but few sales can be pretty bad for a publisher and devastating for a developer.
That's one of the ways that the cult-game effect starts. Not many people end up buying a title in a franchise, but those who do bite the bullet are left wanting more. Developers and publishers gauge interest by sales, guess what virtually no sales means.
If you don't regard that as damaging, then well I don't think there's any point further arguing this point.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Your prior posts in this thread have shown how little you actually know about businesses;
Ah, the classic "I'm going to question your knowledge about this topic" retaliation. The last stop resort for the poster who is upset by somebody not agreeing with them.

QUOTE(Antoligy @ Aug 27 2011, 05:23 PM) but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.

My understanding of blackmail is:
"Do this, or we'll ."

Believe it or not, but few sales can be pretty bad for a publisher and devastating for a developer.
That's one of the ways that the cult-game effect starts. Not many people end up buying a title in a franchise, but those who do bite the bullet are left wanting more. Developers and publishers gauge interest by sales, guess what virtually no sales means.
If you don't regard that as damaging, then well I don't think there's any point further arguing this point.

I never said that few sales are not damaging to a publisher, or developer. I stated my definition of blackmail, which you appear to not be challenging.
My whole point in this thread is that there is no evidence, AT ALL, that Game is blackmailing anybody, let alone delaying Steam titles.

 

[boombox]

Pffft Game stores really are rubbish when it comes to PC games. I never go in there if I want a PC game.
1) because they're overpriced
2) because there's usually a rubbish choice
Just as the original post says.

They really do need to think about costs..not bully decent, online retailers.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Your prior posts in this thread have shown how little you actually know about businesses;
Ah, the classic "I'm going to question your knowledge about this topic" retaliation. The last stop resort for the poster who is upset by somebody not agreeing with them.

I'm by no means upset, I just saw you making a ridiculous claim and questioned it (and then your basis).

QUOTE(Antoligy @ Aug 27 2011, 05:23 PM)

but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.

My understanding of blackmail is:
"Do this, or we'll ."

Believe it or not, but few sales can be pretty bad for a publisher and devastating for a developer.
That's one of the ways that the cult-game effect starts. Not many people end up buying a title in a franchise, but those who do bite the bullet are left wanting more. Developers and publishers gauge interest by sales, guess what virtually no sales means.
If you don't regard that as damaging, then well I don't think there's any point further arguing this point.

I never said that few sales are not damaging to a publisher, or developer. I stated my definition of blackmail, which you appear to not be challenging.
My whole point in this thread is that there is no evidence, AT ALL, that Game is blackmailing anybody, let alone delaying Steam titles.

You appeared to be challenging the standardized definition of "blackmail", and I apologize for the misinterpretation.
While it is true all the rigid evidence is circumstantial and hypothetical, it is very unlikely the the original source is not factual. Of course a major company would deny such claims, after all moves like this make them seem petty - and yet, they still happen.

 

[BlueStar]

but it can be pretty damaging to a franchise (in particular new franchises) if the majority of customers can't find it at their usual point of call- and yes, this sort of thing can be classed as blackmail.

My understanding of blackmail is:
"Do this, or we'll ."

Uh, if you believe it happened or not, the allegation is "Do this or we won't stock your game and you'll lose a load of money (a damaging consequence)."

Seems you don't even have a basic grasp of what the accusation was in the first place.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Seems you don't even have a basic grasp of what the accusation was in the first place.
The accusation that never happened. That's my point.
It cannot be blackmail if nothing was ever said.
Give me one scrap of proof that it happened.
And not "my friend said...".

QUOTE(Antoligy @ Aug 27 2011, 06:13 PM) While it is true all the rigid evidence is circumstantial and hypothetical, it is very unlikely the the original source is not factual. Of course a major company would deny such claims, after all moves like this make them seem petty - and yet, they still happen.

The problem is, there is no original source. The original source is the poster himself, who does not explain where he obtained this "information".
Ironically enough, you could replace Game with Amazon.co.uk, and his argument would be no different. But, of course, it's slightly more believable if he plays the retail-vs-online angle, so he just chose Game.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

While it is true all the rigid evidence is circumstantial and hypothetical, it is very unlikely the the original source is not factual. Of course a major company would deny such claims, after all moves like this make them seem petty - and yet, they still happen.

The problem is, there is no original source. The original source is the poster himself, who does not explain where he obtained this "information".
Ironically enough, you could replace Game with Amazon.co.uk, and his argument would be no different. But, of course, it's slightly more believable if he plays the retail-vs-online angle, so he just chose Game.

You're forgetting that GAME were one of the retailers that noted that they wanted to boycott Steam last year (along with Direct2Drive and a few other companies).
And no, it wouldn't work because Amazon are actually innovating and expanding into different markets. They even have their own digital distribution setup (Amazon Appstore for Android).

EDIT: It's too early to say whether the source is reliable or not. The majority of discussions are based upon the presumption that it is indeed true.