From an SEC filing on Aug 8th: "we will no longer actively develop or distribute any retail games in recognition of the changing landscape of the gaming industry"
Read it again. They are no longer making games. There is no sugar coating it or spinning it. They are no longer making games.
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Other Events, Financial Stat
Item 1.01 Entry Into A Material Definitive Agreement
On July 31, 2015, we entered into various agreements in order to restructure our business. We have determined to focus on our download business in order to achieve certain cost-cutting goals and expect to earn a minor royalty only in connection with our retail business in which we will no longer actively develop or distribute any retail games in recognition of the changing landscape of the gaming industry. We have transferred our distribution rights related to developing, publishing and distributing video game products through retail distribution to a company owned by our former chief executive officer, Jesse Sutton. Mr. Sutton will continue to pursue this business while consulting for us in the download segment of the gaming business, and we will receive a royalty on net revenues for any further sales. Under the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement"), we transferred ownership of a newly-formed subsidiary company, Zift Interactive, LLC ("Zift"), to Mr. Sutton. Under the Purchase Agreement, Mr. Sutton received all membership interests in Zift in exchange for: (1) Mr. Sutton's resignation from the position of chief executive officer, including waiver of any severance payments, and (2) Mr. Sutton's delivery of the executed Separation Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed July 28, 2015, together with his agreement to serve as a consultant under the terms of the Separation Agreement.
Great, so you agree that a business accepting cash is not directly related to if a business stays in business or not because businesses fail or thrive even if everyone accepts cash.
For fun, here's a list of other companies that also accepted cash:
Linens 'n Things
There are just so many retailers that accepted cash but somehow, that didn't keep them in business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_retailers_of_the_United_States
I'm not saying there is an 100% digital Utopia. I'm saying that "cash is good" is a very naive stance to have as to why a business will stay in business. Blockbuster accepted cash too in the early days of Netflix. I'm not saying GameStop is Blockbuster, just that your stance that Gamestop accepting cash does not make for valid reasoning as why it will have continued business success.
Sure, but you still have many options as to where to shop. And unless you are paid under the table at your job, your money goes through digital means. The company you work for doesn't send boxes of cash to banks and have them hand them directly to you. That ATM wasn't holding only your cash and waiting for you to show up. Even if you cash your check, your name is in a system and can be hacked. Don't be so naive to think since you have a $50 bill in your pocket to buy a video game that you are untraceable. That's not how the world works these days.
GameStop accepts cash, like every big box store. They also accept credit cards, like every big box store. Big box store all have their own sort of gift/point cards. None of this is unique to Gamestop.
Cut through the fog to the most important part:
"We currently have just five full time employees and recently announced additional changes to our board of directors and senior management team."
FIVE full time employees. Five.
Did you hear about that time Target got hacked? They had a bigger breach than Sony did (110M to 102M records respectively).
Home Depot also had a nasty 50M+ record hack last year.
It happens to the big boxers too.
In this future of yours, I'm sure they will happily accept various ways of getting your money - like paypal, a linked bank account, online gift cards (Amazon now has "allowance" accounts), maybe even bitcoin (or whatever comes out of that).
Just saying, if a company wants your money, they will try to give you as many ways as possible for you to give it to them.
Good points. You did expose an issue for Gamestop IF developers did this - if they lowered the price on the digital game to equal or lesser value of buying it in the store, Gamestop will have a real problem. Companies could save money in hardware costs and cut out the middle man a bit.
Say Gamestop charges $59.99 for a new game (plus tax in most states). If, say Activision comes out with the new COD for $49.99 as a digital download a free DLC or two, is that enough of a value to not buy the physical copy because the trade in will not be worth it. What if they dropped it to $45.99 on day one release?
I know I'm just throwing out numbers there with no data to back up the cost associated with making the packaging/disk/shelf space and so on. But the point is, if a gamer sees a lower price and figures it is a toss up because they won't have as much trade in value, would they start going to digital more?
The trick, of course, would be to find the price point to get people to stop going physical as much. And once that price point is figured out, trade ins become affected and the game companies get what they've always wanted - more non-tradeable/returnable, digital games. Meanwhile the consumer thinks they win because the price is lower but the game companies actually make MORE because people buy more NEW copies instead of used ones.
And to your point on retailers and leaving Gamestop. Of COURSE they aren't going to just leave Gamestop. As of today, there is a need for physical space. My point is the need for physical space is going down (based on digital sales versus physical at gaming companies) and as Gamestop is trying to EXPAND, something will have to give. I think Gamestop will be forced to, at some point, figure out how to be a major presence in the very crowded digital space. They have the lead in retail due to trade-ins (Amazon, Walmart, Target are pretty lame there) but if retail sales slow due to more digital sales, Gamestop will slow if only because so much of their revenue comes from physical sales/trades. Right now, their physical sales versus digital doesn't show they are aligned with the game company sales growth.
If they put steam machines on their shelves and no one buys them, that is not good for GameStop. Not only that, if they DO sell well, the hardware revenue goes up but there are no games to buy or trade in for it. With steambox, yuo can buy games directly from the box, you don't need Gamestop to buy things anymore.
I'm scratching my head as to why Gamestop seems to have an exclusive hardware agreement with SteamBox since success for steambox would be against Gamestop's business model. All they'd do is sell a box and its accessories.
Batman PC is what I was talking about. It had/has so many problems that it isn't selling AT ALL in some places. So there are no pre-owned PC games if they aren't being sold in the first place.
I like the idea of a steam box. But the price for what you get missed the mark completely. It should have been a top of the line gamers machine but since it is not, anyone can get a gaming rig PC and call it a day. So you can get a good PC or an XOne or PS4 instead. If Steam Box had a MUCH better entry point, they might have had something. But they, like a $10,000 iWatch, did not do any consumer research.
But, all that said, you'd like to know that the new steam machine, according to the steam site is listed only as available for "Pre-Order from GameStop."
If that pre-order has some exclusivity and it does not sell well, isn't that a miss for GameStop?
PC downloads - the biggest game of the quarter - Batman, didn't sell much at all due to day one disasters. Amazon STILL doesn't sell it. But that is just one game.
Physical game reselling will take a major hit as more companies (including Gamestop) are getting more revenue from digital sales. As seen from Activision, the bulk of all revenue came from nothing that can be held in your hand or traded in.
And with plenty of other competition out there to sell DLC, Gamestop is not a one stop for all DLC. I will grant you that they should do well with Sports games like Fifa, NFL, NHL and WWE, those tend do fare better in physical sales and may have some trade-in value. But with Sony and Microsoft trying to figure out how to cut trade ins out, I think, down the road, Gamestop will need to figure out how to keep up their rev numbers while almost 40% of their business is getting squeezed out. Not to mention someday digital sales will regularly overtake physical sales, which looks to be the case for this quarter for Activision.
I'm not going to say Gamestop is like Blockbuster. But I will say Gamestop has an outdated model that will not be profitable once the big guys figure out how to make everything digital, thus making big box game stores obsolete. And you can argue that gamers won't let that happen. But how many cooperations really listen to the little guy when they know people will end up buying their product anyway, even if the customer whines about it?
Sorry that this went on a bit. Anyways, it is nice to have a conversation on a Yahoo message board. It is very rare to have one and not have the other side use basic troll blatherings.
ATVI earnings had $759M in revs but over $600M was in digital content. So EA had declining physical and ATVI had about $150M in non-digital last Q. Two of the biggest game companies are reporting that things are more digital than ever and it is still growing.
Seems they forgot to hire a replacement for Davis, which was a no-no. Seems simple enough to fix (hire someone). But it shows, yet again, that Majesco has no clue:
Form 8-K for MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT CO
Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or St
Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing
On July 31, 2015, Majesco Entertainment Company (the "Company") notified the Nasdaq Stock Market ("Nasdaq") that, as a result of the resignation of Mr. Trent Davis as a member of its board of directors, it is no longer in compliance with the continued listing requirements for the Nasdaq Capital Market contined in Nasdaq listing rule 5605(c)(2)(A) which requires that the Company maintain an Audit Committee of three (3) members, all of whom must be independent. The notification does not impact the Company's listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market at this time. Pursuant to Nasdaq listing rule 5605(c)(4)(B) the Company has until the next annual shareholders meeting to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2)(A). The Company inteads to undertake a search for a third independent director to fill Mr. Davis' position within the time period permitted under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(4)(B).