Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gamestop Reports Loss, 360 Shortages

Posted by Zonk on from the not-enough-sixty-dollar-games dept.

Gamasutra reports that gaming retail powerhouse Gamestop has reported a slow third quarter, largely based on few big named titles during that period of time. The article also mentioned their frustrations with the 360's limited production so far. From the article: "There is no question that both the core gamer and gift giver are very enthusiastic about this great product. In fact, our attach ratio of games and accessories to date has never been higher for any release in GameStop's history. Our only concern is that the total hardware released to date in the U.S., and to GameStop, are far less than we had anticipated. While we expect to be supplied throughout the holiday season, the exact quantities to be shipped are not yet clear."

8 of 32 comments (clear)

  1. Correct me if I'm wrong... by EddieBurkett · · Score: 2, Informative
    In fact, our attach ratio of games and accessories to date has never been higher for any release in GameStop's history.
    Didn't Microsoft mandate that retailers could only sell the 360 for pre-order as part of package deals with a certain number of accessories and games required to be purchased along side the console? Of course the attach ratio would be so high then...
    --
    The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Ars-Gonzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Microsoft claims that the vendors are solely responsible for the bundle madness.

      The attach ratio has never been higher because in order to buy a Xbox 360 from Gamestop or EB, you had to spend a minimum of $300 on accessories and games.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reports that Microsoft demanded bundling for pre-orders were just the usual Slashdot anti-Microsoft FUD. EBGames was solely responsible for any package deal requirement on pre-orders they sold.

      But you do have a point, it does really skew their statistics.

      --
      Comment of the year
  2. Roffles by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love how businesses always call a drop in revenue a "loss." Like they are rightfully entitled to ever-increasing profits and anything to the contrary is someone's fault.

    1. Re:Roffles by Epi-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love how businesses always call a drop in revenue a "loss." Like they are rightfully entitled to ever-increasing profits and anything to the contrary is someone's fault.

      Do me a favor and remember that the next time you hear all the talk about those vicious spending cuts being made to social programs and look at how much more money they are getting than the year before.

      As someone else pointed out, it isn't the drop in revenue earning the title, it is the fact that revenue - costs 0.

    2. Re:Roffles by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not quite sure how you can conclude that from the article. They reported an increase in revenue but a net loss of $2.5 million.

    3. Re:Roffles by Morinaga · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are confusing profits and revenue. The profitering mantra of corporations trying to squeeze out ever last drop of profit is a fallacy. Stockholders of public corporations are in general obsessed with "growth" which is generally focused on revenue increases. If a company is increasing their revenue then they are becoming more valuble as a commodity that investors might wish to own for increasing stock values. Profits can be in the red within reason or investor expectations with no negitive consequence.

      The days of your grandparents income stocks are nearly extinct like corporate pensions. The corporations aren't the root of evil, it's the manner in which their "owners" demand growth to increase their shareholder wealth that create problems. Ironically those shareholders are people like myself and millions of others with 401ks. Problem is I own one tenth of one percent in X corporation in my well diversified portfolio and the power of proxy vote, board of director pressure etc... is in the hands of large portfolio managers. These investors like myself aren't interested in examining the profit philosophy of the 5000 companies I have a stake in for a variety of reasons. The least of which is the fact you have no power in such a minority stake and the biggest of which is I'm more concerned about making my mortgage payment, saving for my kid's education and selfishly the results of this weekends Bronco game. Call me self centered if you will but do take a quick look in the mirror before you throw those stones.

  3. Whatever happened by dar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to the EB buyout of Gamestop?

    --
    My other Slashdot ID is much lower.