Talk:GAME (retailer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] EB?

What connections does Game still have to Electronics Boutique? --SnakeSeries 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

None, I'd guess. According to this register article the royalty payments were to end in January 2006. --Kiand 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Youre guess is right. There is no longer any link between GAME and electronics boutique. The irony is that some feel that EB was a better kind of shop before it was 'game-ified'. As a former Manager of a store that went through the EB/GAME transition, many of my customers commented that GAME had changed for the worse. The management also changed alot, and I found the ethics and the way the company was heading I didnt agree with. If anyone wants the input on the main page of this entry, I have alot of insider info and backstory I could add to flesh out the negative side of the business. The Starbucks entry is a good example of a bigger story.

The theory of GAME changing for the worse is unfounded. Of course during the transition there were many issues to work out, however the GAME model of business fits much better in the UK than the sloppy ethic of Electronics Boutique. The centralisation of powers to Head Office allows for better regulation and business practice. The stores are no longer just a haven for intelligent teenagers, but a family environment and a much welcomed addition to the UK high street.

That Game has changed its image for the better is undeniable. As a former employee of the company, I too can attest to the negative side of the company. 172.142.169.30 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the 'Critisism' section should be brought back. What better authority for insider 'skeletons in the closet' than former and current employees?

In many ways, the company did change for the worse from EB to GAME. However, the GAME transitions did bring good things too. As a former Manager for 2 GAME stores, I recall vividly our transition from EB to GAME, the shop did look better with nicer fixtures and shelving, however, the way that the top brass would treat customers wasnt so good. Loyalty cards used to be free, then HO wanted us to charge customers 2 quid for them! That didnt go down well at all. I gather that they cost 3 quid now. As far as "The centralisation of powers to Head Office allows for better regulation" I would say that made it WAY worse. The fact is, alot of head office people at GAME are clueless. I cant count the amount of times our regional would tell us to hype a game coming out, and get lots pre ordered, when we all knew that the game was going to be crap. (Bruce Lee on Xbox V1 a good example). Marketing of crappy games and bizarre window decoration choices are common with GAME Head office.

Any store manager with any awareness knows that many area Managers have not got a clue how the industry works, and have had quite a few Regionals and AMs tell me they dont play games. Shortly after I left, GAME stopped doing the '10 day no fuss return' policy. One one hand, it was a great policy for my regular honest customers who could return a game, even after they played it a little, if it 'sucked' or not very good or what have you.

I am guessing GAME abolished this generous policy after they finally realised (after being told this for years from staff) that the system was being abused by a sizable amount of customers, who would play a game to completion and return it, 'burn and return' (IE copy the game) etc. Effectively turning the business into a branch of 'Blockbuster', but with 'free' game rental.

I remember several teen customers who would try to 'complete and return' several times in a row, and not even see how unreasonable they were being.

Here is some surprising things that you may not know about the way GAME works:

1. Window displays are typically paid for by software publishers. Ditto for alot of gondolas in the middle of the shop floor. 2. The 'charts' is a fraud. The charts in store arent based on national sales of games, or even the store level sales. The chart positions are paid for by the publishers. If EA wants FIFA 2008 at number one, it pays for that week to be there. Fools customers into thinking that FIFA2008 is the best selling game in store. Of course, often managers would just ignore that and put games in positions based on store sales. 3. Stores dont make as much money on pre owned games as you think. You typically get roughly 1/3 1/2 of the new price. Say game is sold for 39.99. Trades in for 15.00. Sold as a PO for 29.99. 15 quid profit. Out of that, 17.5% VAT, wages, electric, gas, council tax, store shrink etc. Your lucky to make 5 quid in the end.

I would be interested to hear of stories from other former/current managers and employees! :D (74.210.58.185 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Speculation, unreferenced facts and cases

Regarding the "Criticisms" section, this is full of unattributed statements such as "GAME has been criticized" and (more weaselly) "it has also been spotted". The cases mentioned are also unreferenced. It is unclear whether these are employee grievances, how widespread the claimed "observations" are, yadda yadda.... you get the picture. References please, thanks. Fourohfour 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed criticisms section

I tagged this before, and nothing was done; indeed, someone added more unreferenced material on an employee dispute. The lack of any citation in a section open to abuse (without references to back up facts and demonstration that unattributed views are widely held) is unacceptable, and I have removed it. If you wish to put back this material, please find acceptable references:-

[edit] "Criticisms" cut-and-paste

GAME has been criticized about their pricing on their 'preowned' products, as occasionally a 'preowned' video game will cost more than a brand-new game. This is likely due to special promotions such as "Deal of the Week". It has also been spotted that GAME price some new video games at the front of the store for a larger price than the same video game at the back of the shop. This however, is more likely due to price changes being actioned incorrectly, rather than any malicious intent. The key factor being that all products company-wide scan at the same price on the till and there is no way to charge more or less for an identical product as it holds the same barcode.

Another criticism of the company is that it has been known for long-serving employees to be denied promotions to which they would normally be entitled. For example, one employee was refused a full-time position purely for wanting to attend university later that year. This was a decision by one of the regional managers.

One reason for this is that Game prefer to have their floor staff with technical knowledge and their managers left to run the store.

(END CUT-AND-PASTE)

I wonder why they don't sell PC pre-owned, and will this policy change, now they own Gamestation? Digifiend 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an answer for you. Im a former manager of 2 stores in Devon. The reason we didnt trade in PC games because it was a bit legally a grey area. You know the EULA you agree to when one installs a game? Somewhere it says 'you agree not to re sell, lend, or hire bla bla bla this software'. It was (and still is) too much of a legal hot potato for GAME to deal with. Saying that, gamestation did it. Maybe they didnt care. The other angle is, also, who wants a 5 year old PC game (or even a DOS game!!) in a tatty old cardboard box?? At least with console games, they dont really 'age' per se.(74.210.58.185 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

5 year old games nowadays wouldn't have a cardboard box. Even Gamestation only sell the games in DVD boxes now. And yes people would want them. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Age of Empires are two examples. Digifiend (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green triangle logo?

Anyone got an image of the old green triangle logo mentioned in the trivia section? Digifiend 09:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GAMEGroup.gif

Boilerplate automated warning by bot removed from this page, fair use rationale addressed. Fourohfour 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why has it reappeared? Digifiend (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future Zone?

I remeber our local branch of Electronics Boutique originally opened under the name Future Zone and then was rebranded a few years later. Does anyone know the connection between the two stores? 77.97.203.109 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably bought out. Digifiend 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Yep, Futurezone was bought by EB before the merger with GAME 90.199.93.224 00:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monopoly?

Nothing on these guys getting inspected by the competition commission about their alleged monopoly on dedicated video game outlets? I don't know the full story myself and am too busy to dig through google but I may look this weekend if no-one objects. --The Nayl 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me .
Anything to help the site out in fact a few moments ago i added a link to the Australian GAME site .Richardson j (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GAMEGroup.gif

Image:GAMEGroup.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)