Jump to content

Talk:Game (retailer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EB?

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Anyone who is suprised that charts and window/floor displays are paid for by publishers is being very naieve. As far as I know that's how the majority of charts, esspecially in store charts work. Working for the company only confirmed it (at the moment Professor Layton has been at no. 2 on the DS chart for weeks even though we've had maybe 25 copies delivered and sold in that time.).

Most are even more inaccurate than that because if all the boxes get taken off the shelf the space will be filled by whatever the sales assistant can find enough boxes for or whatever they personally believe should be there. No one has time to dig out a week old print out to double check what belongs where when the whole shop needs cleaning. Danikat (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm pretty sure there is no VAt payable on the pre-owned games, hence why the company puts so much emphasis on this side of the business 77.241.100.67 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation, unreferenced facts and cases

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed criticisms section

[edit]

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:-

"Criticisms" cut-and-paste

[edit]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Another big reason these days, and the one I give when asked why we can't take in PC games, is piracy issues and DRM. It's entirely too easy to copy a PC game and then sell the disc whilst keeping the game, so encoraging people to sell PC games could open the company up to accusations of encoraging piracy. On the other side of things many PC games these days have to be registered to a particular computer when they're installed and can only be installed a certain number of times (Spore is an infamous example), if someone has maxed out the installations and then sells the game we're effectively taking in a dead disc. Only taking certain games and not others depending on whether they have DRM and what type would make the entire situation far too complicated (it's bad enough having to explain we can't take American games because of the ratings and the PAL/NTSC conflict) so it's easier to just refuse to take any of them. if someone has maxed out the installations and then sells the game we're effectively taking in a dead disc. Only taking certain games and not others depending on whether they have DRM and what type would make the entire situation far too complicated (it's bad enough having to explain we can't take American games because of the ratings and the PAL/NTSC conflict) so it's easier to just refuse to take any of them. 5M HDMI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.12.195.40 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I have no idea if any of that is part of the actual policy but it's what was said in my first store and what I've continued to say to my customers because it makes sense to me as a gamer. Danikat (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green triangle logo?

[edit]

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

Fair use rationale for File:GAMEGroup.gif

[edit]

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

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

Future Zone?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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


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

Future zone bought virgin game centres, which is where they got 100 Oxford street from, then it was electronic boutique (I think some kind of franchising was involved) then they bought game (which had been going for years) and rebranded.

Ripley and Norris founded future zone, I think having previously built and sold ritz video to blockbuster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.198.64 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:GAMEGroup.gif

[edit]

File: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)[reply]

GAME Loyalty Card

[edit]

I believe the article GAME Loyalty Card is not notable and, rather than being merged into this article, should be deleted Dormskirk (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed It's akin to an advertisement and there is nothing radical or unusual about it. Half Price (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1992?

[edit]

This article claims Game was founded in 1992. If that's true there must have been a time portal in The Pavilions shopping centre in Birmingham back in 1991, as there was a branch there then! Can someone provide a source for the 1992 date? Perhaps it's the founding date of a parent company who later took Game over? 206.165.150.70 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you haven't confused this with the Palisades? GAME was nearer Martineau Square and didn't move to the Pavilions until the mid-90's. EB was in the Palisades at that time though, and remained EB until Game bought EB were it's still there today :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.168.69 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not applicable

[edit]

I have uploaded two vector versions of the GAME logo. The page now uses a cropped version with the GAME text only, but a full version with the GAME GROUP PLC text is also available, if this is deemed preferable. Rather than fair-use they have been tagged as public domain (and uploaded on Commons) on account of threshold of originality. I have tagged the original PNG likewise. AJCham2097 (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship store

[edit]

In what sense is the Oxford Street branch a 'flagship store'? It's no larger than many others, doesn't appear to have any central administrative function, and I can't find anything to suggest it's the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.46.198 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Its classed by the company as their flagship store, mainly due to turnover and its location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.5.71 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the first. I think High Wycombe may have been the first (It had the branch code 001, and I know its store room served as a warehouse in the early days) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.200.19 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Entertainment

[edit]

I think it's worth adding this notable failure of GAME's to the wiki but I can't actually find a source for its existence other than the fact I worked there for its entire existence. Anyone? Duds 2k (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only sign of its existence I can find is Page 113 of last year's accounts (PDF file) and a financial profiling site that says they only opened two stores under the name. - X201 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it was just us in Reading (Now a Gamestation and still open) and one in Bristol. Weird to not have any record from 8 months or so but it was just before camera phones were "a thing" Duds 2k (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GAMEgroup2.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:GAMEgroup2.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:GAMEgroup2.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GAME Christmas Tinner hoax

[edit]

There seems to be a hoax product on the GAME website, "The GAME Christmas Tinner", that alleges to be a complete Christmas dinner in a can. There are even competitors, one with a "Christmas dinner in a can" that supposedly self-heats. The GAME page is currently marked "SOLD OUT" until 2014. There are no credible consumer reviews of this alleged product on the Web, or even evidence that anyone has successfully purchased one.

It is currently WP:Original Research that this is a hoax, but the graphics designer (Chris Godfrey) shows a clearly fake "12 course meal" on his website.

This seems to be 'viral' marketing for GAME, but it could also be marketing for Chris Godfrey. David Spector (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit Proposal / Advice Request

[edit]

As recommended in best article creation practice, would really appreciate feedback on some changes I'd propose to make to this article. For transparency, I'm a GAME Employee - so under Wikipedia terms, have a biased position on this, as objective as I hope I can be.

Since 2012, GAME (as GAME Retail LTD) has been created as a new company. Over the last few years, GAME Retail LTD has differentiated and expanded its operations and activities quite substantially from The GAME Group plc - to the extent where there's a few additions to be made to the article.

There are a fair few, factual and independently reference-able amends and additions I'd like to make, but am unsure of the best approach. I'd thought of the following two approaches - any feedback on which would be the best route to proceed would be excellent.

  1. 1 - creating a separate article/page for GAME Group PLC preserving all data as-is to do with that company (example layout here)), and converting the current Game_(retailer) page into the page to chronicle GAME Retail LTD with details of the new company since its founding.
  1. 2 - If the above is not suitable in Wikipedia guidelines, then working on incorporating the factual additions mentioned above into the existing Game_(retailer) page - again, if it's possible within Wikipedia guidelines!

Would really appreciate any feedback/advice on how best to proceed - thank you!

ShourenUK (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A split would not be normal practice - the article is about the "Game" brand regardless of of what it's called internally - it's be confusing to readers. Splits are usually only done because articles get too long, not likely to be the case here, care should be used as attempts to split could be seen as an attempt by the company (which you represent) to distance itself from its past. Good luck. Яehevkor ✉ 13:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understand where you're coming from - the additions will probably not be to a volume that would justify a page split then. Sounds like #2 with care to keep additions or amends objective is the way forward, with perhaps a small additional section on GAME Retail LTD within existing article. Many thanks for taking the time! ShourenUK (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Christmas Shopper Simulator

[edit]

this 'video game' is merely an advertisement, but I think it's just notable enough for a mention on the business' article Deunanknute (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

[edit]

What is GAME's current standing with Microsoft and Activision? The game makes reference to a report several years old with no follow-up. 107.77.215.24 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Game (retailer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia Gaming Festival seperate from game - worth mention?

[edit]

This has been the case for about a year now - unsure if worth editing the article for it, but thought I'd start some discussion regarding the subject. The event's also discussed on Multiplay in pretty much the same words except with more up to date detail, so unsure if it's still needed here. -caxx-caxx (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_(retailer)&oldid=1206446154"