437
GameStop CEO Says Games Are "Irrelevant" To Company Revenue
(insider-gaming.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
437 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
22150 readers
805 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It depends on what that 12% is.
Is it revenue, or is it profit? And does that Include both new and used games?
New games have a very small profit margin compared to used games and merch.
Fair but it seems like if you're trying to minimize the importance of something you would choose the metric that shows how minimally important it is.
If it's 12% of revenue but 1% of profit wouldn't you say it's "1%" instead of "12%"?
Might even mean 12% of business transactions/goods sold. The profit margins, customer retention, market stability, minimal losses etc might be in other goods favour.
Given how many codes/games/etc a store might order that do not sell (losses to account for), games are much less 'shelf stable' compared to a plushie of a pokemon first shown on TV 25 years ago. Digital codes and registering also make any return/exchange obligations a bigger loss.
I think there's several reasons a company might see games as a high-risk good when compared to collectibles.
I just wish they hadn't destroyed ThinkGeek.....