I fail to see how dwadle is radically different from the GameStop model. They only make 12% on a used game sale, so what? They are just cheaper than GameStop. They have the same incentive advertising the purchase of used games over new games as GameStop does. I don't think they are in a position to point fingers at their competitors as is done in the article.
It is nice that you get real cash instead of store credit. On the other hand, as a seller you are competing with other sellers so you don't get instant credit like at GameStop.
It's a choice everyone interested should be able to make for themselves. The remarks towards GameStop are uncalled for though. They should compete on a service/product level and not pull out some twisted ethical argument how they are better for the gaming industry.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Somebody bought a used game for 40$ on Dawdle (or Dawlde bought it for 40$ and resold it for > 40$), and that is not showing up in the second chart. If that was included in the second chart, it would look exactly like the first chart.<p>Edit: to clarify, the second chart only shows purchases of new games, whereas in reality some used games must have been purchased to provide the new 40$ in purchasing power.
It looks like you all are partnered with Best Buy. Other than that a good article.<p>Have you considered selling new games directly? I know from another post you plan on expanding to other markets so I can see a future where you advertise more expensive products to be drop shipped from the manufacturer's warehouse straight to the consumer.<p>...wait, maybe I should build a business on that idea.
I love Dawdle and wish you guys the best of luck! I came out of a failed video game startup last year, I know how difficult it can be being a new guy on the streets of a massive industry. It's definitely one heck of a challenge but I'm confident you guys will succeed.<p>I wish I was going to GDC this year, went in '08 and it was a blast.
I think the biggest difference between Dawdle and Gamestop is that people do more buying at Gamestop. I can't really see a functional difference. Even the quick math doesn't add up given the two charts. 1:1 New:Used, vs 3:2 New:Used. Maybe I'm missing something important.<p>Whether or not the company selling used games makes money off of it or pushes it is very small I would think. If someone wants a used game, they'll get a used game. In fact, at Dawdle, since the example shows games as selling for cheaper, I can see that maybe it would allow people to save a little more money for new games... or it would allow people to just buy more games.<p>What am I missing that makes this different?
Well, this is targeted at GDC attendees (we're flyering out there: <a href="http://twitter.com/Christopurr/status/1395013503" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/Christopurr/status/1395013503</a>), but would love the thoughts of the HN crew now that it's front paged.
So in the original image, a gamer would buy a used game from GameStop instead of a new game from Best Buy.<p>If a used game will suffice, why would the same gamer not just buy a $40 game from Dawdle instead of the $60 game from Best Buy?
I'm sorry, as far as I'm aware, developers see no money from the sale of a second hand game.<p>If you are not going to reward a developer for their hard work, or contribute to their next game, why would you pay anything at all?