SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
GameStop's future is grim as its stock price crumbles
GameStop is falling, and many analysts and industry observers are skeptical it can recover. The retailer reported earnings yesterday for Q1 of its fiscal 2020 yesterday where it missed its revenue target. Now, the company's stock price has crumbled to $5, which is the lowest this has been since 2013.
For Q1, GameStop generated $1.55 billion in revenues. That was significantly short of Wall Street's expected $1.64 billion. The company did cut costs to improve its earnings per share, but that's not something it can do every quarter. And GameStop's outlook is dire in part because its core business — selling hardware and used games — is starting to dry up.
Used game revenues dropped 20% year-over-year last quarter. And hardware revenues dropped 35 percent in the same comparison. And while the company has diversified into collectibles with its ThinkGeek brand, that growth wasn't enough to offset other declines.
[...] "Pre-owned revenues declined 20% year-on-year in Q1 2019, driven by continued traffic headwinds from a tougher year-on-year software release slate," Baird analyst Colin Sebastian wrote in a note to investors. "While new hardware sales declined 35% year-on-year, as Switch growth was more than offset by declines in Xbox One and PlayStation 4 sales. Reflecting a console cycle now long in the tooth."
Services like Google Stadia won't help GameStop's situation.
See also: GameStop Slumps 40% to 16-Year Low as Gaming Passes It By
The video game sales slump is killing GameStop
GameStop Stock Is Plummeting. The Bonds Are Doing Fine.
GameStop Has Become the Poster Child for Retail Woes and Tech Disruption
Previously: GameStop's Future in Question after Failing to Secure Buyout
GameStop Posts Massive Loss as Pre-Owned Game Sales Plummet
(Score: 2) by black6host on Friday June 07 2019, @01:33AM (4 children)
OMG, you must mean phones!!!!! Yes, that was the death of them. Shame as a CoCo was the first computer run by electricity that I owned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stormreaver on Friday June 07 2019, @02:57AM (3 children)
The CoCo (especially the CoCo 3) was an awesome computer for its time. I ran OS/9 Level 2 (as most of us did). At a time when the expensive IBM XT was king, it was stuck with MS-DOS! XT owners had to dedicate the entire computer to running their BBS's. The CoCo 3, on the other hand, ran my BBS, my code editor (BASIC09), a terminal emulator, and a full-screen video game. All on a low-power, 8-bit CPU that ran at 1.79 MHz.
Those were the days.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Friday June 07 2019, @03:36AM (2 children)
Indeed, those were the days... Multitasking did become available for the IBM PC, certainly with the 386. I know because I ran a BBS back in the 80's on DOS. Being able to edit code (RBBS), or whatnot, while the board was running was nice. That being said I have a special place in my heart for OS-9. Re-entrant code...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 07 2019, @11:22AM
I ran old minix on a 286 but it was expensive (aka downloaded warez)
OS-9 was awesome for the era. The windowing system pretending its a serial terminal as its API (print endless non-ascii bytes to do GUI stuff) and from memory Multiview gave it a real C API. If you liked OS-9 you'd have loved OS/8 on a PDP-8 as its a similar experience. All the way down to great documentation and crazy price tag.
I did not enjoy the idea of paying $99 at radio shack for a C compiler that was first edition K+R (when second was long out). So I felt I got a "deal" paying $49.95 on sale for a C compiler. Much preferred the linux experience half a decade later in the early 90s of downloading the "C" series of floppy disks for SLS linux which contained GCC for free.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Friday June 07 2019, @07:09PM
One of the biggest conceptual hurdles I had to jump when I made the switch from OS/9 to the IBM clones was the latter's lack of re-entrant code. It was a major culture shock that the dominant computing platform was so primitive. It took a long time before I finally accepted that truth. I will always have fond memories of, "LDD [,X++]". Intel's instruction set looks like a psychotic child-killer's demented paint splash-streaks compared to Motorola's relative addressing capabilities.