Well if the price of pre-owned games does reduce significantly then I guess it won't be as bad but I doubt that they'll reduce the prices.
GAME Adds DLC Warning Labels to Used Games
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
surely anyone buying a preowned game wouldnt expect the same bonuses compared to buying the game new ? it used to surprise me when i bought a preowned nintendo game with the star points still included and unused
I will cut you.Catkid906 said:
OT: Yeah, though I don't really buy stuff from GAME because Gamestation feels more personal, I do think that this is a step in the right direction for not getting sued.
And I generally hate Gamestop, the only one I know of in my city is small dark, crowded, the employees are surly and I never go to the area it's in anyway.
Yeah, it's pretty inevitable, and it's a good idea.GideonB said:
I sort of didn't make that clear because I was being hateful to GAME and Gamestop, because I couldn't think of anything else to say, and I don't just like saying "This is a good idea"
Considering Gamestation and GAME are owned by the same company, I see no reason why Gamestation wouldn't do this.GideonB said:
In fact, I see no reason why others wouldn't do this.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't think I've ever traded in one of my games. When I buy a game I research it thoroughly enough to make sure I like it and will get my money's worth. Sure it later proceeds to collect dust and never be touched again, but I like the idea of having it there.
Nonetheless, good work informing the masses GAME.
Nonetheless, good work informing the masses GAME.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see GameStop, and every other retailer who deals in used games, come up with something similar very soon."
I though GAME and GameStop were one and the same (just different names in different countries)?
After all, whenever a piece of DLC is advertised as GameStop-exclusive GAME gets it over here.
I though GAME and GameStop were one and the same (just different names in different countries)?
After all, whenever a piece of DLC is advertised as GameStop-exclusive GAME gets it over here.
Kind of reminds me of how we have to have warning labels that tell us our hot coffee is hot. That its not understood that used games don't have the same freely available content as used is something that I suppose a sticker could address, despite it sounding like a way to deal with people who are unconnected. I think Project Ten Dollar is a pretty good strategy, but I wouldn't mind a way to purchase the accompanied DLC, which I would say would mean they could take the hits with game sales while trying to counter it with new DLC. But then, there's always pre-order and special time offer DLC, and this is more on line with those, so...Hmm. I still think a way to buy the DLC would be better. Maybe a form to fill out online where you say you bought it used, and they charge you a little bit more (but not extravagantly so) for the stuff sold to used-games-buyers.
Within five years I suspect that this sticker is just going to be part of the price sticker, cos every game is going to start doing this when game shops are advertising that the pre-owned version has everything a new one does...
S'a good idea though, I have always wondered why game companies don't do something about DLC. This seems like a good something.
S'a good idea though, I have always wondered why game companies don't do something about DLC. This seems like a good something.
A very good idea. I bought a pre-owned COD:4 ages ago, it was the GotY edition with the new maps. Of course I had no new maps and I expected, but at least we get a warning now.
EDIT: I did however get a pre-owned Halo:ODST and it still had the Sgt. Johnston code with it, which was awesome
EDIT: I did however get a pre-owned Halo:ODST and it still had the Sgt. Johnston code with it, which was awesome
A wonderful idea to anyone that actually complains about project ten dollar.
Either stay away from EA games , or buy it new.
If your going to be it used , you clearly can't afford gaming anyways. I don't have a budget for new games or so i usually go and buy a used game once in a long while. But by staying behind the pack , i usually get games much cheaper then there just release price. I only just got games like mass effect , bioshock and mirror's edge around christmas time and i spent less then 15 bucks on all of them together (thank you steam) but i also have gotten games like Borderlands for 25 bucks new rather then spend 60 on it new.
Even when i do get Mass effect 2 , i'll either buy it new when its older , or just buy a cheap used copy and spend the extra money on the DLC , which might be cheaper in a year.
Either stay away from EA games , or buy it new.
If your going to be it used , you clearly can't afford gaming anyways. I don't have a budget for new games or so i usually go and buy a used game once in a long while. But by staying behind the pack , i usually get games much cheaper then there just release price. I only just got games like mass effect , bioshock and mirror's edge around christmas time and i spent less then 15 bucks on all of them together (thank you steam) but i also have gotten games like Borderlands for 25 bucks new rather then spend 60 on it new.
Even when i do get Mass effect 2 , i'll either buy it new when its older , or just buy a cheap used copy and spend the extra money on the DLC , which might be cheaper in a year.
I agree with this. I was stunned at how much of Dragon Age ended up 'oh it's DLC', and yet from the word go there were achievements for it before the DLC was released or even if you didn't have it installed (the achievement on Warden's Keep, for example). Very sneaky.Masteryuri666 said:
Ignore the fucking circumstances surrounding an event and get called out on being a dumbass? No shit. Here's your sign.Wolfiesden said:
People need to stop fucking picking on that lady. She poured coffee on her lap (coffee is normally served at 140 fareinheit, McDonald's serves it's at 180, the difference between the two being one is a first degree burn and the other is third), and needed skin grafts. She sued for the cost of surgery, and then the court slapped McDonalds with a shit ton of punitive charges (punitive charges being unrelated to the actual case, and added as a punishment to encourage a change in behavior, in this case likely because the cost of surgery wouldn't be enough to make McDonald's change the temperature of the coffee or add a warning).
In the future, when you mention frivolous cases, maybe you should actually fucking google them before you talk about it.
OT: I think that it's a good idea to stick the labels on. After all, my copy of DA: O says "Inside: Code for the exclusive character Shale", or some such. But that code doesn't exist, because I used it. May as well tell people that (though if I resale it, it will be through eBay).
P.S.: For anyone interested in where I got my facts here you go. [http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm]
I work at GAME too! Getting a job with them has been one of the best things that's happened to me in recent times. Lots of new friends that've really pulled me out of my shell.Sun Flash said:
*Joins flag waving and throws purple confetti*
It does say on the box (for DA:O and ME2 anyway) that the code for the DLC is one-use only. Surely it's not too much to expect that if the game's in the pre-owned section, that one-use code might already have been used? Sure, there's a chance that it might not have been, but it seems unlikely.
Also, the way it's laid out on the case, the only point that you read that the DLC exists is the same place that the single-use nature of the thing is mentioned.
I just don't see how anyone manages to build a lawsuit out of this. Especially against a company who didn't put the words 'Includes bonus content' on the case...
Also, the way it's laid out on the case, the only point that you read that the DLC exists is the same place that the single-use nature of the thing is mentioned.
I just don't see how anyone manages to build a lawsuit out of this. Especially against a company who didn't put the words 'Includes bonus content' on the case...
I didn't ignore the facts, I am quite aware of them, what I chose to ignore was the moronic decision of the Jury to basically ignore (only finding 20% fault) that the woman could have prevented the entire circumstances by NOT doing any one of the following:Ajna said:
1. Putting a cup labeled "Caution: Contents Hot" between her knees
2. Ripping the lid off a round styrofoam cup thus removing all reasonable support for the cup's structure.
3. Being surprised when the "Contents Hot" liquid poured into her lap and soaking her clothes causing severe burns.
4. Sueing McDonalds for her medical bills which could have been 100% avoided had she heeded the reasonable notice that the contents were HOT even though the average common sense logic would tell you NOT to put ANYTHING HOT between your legs.
Similar circumstance:
1. Guy goes to Florida.
2. Sees signs saying "Caution: Live Alligators"
3. Guy puts alligator between his legs and attempts to pet it.
4. Guy is completely surprised when the alligator chops his nuts off and sues Florida for not having suitable signs even though the average common sense logic would tell you NOT to put an alligator between your legs.
If this is your assertion, then no label GAME puts on a case is going to be sufficient unless it completely wraps the case so you can't see anything of the original artwork.
I guess they caught wind of the man who sued GameStop and this is an effort to protect themselves. Fair play, I guess but I still think the whole DLC thing is bullshit on the whole.