I don't see a problem. Consumers have just as high a chance at getting Tesco's deal as the company does ... it's their own fault if they miss out on Tesco's deal and have to buy it 'pre-owned' from GAME.
GAME Admits to Grabbing 3DS Stock From Supermarkets
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I never thought GAME had credibility over supermarkets in the first place. They're all carrying standard products ... how can one be better than the other? I guess GAME could add value through advice given to gamers, but that advice would probably come with an agenda ... value added? Probably not ...Istvan said:
Not illegal, just crafty and underhanded salesman ship, if you disagree with it, tell them with your wallet and buy a 3DS elsewhere or whatever.Arachon said:
Personally I do thing it is a bit of a weasly tactic, especially sellign the "technically" preowned stock as new price.
To those who are saying "this is how the market works"... Part of the reason we put up with that phenomenal bastard called "the market" is that we keep being told that it brings consumers the best combination of price, quality, and selection. What Game is doing is the sort of reason that people regulate markets: they're removing stock from a competitor who sells things at a better price in order to fob it off to customers at their inflated price. It's the opposite of the reason that we tolerate typical market practice.
If you want to cheer the market on in this case, cheer that the news getting around is that much more likely for people to buy the 3DS from the supermarket and bypass Game entirely.
Like so many things, being legal doesn't make a practice moral.
If you want to cheer the market on in this case, cheer that the news getting around is that much more likely for people to buy the 3DS from the supermarket and bypass Game entirely.
Like so many things, being legal doesn't make a practice moral.
I wouldn't know, I've never seen one of their outlets, hence why I said 'any' rather than 'all'.ace_the_poet said:
Well GAME, you learned a way to exploit capitalism, now I'm going to teach you a new term:
BOYCOTT!
BOYCOTT!
That should read "GAME hasn't technically done anything illegal". There's a big difference between right and legal, and everybody - the employees, the people who sent that memo, the author of this article, and the readers - know that GAME stepped over the line here.Logan Westbrook said:
Otherwise, why write about it?
Not moral? You mean like how Tesco is selling the thing below cost in an effort to drive out competition? There are two sides to the coin here, and neither of them are moral. What do you think happens when GAME goes out of business because Tesco can make up their losses on other products, and GAME can't, and is forced to stick to selling for more? You think they'll keep selling at discount when they have no competition left? There are regulations regarding monopolies, too, remember that.Callate said:
GAME may not be acting entirely on the level here, but neither is Tesco. Business is a dirty game for everyone involved - the minute one side stops doing whatever it takes up to the point the law allows is the minute they get run out of town. GAME is just playing smart, as is Tesco (though not quite AS smart, since they didn't come up with a way to prevent this).
Exactly. And why would GAME go on the defensive.McMullen said:
I wish I shopped there so I could write them a letter telling them why I wouldn't shop there any more.
I don't see how gamers can still patronize the store and still respect themselves but I feel the same way about gamestop who probably did the same thing... just didn't get caught.
some may not consider it legal but I think it was right. Supermarkets damage businesses buy offering lower competitivie prices, I find it wrong for a dedicated company that caters to us hardcore gamers to be losing so much money which it should deserve.
But still supermarkets are very good for the economy and society in many cases due to social projects.
But still supermarkets are very good for the economy and society in many cases due to social projects.
If your suggesting my interpretation of "best price" means "cost" then I'd suggest you find your own supply of "tobacco" . Maybye you'll manage to then interpret "what I actually said" instead of "whatever you feel like making up to prove your point".Slycne said:
Or mabye you just think that because I like marijuana in my off-hours I couldnt POSSIBLY comprehend the concept of a profit-margin.
Eat a dick you fucking troll
Merely making the distinction, which you cleared. Your phrasing plainly stated that you wouldn't purchase a product if you found the retailer was getting it for another price. I wasn't exactly twisting your words to fuel a right wing rant on the ills of marijuana.rwege said:
