GameStop Nailed With Class Action Over Deceptive Used Sales

[Ariyura]

If I remember correctly, on the back of Dragon Age, it says pretty clearly that Shale comes with a limited-edition single-use DLC code. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single game with single-use DLC that (1) advertises that content on the packaging and (2) doesn't make it very clear that it's single-use limited-edition DLC.

I'm also inclined to think of the Dragon Age Ultimate Edition, which comes with all the DLC whether the game's been used or not. Seems like a good idea to me.

So one example "if you remember correctly." And the inability to name one.

Yeah, bad counter to "not all games do."

Bulletstorm Epic Edition:

"Access requires the single-use serial code enclosed with NEW, FULL RETAIL PURCHASE AND IS NON-TRANSFERABLE ONCE USED."

Dead Space 2:

"Access to certain online services also requires registration with the single-use serial code enclosed with new, full retail purchase. Registration for certain online services is limited to one ea account per serial code which is non-transferable once used."

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood:

"... such contents may only be unlocked one single time with a unique key"

These are just games in arms reach from where I am sitting.

And again...

I think people are missing the point here. I never said NO other game did it. And yet, I'm inundated with lazy logic and token examples, especially when from people who "think" that it's the case on a game.

So...We're up to five games that do. Or six. I don't know. Given the volume of titles with bonus DLC I don't care, as it's still a drop in the bucket. Is this the only thing people can latch onto?

Oh, probably.

The newest Smackdown V Raw, at the time this is out, has no such information that I can find on my box. It's possible, though I can't check, that this information exists on a sticker on the original wrap. But if you're buying the game used, it probably doesn't have the shrinkwrap on it. Just a hunch.

Again, not all games explicitly state this. Since not all games explicitly state this, there is a problem. SVR includes their own version of an online pass. I got mine new, I got the pass, I got online. I still feel burned that it even exists, but the point really isn't me. It's that these people might not be lazy or stupid or whatever.

Perhaps the companies themselves should be targeted instead of Gamestop, but there ARE examples of poorly marked or unmarked titles. That should go out to the above people who were citing examples of marked games. You can rifle off a ton of titles, but unless it's all the titles, the claims are potentially valid.

False advertising, well lets see. Gamestop, other than a few unknowledgeable employees does not go out of its way to say We sell used games with DLC, no they sell used games. And in fact you can return it if you're not satisfied with your purchase. It's not lazy. It offers a consumer a way to get their money back if they do not like the quality of the object they've received.

Consumers should be aware of whom they are giving their money to and the product that they are receiving, but yet in turn you exemplify a consumer of all responsibility here, when they should be just as responsible.

STILL. DOES NOT IMMUNISE ONE FROM FALSE ADVERTISING.

Consumers should be aware. That doesn't mean that a company doing something wrong isn't doing something wrong.

And that's what this court case is about. Whether or not they did something wrong. That one can return it

Stop being so dishonest. Or lazy. Whichever.

Whoah, no need to be hostile mon, seet bock and drink sum leemonaade.

It's not hostile, it's emphasising a point. "settle down" is not a defense for lying. Sorry.

Also, good job. A box art I can't read on my laptop's monitor to prove...What? Maybe the Escapist resizes it but I can't read it. Which leads me to believe the EVEN BIGGER LETTERING!!!! claims are, well...False.

Unless one is splitting hairs, and it's 6 point font over 5.5 point. I don't know.

I'm happy you're on such a Vendetta against game stop, but I the point I'm making is that I don't see any false advertising going on. You're very hostile to anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view on the matter. In no way am I lazy of Dishonest. I work very hard for a living. And I'm sorry about how you view things on your laptop since I can read the dlc disclaimer just fine. Ignorance is not a get out of jail free card, but you sure like to use it that way. So in the end lets just sit back and see how this lawsuit panders out then.

 

[Partezan]

How about you just download games like a normal person

 

[draythefingerless]

Wait, WHAT?! I didn't know this before? You had to pay 10 extra bucks if you buy used EA games? Doesn't that just kill the purpose of used games? Add that to the fact there isn't any fucking MULTIPLAYER (and that's a bad thing considering they have Battlefield) and you get someone that's getting pretty darn close to being as manipulative as Sony or Activision.


I'm never ever ever buying an EA game again cause I just realized that bullshit. As for Bioware, DICE, and the Sims I'll just go with Steam.

BioWare, DICE and the Sims are all published by EA, and they share the same system, also known as , Project 10$.

On the other hand, the used games you buy, gives 0% money to those publishers. In laymans terms, someone paid full price for the game, the publisher got his cut, then they gave the game back to GameStop, who is now reselling the game, under the label of being used, at nearly the same price, but this time, no royalties are paid to the people who made it. This i believe, is illegal in the music and movie industry, or if it isnt, it is sold at a fraction of the original price(usually what ammounts to the cut the retailer would get from a new sale).

So in the end, when you buy a used game, you are paying someone for sth that isnt theirs. So if someone made that product, and is now seeing it be sold without getting ANY income from that, basically losing money, why would they support that system? You blame EA and all the other publishers for basically being against sth that is harming them? They are just doing the same policy of profit GameStop is operating in.

It's not illegal in the music and movie industry. And yes you're going to pay more for a film that just came out versus something that came out several years ago and is in the 7.99 bin. But it does happen. Just look at all the used movies and music FYE pushes.

I do believe, im not sure in this, that there are expiration dates that prevent stores from selling used movies or music CDs too soon, aka, the same trimester the product came out. Once the trimester is over, the copyright hold expires, and selling used stuff is allowed.
Or i might be completely wrong and thats not the case. Still, it would be a great thing to implement if it hasnt been done yet.


This system would be PERFECT for used games. I am not againts USED games, in fact its a market that helps flourish more n more titles out, given how AAA games clobber ads and smother all the minor releases. However, the system is being abused right now. Used games being sold the same week the game comes out? At nearly the same price? With ZERO income to the person who made it? Its wrong, ethically wrong. At least the 7.99 bin sells stuff thats old, and you cant find being made anymore.

For those saying Gamestop coming down wil make you lose jobs, dont worry. Automats will do that for you. Or do you think that only happens in the industry sector?(for examples: ATM, shopping inventories, Digital distribution, etc etc.).

GameStop's yearly profits equal about 5-10% of the profits of publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc.) alone.

Please, tell me more about how the games industry is suffering under the cruel yoke of the used games market.

LOL, 5 TO 10%? where do you get these numbers? Gamestop has double the annual revenue of EA, double the annual revenue of Activision Blizzard. Thats the two biggest game publishers in the world, and one of them has HALF their income coming from WoW. Heres the thing. GameStop spends money on infrastructures, mobility, shipping and employees. Publishers have to hire people, most of them with a university degree, wich means university payments(in other words, WAY MORE THAN WHAT A GAMESTOP CLERK EARNS). They have to pay for infrastructures, mobility, shippings as well albeit less, copyright issues and technology supply(computers, software, servers, server maintenance). If we could ammount to it, lets say that EA and GameStop spend equally money on expenditures. Now im talking about EA and Activision here, but these are companies who HAVE the margin to pull a profit. Smaller companies? RARELY. They crash n burn, or they become subsidiary to bigger publishers. Most of the time. Im not calling GameStop evil, im calling the system as broken. I dont call GameStop evil the same way i dont call those guys who found the spawn glitch in Black Ops evil. They found the system was broken, explored it, even published it for the world to see. I just want the system to refine itself, because this medium would greatly improve from that.

 

[Leg End]

WHOOPS! My bad. There's a single line that you MAY need a single-use token to access online features.

In the Copyright block.

Arthur Dent, eat your heart out.

Not in the Copyrightwing block. Close, but no DICE(Geddit? )

The Bonus DLC Content Included notice is actually harder to see than the Available With Full Purchase bit.

Mr. Magoo, eat your heart out.

But seriously man, no need to be overly hostile about it. Drink some Tampico, the elixir of the Loli Gods..

 

[ultrachicken]

Is it really that big of a surprise? GameStop makes most of their money off their evil used game practices than anything else. I've already sworn off them for as long as I live anyway so it doesn't affect me much.

I think you're overreacting.

OT: I think GameStop should put up some signs on the subject for those who aren't so video-game savvy.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I agree it is quite deceptive.
I mean $55 + 10 is more than a brand new copy.
One would think a used copy should be cheaper, and GameStop does nothing about notify it's cosumer.

That's not what happens, and it never has been.

If a game has a $10 code, then Gamestop knocks the price down to $40-45. Then, even if you buy the code, it's still cheaper than a new copy.

Gamestop isn't deceiving anyone; it's people not doing their research.

 

[Zom-B]

I kind of felt mildly tricked recently. My wife and I went to Gamestop and she decided to buy me a game to play while recuperating. I chose my game, Dead Space 2, and she took it up to the counter while I continued to browse. After a moment she asked me if I wanted a used copy for $15 less and I said sure, i don't care, not even thinking about it. Why make her spend $60+ when she can spend $45 and tax? Wasn't til I got home that I realized that I couldn't access the online stuff without paying another $10 anyway. It's not a big deal, because most likely I never would have utilized it anyway. However, the cashier did NOT mention to my wife that she was purchasing a game with "less product", let's say, when purchasing a used copy.

He should have let her know and then she could have asked me or made an informed position. Instead, I wasn't paying attention and I said do whatever, so of course he sold her the used copy.

He definitely either either wrongly assumed she knew all about what she was buying or he glossed over the facts due to her naivete.

Just to recap:

You bought a game at a discount, then found out later (because you weren't paying attention at the time) that it didn't come with a feature that you weren't going to use anyway, and even if you were going to buy said feature the total price would still be discounted or do an immediate return and apply the money towards a new copy, and GameStop is somehow the bad guy in this story.

Not at all. My wife purchased the game. I was not involved in the transaction except from across the store, and she was sold a used copy based on price differential alone. The staff member did not take the time to tell her that some functionality of the game may be missing and I'd have to pay for it later. Nor did I know that the game came with an online code, nor did my wife. He chose not to tell either of us.

Whether or not I choose to use the online component is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the staff didn't inform us. If it's a difference of having a new copy that contains the online code or a used copy and paying for the code, I would have chosen the new copy. Whether or not I would ever play multiplayer. I prefer new copies most of the time, I was just trying to be nice because I was being given an expensive impulse gift.

But thanks for the snarky attitude, anyway. It really added to the discussion.

 

[ThaBenMan]

I totally want to play Dragon Slayer XIV now. And it's cool if I don't have the Flaming Sword of Dragon Death, that would make it too easy.

 

[Hatchet90]

If you don't like your purchase, you can return it.... How is this grounds for a lawsuit?

 

[CronoT]

Looking at the back of Bro Company 2...

Bonus Downloadable Content Included.*

Little further down in even bigger lettering...

*AVAILABLE WITH FULL RETAIL PURCHASE. SINGLE-USE CODE EXPIRES APRIL 1, 2011.

So, if people can see the bonus content bit on this case, they can easily see the full retail purchase warning. Though, they may not know what that means. :/

Ehh, I am... somewhat siding with GameStop. :/ I think it's pretty much just a bunch of sue happy, ignorant customers. :/ Or, it could be people being legitimately deceived by GameStop and I'm just being an idiot. :/

My head hurts...

NEED BRO COMPANY.

When I traded in my copy of UFC 2010 with a few other games to get MvC3, I hadn't used the online access code from the user guide. So, I told the guy that, and he told me it didn't change the value of the trade at all. So, I got F***ed, GameStop got a game with a good online code, and I didn't get a single penny for the code.

The guy actually had the gall to ask me if I wanted to keep the user guide so I had the code and could sell it online. Hello, butt-munch! If the game doesn't have the case AND the user manual, I get LESS trade-in value for it. I was pissed, but I didn't have the money for the game, so I swallowed my pride and took the game.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

YEEEAAAAHH! [http://files.sharenator.com/csi_yeah_skyline_Justin_Bieber_gets_shot-s449x287-138348-580.jpg]

Finally! They get hit where it hurts!

Seriously, who doesn't hate GameStop?

 

[Braedan]

*SNIP*

Jesus man,

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdHominem

No-one likes Ad Hominem attacks, and that is the bulk of your posts. It shows lack of thought as well as lack of effort.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually the box usually explains something along the lines of a one-time use code (to cover there own asses before the game is sold) so I'm surprised that now Gamestop has top explain this. It's like forcing Walmart to explain that drinking drain cleaner is bad and needing to point out the sign that says not to consume it. I suppose they could just slap a sign up over the used game section (that nobody will actually read) and if someone complains they can point tot it, but it still seems odd.

 

[matrix3509]

Is it really that big of a surprise? GameStop makes most of their money off their evil used game practices than anything else. I've already sworn off them for as long as I live anyway so it doesn't affect me much.

Yes, because its always Evil to make money now isnt it? The eveil gaming companies could just let the download codes work more then once, then this wouldnt happen, now would it?

OT: Well... I'm not really surprised. If you get paid on a commission (not saying they do, but if they do) then you pull any trick you can.

Really they're just a business, trying to make money. Cant blame them for what they're doing.

Yes, selling used games with scratches on the disc as if they were new is evil. There is no predatory selling practice they won't stoop to. I've seen it personally. GameStop is one step above subprime lending companies in my book of scum of the earth.

If outright lying to customers to make a buck is okay with you, then I am glad you aren't in any position of power.

 

[reddfawks]

There ARE signs put up in Canada. (From at least where I've been to)

 

[Exort]

I agree it is quite deceptive.
I mean $55 + 10 is more than a brand new copy.
One would think a used copy should be cheaper, and GameStop does nothing about notify it's cosumer.

That's not what happens, and it never has been.

If a game has a $10 code, then Gamestop knocks the price down to $40-45. Then, even if you buy the code, it's still cheaper than a new copy.

Gamestop isn't deceiving anyone; it's people not doing their research.

Oh then I'm sorry. I never bought a used game before.
Anyways, I don't believe you should blame the consumers. The companys should inform everything the consumers should know. It is unlikely that a consumer will know everything about every product they buy due to the the sheer amount of product that is available.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

List of games giving warning about dlc is 1 time offer for non used...

WHOOPS! My bad. There's a single line that you MAY need a single-use token to access online features.

In the Copyright block.

Arthur Dent, eat your heart out.
Editted by Rationalization to focus debate.The newest Smackdown V Raw, at the time this is out, has no such information that I can find on my box.

not all games explicitly state this. Since not all games explicitly state this, there is a problem. SVR includes their own version of an online pass. I got mine new, I got the pass, I got online. I still feel burned that it even exists, but the point really isn't me.

Perhaps the companies themselves should be targeted instead of Gamestop, but there ARE examples of poorly marked or unmarked titles. That should go out to the above people who were citing examples of marked games. You can rifle off a ton of titles, but unless it's all the titles, the claims are potentially valid.

Also, good job. A box art I can't read on my laptop's monitor to prove...What? Maybe the Escapist resizes it but I can't read it. Which leads me to believe the EVEN BIGGER LETTERING!!!! claims are, well...False.

Unless one is splitting hairs, and it's 6 point font over 5.5 point. I don't know.

I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic, and continue from there. Copyright blocks are there for this reason, "But I didn't read the copyright information!" Probably doesn't stand up in court.

Please please please, tell me of a game that advertises DLC included on the box that isn't then said only to be given to full retail purchases. I looked at your Smackdown V Raw 2011 game and it doesn't advertise free DLC, in fact it makes no mention of a code at all. That's not on gamestop, that's on the people who make these cover arts.

[link]http://www.vgboxart.com/viewfullbox.php?boxid=34533&boxloc=%2Fboxes%2F360%2F34533_wwe_smacdown_vs_raw_2011-orig.jpg[/link] The link may give you a bigger picture.

Spoiler: Click again for picture to be seen through escapist.

Spoiler: Huge picture of a different 2011 smackdown vs raw. If you go to the properties and then go to the origin site and copy the picture from the site, you can read everything.

You mention you're on a laptop, I'm on a desktop so send me a game, and I'll be able to see what the text says.I'm with you in that this should be going towards not only gamestop but the companies who make the games, not only the ones that sell them. If gamestop made the front/back cover art, you know they'de have it in huge letters. But I've yet to see a game say it has free dlc, and not have a clause that states only for retail. If I got the wrong raw game plz tell me and I'll edit.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

Yeah. Again. the word BUSINESS arises. You wanna drag gamestop through the mud, you may as well drag out the skeletons of every other game retail seller (since... you know, game companies dont set up an EA shop to see their games). And Walmart/Target have MANY ugly secrets to earn their dollar worse then gamestop.

I'll give you an example, that scratched disk business. F.Y.E.s (For Your Entertainment; its mostly a CD seller that sells used and new CDs, but they also sell movies) are all known in a general opinion for charging 50-85% for used CDs right beside the new. These Cds usually have ugly scratches down them or marks that wont come out or cant be fixed. So the CD will skip around. The kicker is, they dont buy back Cds. You can "donate" a CD and get a five Dollar gift certificate, but thats only if you are the only one that bought it. They wont take back their used cds they sell you, and if you have issue with it, they dont give refunds on Used Cds (not even store credit).

They do the same thing Gamestop does, only they do it with CDs. But you never here people complaining about it.

Besides, who said I'm not in position of power? I run three different college clubs finances, sit as a vice president of a starting fraternity, and sit as the top of the board of intermural winter sports. Lying, cheating, backroom dealing, its all gotten me where the clubs are now. Thats the way the world works, and Gamestop is hardly the worst.

Perhaps if people were just a bit smarter, read the back of a box FULLY, and cared to do just a little bit of outside research, they wouldnt be duped so easily. There's nothing stopping them from going out and buying the game new, if the prices are SO outrageous.