GameStop Pulls PC Version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution

[No_Remainders]

OK, so I'll admit I don't know who's actually publishing the game, but you said GameStop had a fair point without answering how GameStop can cause losses to publishers and developers and almost no-one has a problem with it, but hate it when publishers do the same to GameStop?

I didn't talk about publishers restricting content because that wasn't part of the topic in the first place. Yes, GameStop had a perfect excuse to do as they did. However, I'm also of the opinion that restricting content is a very good way of stopping people from buying pre-owned, because publishers get no money off pre-owned sales, and therefore are losing out, whereas GameStop make money.

 

[Drakey]

So If I got a Whopper at McD's, Because the third party sent them the wrong materials for a Big Mac, Am I supposed to be angry with the McD's? Bull.

I stand behind gamestops decisions to protect thier interests by asking Square to give them copys w/o competetor advertising and promotions. Should have been that way in the first place, and even gamestop was unaware of this foolishness. Thats Sloppy work on the side of Square-Enix. As customers, Dont be getting the nickers in a twist just because the retailer wants to protect itself. If you get a coupon, great. If not, YOU STILL HAVE BOUGHT AN AWESOME GAME, that you never expected to get said extra in the first place.

Cry Baby Cry. - Wash

 

[swtstar777]

Am I the only one that thinks "While it is wrong to open potential customers merchandise, it is there right to not have coupons of a competitor in items they sell." Seriously. Am I really the only one.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Advertising discounts, sales on products, and bonus content downloads are fine to package in games because they usually do not directly compete with the businesses that sell the products with them. Now, once you talk about digital distribution of full games via stream, you enter the territory of directly competing sales between OnLive and Gamestop's new service. By Gamestop's sales of those OnLive coupons, they are deducting sales from their future service.

Put another way, that would be the same as me having a coupon for a free RPG rulebook from my competitor's hobby store in one of my new books, when I sell the same product in store. I would have the right to refuse and recall items with that promotion inside because it threatened my own sales, so why doesn't Gamestop?

Except in order to get that coupon for a free rulebook from a competitor's store, I'd first have to pay full price to obtain the same rulebook from YOUR store. All those coupons that Gamestop was pulling out, for the customers to get them, they'd first have to have already bought the game from Gamestop, which means they've still gotten the money for it already. On top of that, since the coupon is to get the game for free, OnLive isn't even actually making any money from the coupon in and of itself (at least that I'm aware of, unless OnLive has a subscription or something that I'm not aware of). Furthermore, Gamestop doesn't have a competing business with OnLive YET, and I'm willing to bet that they didn't at the time that Square-Enix negotiated this deal with OnLive, since Gamestop's acquisition was a relatively recent thing. If anything, this will make Gamestop lose money, because even if they're given versions of the game without a coupon to sell now, why would anyone buy from them when you can go to the Wal-Mart next door and get two games for the price of one? Not to mention Gamestop is already having issues with people getting fed up with being sold tampered goods as brand new, and this does not help that image.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Square-Enix is completely 100% in the right, but Gamestop is definitely in the wrong, and by a much larger amount.

You had me at YET.
If gamestop had their cloud based service set up, I could see them bringing this up (making it an issue) but not just selling opened copies as new, which they do anyway.
I find it sad that they got Sqare to apologize for it. It reminds me of when Dick Cheney's friend apologized to Dick for being shot in the face by him.

This is really just the latest reason in a long list of things that make me not want to ever walk into a gamestop again.

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so I'll admit I don't know who's actually publishing the game, but you said GameStop had a fair point without answering how GameStop can cause losses to publishers and developers and almost no-one has a problem with it, but hate it when publishers do the same to GameStop?

I didn't talk about publishers restricting content because that wasn't part of the topic in the first place. Yes, GameStop had a perfect excuse to do as they did. However, I'm also of the opinion that restricting content is a very good way of stopping people from buying pre-owned, because publishers get no money off pre-owned sales, and therefore are losing out, whereas GameStop make money.

But why is this a fair point? You haven't answered why AT ALL. Now when you "answered" that question all you said was GameStop had a perfect excuse. The first time you "answered" it you said they had a fair point.
Why is it fair that they open the box, remove something and sell it as new? If it's opened it's no longer in sealed condition. Should they also be allowed to remove dlc coupons?
As it is GameStop is allowed to sell used games. There's no law against it. They hurt publishers and developers, but there's no law against it. Why should they also be entitled to remove things from new copies? We already buy the game itself from GameStop so it's not like they lose a dime if we get a free streaming version of it. It's not like we would buy the game as a hard copy from GameStop then buy it as a streaming version from GameStop too. If this is such a big deal, why not let everyone who has bought Deus Ex from them get a coupon from their service? They ARE taking away something we actually have paid for without any refund to compensate for the fact that we get less. This is in fact a situation where a big company rips off the little consumer.
Explain to me how they got a perfect excuse without saying "they had a perfect excuse", "they were in their right" or "They had a fair point.

Edit: I also mentioned the fact that some publishers use dlc to earn money (I wont say restrict content when they don't actually do that) because of the lack of complaints when GameStop actually removes something. It's been there from my first post as an open question. Also if you actually read my first post I dedicated that one to draw parallels between the recent drama around Rage. That question was directed to anyone who wasted their breath complaining over it. The topic telling everyone to boycott it. The sensationalist article written on the topic. So in my post I asked what the difference was. To which you replied that "GameStop actually had a fair point". So basically I asked you about that again because you clearly stated that the difference that GameStop were in their right to remove this coupon while publishers having day one dlc were in the wrong.

 

[AgentBJ09]

And what GameStop did is still wrong. Clearly they are afraid of competition.
Square Enix doesn't have to OK any promotions they do with stores.
Clearly your understanding of marketing is a little off.

Uh, no. Your understanding of business practices is off, to a large degree.

Any company can refuse to promote a competitor. Also, any company that wished to promote the sales of products from other companies, like Square did with OnLive, has to inform those who buy their products of it as soon as they reach an agreement. Those companies can then accept the item as is, or turn it down.

Gamestop may be making a bad move, but given the circumstances, they have the right to do so since Square never told them about this. If Square HAD told them, you'd see this Escapist headline instead:

"Looking to get a free copy of DE:HR from OnLive? Don't buy from Gamestop."

GameStop cannot open an item, remove something from inside it, and than claim it is a new sale. They only have two options, deal with the promotion and PROVE to people why their service is better than the competitors, or not sell the product. Which they opted to do once it got out that they were removing the coupons.

Then, you'll be pleased, I guess, to hear they are offering a $50 gift card to everyone affected by this, as well as a Buy 2, Get 1 Free voucher that you can use seperate from that giftcard.

I doubt it'll satisfy, much less placate, many people who already demonize the company, but then again, I don't mind the outrage as much as I used to. In about a week, it'll be a moot topic.

 

[DracoSuave]

GameStop has every right to do that to SE, because yes, SE didn't tell GameStop it was happening.

At this point GameStop has the right to discontinue the product or not sell or distribute it, which is an action between GameStop and SquareEnix. This is fine.

What is NOT fine, is taking the products, and removing elements of the products while still offering the products.

It is reasonable to expect products bought from a store to be in good working order, with no parts missing without prior notice. With computer games, there's an explicit license that extends to the opener of the product. Often this will make illegal the transfer of that license.

In this case, by opening the product, GameStop becomes the owner of that license. They cannot then repackage that product (with bits missing) and then resell it because those products do not have resell clauses for their licenses.

As well, even if the products DID have transferable licenses, as the first end user of that license, GameStop cannot advertise the game products as new. They've accepted the EULA, and thus the game is now used.

There is also the problem that if it is reasonable to expect that the game come with free digital copies (is it written in any internal literature outside the actual OnLive itself?) then GameStop cannot be said to be selling the product in good faith.


Selling opened games as new is wrong, and they should not have tampered with the product. Not selling them is right, and they have the right to not sell things.

And Square has the right to tell customers that if they don't like free digital copies of stuff they own they can go to GameStop for that 'service.' That's a brilliant FU right there.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

Is there like a rule where nobody's allowed to say anything bad about this game? Cuz I got some major issues with it. Thank Buddha for Redbox.

 

[matt87_50]

ah, its funny watching the obsolete flail about unwillingly into oblivion.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Wow... I live in England and we don't have GameStop, but every time I see a news article relating to them on the Escapist they always sound like utter douchebags.

This is what worries me about the whole "digital download" mindset we seem to be creeping into. I prefer boxed copies and will buy them all the time it is possible to do so, even if I have to wait a couple of days for postage or to get the chance to go to a proper shop. At least then I can say I own that boxed copy and no one is entering into dick measuring contests over who distributes it best.

Tell ya what GameStop, here's a sound business propesition for ya... stop being such arogant dicks about everything and maybe people will be more inclined to shop with you. Geez.

Besides, it's just so much easier/cheaper to use Amazon.

 

[The Random One]

See, Gamestop, that's why you have to build a rapport with your costumers. If Steam tried to pull shit like this the internet would be crawling with people defending them, and not every one of those would be mindless fanboys. But because your business practices are shit, things that might be justifiable (like 'we don't want to give a free trial to our competitors in our store, and were never consulted about this') will instantly push you over the 'deep shit' end.

Then again, if your business practives weren't shit you might not have pulled free stuff from things your costumers have paid for and are entitled to without telling them, so this whole conundrum might not even have happened.

This sounds like a hard to use one-liner.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I don't like Gamestop.... But they were in the right on this one. They came out and told people what they were doing and why, and Square even admitted they put the coupons in there without telling Gamestop.

Yeah, that's kind of a big thing.

Are you high? Gamestop didn't tell anyone anything. It was a leaked memo that made it to the press that tipped everyone off.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Yes, Coca-Cola should *CLEARLY* check with Pepsi every time they want to run a promotion, since they're sold in the same stores.

I'll explain this before you get too far into the wrong ideas, because it's quite clear to me you don't understand businesses and how they operate when it comes to advertisements and promotions. The same can be said of most of the other people commenting here, Gamestop hatred notwithstanding.

By your logic, you think Square Enix is completely free of any wrongdoing by not telling the companies who buy their products ahead of time about promotions and freebies inside the item related to alternate services of delivery, even if they might conflict with another company. In this case, Gamestop and OnLive.

Best Buy doesn't stream game content, nor do Fry's or Amazon, even though they also sold the game. Gamestop is about to, so that free coupon for OnLive is something that may directly affect future sales if sold. If their sales could be threatened by packaged-in promotions, then they reserve the right to halt the sales of the product and remove the item in question to be replaced by copies which do not have that coupon.

Advertising discounts, sales on products, and bonus content downloads are fine to package in games because they usually do not directly compete with the businesses that sell the products with them. Now, once you talk about digital distribution of full games via stream, you enter the territory of directly competing sales between OnLive and Gamestop's new service. By Gamestop's sales of those OnLive coupons, they are deducting sales from their future service.

Put another way, that would be the same as me having a coupon for a free RPG rulebook from my competitor's hobby store in one of my new books, when I sell the same product in store. I would have the right to refuse and recall items with that promotion inside because it threatened my own sales, so why doesn't Gamestop?

And in any case, Square has said they respect Gamestop's right to pull the coupons because of what they have made public, and they did say they didn't inform anyone who bought the game for retail sale about this. Gamestop's just the unlucky target of this since they actually will have a similar service to OnLive soon.

Matter of fact, they could in fairness do the same with free full game Steam promotions since they own Impulse, which competes with them on that front. And you know what? As a business, they have every right to do so.

What they do not, however, have a right to do is to steal things from the packages. Nor do they have a right to determine what business deals are or are not appropriate for the publisher to include.

Square-Enix is under no obligation to inform Gamestop of *ANY* promotional materials they include in the package.

Most importantly, as you've broached, is the question of why Gamstop is treating OnLive, and by extension, Square-Enix, differently than Steam and Valve.

 

[Dogstile]

And the hate for Gamestop comes out once again even though the publisher pulled just as much as a dick move on Gamestop.

Hell yeah, go internet hate machine!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.

What kind of "dick move" did Square do, exactly? How is it different from Steamworks being required? Steam is probably the biggest competitor to Gamestop. Do they send all the Steamworks games back? No, they don't.

It would have been different if they sent the shipments back and requested a coupon-free retail shipment instead. However, what they did was just pillage the product that they sell directly to their customers, without their knowledge. I'm sorry, but that's quite a big dick move in comparison. Cracking the seal to a "new game" I just bought? That would piss me right off..

So once again, Gamestop exploits it's own customers because they had a hissy fit about money. Imagine that.

There are always tons of promotions given out with retail games, as already stated in this thread. Microsoft Points, Steam, etc.

The difference is Gamestop knew about it.

Edit: You know, when steam and that did it

 

[NOHC]

GameStop has every right to do that to SE, because yes, SE didn't tell GameStop it was happening.

At this point GameStop has the right to discontinue the product or not sell or distribute it, which is an action between GameStop and SquareEnix. This is fine.

What is NOT fine, is taking the products, and removing elements of the products while still offering the products.

It is reasonable to expect products bought from a store to be in good working order, with no parts missing without prior notice. With computer games, there's an explicit license that extends to the opener of the product. Often this will make illegal the transfer of that license.

In this case, by opening the product, GameStop becomes the owner of that license. They cannot then repackage that product (with bits missing) and then resell it because those products do not have resell clauses for their licenses.

As well, even if the products DID have transferable licenses, as the first end user of that license, GameStop cannot advertise the game products as new. They've accepted the EULA, and thus the game is now used.

There is also the problem that if it is reasonable to expect that the game come with free digital copies (is it written in any internal literature outside the actual OnLive itself?) then GameStop cannot be said to be selling the product in good faith.


Selling opened games as new is wrong, and they should not have tampered with the product. Not selling them is right, and they have the right to not sell things.

And Square has the right to tell customers that if they don't like free digital copies of stuff they own they can go to GameStop for that 'service.' That's a brilliant FU right there.

Brilliance.

Utter, complete brilliance.