I wonder if they did that in Ireland...
Oh well, I'm getting it from GAME instead of GameStop... And on 360, anyway.
Oh well, I'm getting it from GAME instead of GameStop... And on 360, anyway.
GameStop Pulls PC Version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's because GameStop actually have a fair point here.Yopaz said:
GS are going to be releasing a service to stream games, like OnLive does at the moment, so they're removing advertising for a soon-to-be competing service.
They didn't go about it well, but still, they have an argument.
I usually play devil's advocate with this kind of stuff, but I'm not doing that this time. This just sucks. They should have just returned the boxes unopened and taken a hit. I like GameStop well enough, but there always seems to be some problem with them, whether it's little things like closing at 8 and preventing me from picking up a preorder, medium things like delaying the release of time-senstive preorder codes for SW:TOR or big things like this, there's always something. Oh well, I was thinking of picking this up, so if I decide to go with PC instead of Xbox, i'll avoid them this time.
Well, personally I'll never be on GameStop's side as long as they keep running their business as they do now.Yopaz said:And yet I have seen GameStop selling CS. The very game Steam was made for.JediMB said:But once someone buys a Steamworks game and is forced to install and register for Steam, they'll naturally be more inclined to buy games on Steam rather than on GameStop in the future.XaVierDK said:I don't think Gamestop minds selling a game which requires Steam, as long as people actually buy the game in a Gamestop... But the blatant advertising of a (soon-to-be) competing service in a product they sell? I can sorta understand where they're coming fromJediMB said:
It's the same thing as for OnLive. They register for the service to get their free copy of Deus Ex, and then they start investing money in other games.
What I want to ask is. How is this anything different from publishers "removing" content from games they make?
There's been a lot of argument over games like Rage for having extra content for those who buy new that others have to buy separately. Now GameStop does it and everyone seems to be on GameStop's side. And GameStop is actually physically removing something.
And at the end of the day all video game distribution services - be they physical stores, online retailers, digital distribution services, or cloud gaming services - are in competition with each other, and you don't see any other stores removing OnLive coupons from the game cases.
Although... I do recall there being a bunch of British retailers threatening to stop stocking Steamworks games because they felt threatened by Steam. (And recently there was news of games getting delayed releases on Steam in the UK.)
Morons. They didn't stop to think about the possible bad PR this would cause did they?
All Gamestop is accomplishing with this is driving possible customers AWAY from their services.
All Gamestop is accomplishing with this is driving possible customers AWAY from their services.
So when game developers want to compete with their biggest loss in income that's a terrible thing, but when GameStop wants to do the same it's all OK?No_Remainders said:
There's been a lot of rage around Rage because an area in the game featuring sewers was given as free dlc for those who bought it new. This could be bought independently if you bought the game used.
Now EA includes something that competes with GameStop and everyone is on GameStop's side, saying that's understandable because it will mean GameStop loses income. Now why is there such a fury around a case where the creator of a game wants to secure at least some money and gives exclusive content when a retailer (which has NOT made any games) actually removes something the publisher gives you?
I just can't see the difference. Please, tell me the difference between:
1: Game developer "removes" content to get ahead in the competition
2: GameStop removes content to get ahead in the competition
I'm actually all in favour of preventing people who buy second hand to play some content. I think it's a pretty good idea.Yopaz said:
And Square Enix included it, not EA.
Shrug. I buy first hand almost exclusively, unless it's a game that I just wasn't bothered getting when it was first released and therefore can't find a new copy.
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?No_Remainders said:
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.Yopaz said:
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
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
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.
You had me at YET.Gizen said:
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.
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.No_Remainders said:
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.
Uh, no. Your understanding of business practices is off, to a large degree.robert01 said:
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.