GameStop Sued Over "Deceptive" Used Game Sales
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Just like all the people railing against Gamestop, offering their anecdotal evidence, all I have to go on are the Gamestops I know. Jeannie, Bruce, and Emmit are some of the best people I've ever met, and the employees under them are eminently helpful. I have encountered one blatant scammer (a low level employee who I'm sure won't last long), but then again I have scammed them myself once or twice (usually on old PS2 and Xbox stuff, though). More than a few times when I have forgotten my discount card, an employee will pull out their own and give me the discount anyway. I have nothing but love for my local Gamestops, and in addition, this lawsuit is frivolous and the result of idiocy.
In summation: my local GS=good, this guy=stupid, lawsuit should be thrown out.
Edit: Also, why would the employee be deceptive about this? If they convinced him to by the new version, that's $5 more for the store. Why would the employee trick him into buying a used game when it would make less for the store?
In summation: my local GS=good, this guy=stupid, lawsuit should be thrown out.
Edit: Also, why would the employee be deceptive about this? If they convinced him to by the new version, that's $5 more for the store. Why would the employee trick him into buying a used game when it would make less for the store?
awwww...someone spilled coffee in their lap again. Damn that hot coffee! Let's blame otehrs for not realising HOT COFFEE IS HOT!
suesuesue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43tFtXApjEQ
Any fool who buys a used copy for $5 LESS than the game, shoulda just buy the actual game!
suesuesue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43tFtXApjEQ
Any fool who buys a used copy for $5 LESS than the game, shoulda just buy the actual game!
I can now picture a gamespot store owner standing over a line of his employees, all of them manicly scribbling out any DLC offers on game boxes with sharpie markers, yelling "Faster, faster you bastards!"
man I hate stories like these. the best part is for an extra five bucks he could've gotten a code that would get those pieces of dlc. I say gamestop should sue him for being a whiny loser. I mean for something as frivolous as the lawsuit he's claiming they should have the right to sue him for all the "bad publicity" he's brought upon them ruining their own sales when his lawsuit bears no fruit. I can't wait for this dummy to realize he's still gonna have to pay his lawyers when he doesn't win or go anywhere for this. 5 dollars doesn't seem so bad now does it? you want a game and like supporting its developers so they can make more cool stuff? you buy it new, simple as that. you want to save 5 bucks because you're a cheap ass loser? fine, then miss out on some pretty sweet content, we don't care go right ahead. there's an advisory label on the back of the cover that's pretty damn clear to me(then again I was only dropped on my head once as a child) so really only an idiot wouldn't be able to figure this one out.
stupidity? hell no. everyone should be cheering him on. someone finally doing something good so gamestop will stop ripping people off. buy a new game, play it, finish it, return it for store credit and get only $30 for a game played only 2 days so they can sell it for $5 less of a new one? that's bull and hopefully he wins since there are alot of people who arent as informed as normal gamers and may fall prey to this. some parent somewhere may buy their kid a used version and then find out hey they need to spend another $30 for the DLC which of course said parent has no idea what DLC is and gets ripped off when the parent now spends about $80 instead $60. there was a post about how EA's DLC program should lower the value of used games because a new game has the game and $30(2 DLC) making the game valued at $30 for the price of $60 while the used verison only has the game so it should be only 30 vs 55 and no DLCsquid5580 said:
how about a parent who doesnt know any better? not saying this guy is one but neverless generally its the people who are less informed that get sucked into this kinda of bullshit.slowpoke999 said:
Anyone else think it is ironic that even if he wins, this case will last long past April, when the availability of the DLC expires, therefore causing him to lose out on it anyways?
A) All the information was on the box, including the fact that the DLC was only available with a "Full Retail Purchase". He should have read the box. Caveat Emptor.
B) GameStop's trade in policy is not relevant to the matter at hand, and furthermore, is a direct result of capitalist society. No one is forcing you to trade your games for so little, and no one is forcing you to pay so much for used. If people weren't willing to accept their prices, they would have to change them to accommodate their customers. Supply/Demand.
I would like to refer you to my previous post, which explains both of your concerns. To sumarize:Master_Fubar23 said:
A) All the information was on the box, including the fact that the DLC was only available with a "Full Retail Purchase". He should have read the box. Caveat Emptor.
B) GameStop's trade in policy is not relevant to the matter at hand, and furthermore, is a direct result of capitalist society. No one is forcing you to trade your games for so little, and no one is forcing you to pay so much for used. If people weren't willing to accept their prices, they would have to change them to accommodate their customers. Supply/Demand.
Because I paid for it, that's why. Turn it around; if I buy a game new and then sell it when I don't want it anymore, that's not piracy, that's me doing what I wish with my property. Piracy entails me taking the game and distributing it for free.Mad Stalin said:
Why stop with GS? Why not just institute a law that regulates the price of everything. No more Ebay auctions skyrocketing. No more priceless antiques. No more of this people buying and selling stuff at prices they feel comfortable with. Afterall we can't be trusted to make our own buying and selling decisions.Master_Fubar23 said:
1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptorBosola said:
I know it's wikipedia, but it's the best source I could find on short notice. Nowhere have I seen anything that would imply that caveat emptor applies only private sales. In fact, wikipedia actually states how this affects company return policies, which would imply that it applies for corporations as well private sales.
2)Personally, caveat emptor is always good advice. An informed buyer is nobody's fool.
3)All the information the customer needed was supplied on the box, including "DLC only available for Full Retail Purchase". If he didn't understand what that meant, he should have asked. A company is not responsible if you don't read their disclaimer, they still made a disclaimer.
How about people who don't get to handle the game before buying has is becoming more and more common at game stores? For the rest: Damned retards not grabbing the game to read the boxes fine print, cause they actually decided which game they wanted long before they came down to the store and just asked for a copy at the counter. Note that usually this is the time when the employee behind the counter checks their computer then says "We have a copy of that used, and you can save XX dollars."slowpoke999 said:
For the used game prices, Gamestop tends to price newer used games at 10% or so less then the price of a new game. If people pay it they are going to charge it.
Every store I've ever been in have allowed you to look over the product before purchasing. In most cases like Walmart where the game is locked up, you just find a sales person and say "Hey, can I see that game?" and they will open it up and let you check it out. Yes, they usually stand there and watch you till you decide, but that's their company policy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I would refuse to buy a game from a retailer that didn't allow me to examine at least the outer packaging of a product before buying.manaman said:
dragontiers said:
That *Whooosh!* was the sound of the point you missed as it went by.
Why would you bother to read the box throughly enough to catch the small print when you already know you are going to buy it. That is after all why the make it small print, they don't want you to be as likely to notice it. How many people go into a game store these days and read the boxes to decide what they want to buy? Most already have a damned good reason to be there, even the people browsing for used games have a fairly good idea of what games they want, and are just looking to see if they have any of them.
The point wasn't being denied the ability to read the box but why you would in the first place. EULAs failing to protect companies in some cases has shown us that placing really important information in a place you know the consumer is likely not to read it is not a good way to protect yourself from liability. In this case it is Gamestop failing to fully inform the customer that the used game is not going to provide them full content.
Why would Gamestop even want to do that? It would after all kill their used game market for these games. They would pretty much have to price $20 lower then new for the customer to get any kind of deal out of the situation, and they don't want to do that.
Like I said in my last post, I DID read the link and still stand by my verdict. She was an idiot. Next time why don't you read the post before insulting the author of it, then YOU won't look like an idiot.CD-R said:
P.S.
Why do you care so much?