GameStop Sued Over "Deceptive" Used Game Sales

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I thought at first this was going to be a "stick it to the man", and since I've allowed the opinions of others to colour my view on GameStop (who was it who said not to allow that to happen, and to make your own damn choices?), I was ready to dispense my abject approbation along with the masses.

But no, instead it turns out that GameStop, which is evil, Or So I Heard [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrSoIHeard], is being sued by, not a heroic citizen fighting injustice and improving the world, but an idiot who clearly doesn't know anything about Bioware's policy on the in-box DLC.

It'd be nice if we could really put a damper on this suing culture people seem to have (the more successful and powerful your country, the more time its citizens have to try and get free money for being stupid), but then again, that'll possibly infringe on the freedoms we want.

When will the parade of ambiguously moral situations end?

Tune in next week to not find out.

 

[MetalDooley]

Game stop tricks people all the time into buying used games.

How exactly do they trick people?I've bought plenty of games from GS over the years and have never been "tricked" into buying used if I didn't want to

 

[Epitome]

I had planned on buying a used copy of DA:O and went to gamestop. Read teh back of teh box and saw teh DLC was only with full retail purchase, I bought the retail. It says on the back of teh box that the DLC comes with "full retail purchase", its not Gamestops fault that this idiot didnt read the box and its a very reasonable 7 day policy? Anymore and GS will have people who finish the games fast just returning them and getting new ones like clockwork. I have no symapthy, he failed to research, he failed to read with his own two eyes and he shouldnt get a penny for it.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

No case.

This'll get thrown out. Asterisk power!

*************

 

[Jared]

I can see this will be thrown out before it gets anywhere near to a judge.

Its clearly stated and he just decided not to read it and try to skimp out on a few coins...his own fault in the end.

 

[Space Jawa]

He's in the wrong but...

I hope he wins.

Why? Why would you hope he wins in a ridiculous case such as this if you already willing to admit he's in the wrong? I can't see any reason why he should win or how his victory in this frivolous lawsuit could possibly be good for anyone.

Well, other than Collins, but what's good for him here isn't good for anyone else.

 

[Worgen]

this reeks of premeditated law suit

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't think he's goona make any money, at all.

 

[midpipps]

there's a creepiness to the editorial tone of this article that i'm not very comfortable with.

It's an interesting and, I would imagine, entirely unforeseen consequence of EA's "Project Ten Dollar", the company's creative, hopefully successful attempt at combating used game sales by offering bonus content to people who buy new.

why exactly would we, the consumer, be hopeful that this attempt be successful?

why are used game sales a bad thing?

Question Number 1: It could help the companies make some more money off of games which hopefully in turn causes them to stay in business and make more great games. See Kross answer quote for more on this and an answer to question number 2.

To question number 2:

It wasn't unforseen. That is why they put in the *.

Indeed, at least one developer has equated used games sales to piracy when viewed from the standpoint of revenue* going to the developer (and other costs like support requests from those same non-paying customers). So, outside of the piracy reasons, Project 10 dollar was likely squarely targeted at reducing/profiting from used game sales as well.


* New game money going back to the developer who made it, paying for their last several years of work or so: anywhere from $5-$20 of the $60 box if I recall correctly.

* Money from a recently released used game (i.e. games that are sold practically "as-new", and usually to the same target market that would buy the new game due to a minimal savings) sold at $55 that goes to the people who made it: $0

I can't fault Gamestop for making the most money with the least effort, as that's what companies are for, but they still have to play fair with their paying customers. And it's up to the people who do care about such things to make sure the people who deserve it get paid for their work. And it's up to us to make sure those people are informed about what's really going on as best as we're able.

This.

 

[Andy Chalk]

It wasn't unforseen. That is why they put in the *.

But I don't think anyone at EA or GameStop expected that GameStop would be sued over what is essentially an EA initiative. An uproar was almost certain, but a lawsuit against retailers? That seems kinda left-fieldish to me.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

He's in the wrong but...

I hope he wins.

Why? Why would you hope he wins in a ridiculous case such as this if you already willing to admit he's in the wrong? I can't see any reason why he should win or how his victory in this frivolous lawsuit could possibly be good for anyone.

Well, other than Collins, but what's good for him here isn't good for anyone else.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I wish him well.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Edit:Can Gamestop even be sued for what they did?I mean sure it's deceitful as hell, but who the heck buys a used game for $5 less then a new one?

If Gamestop employees told him that the game came with DLC, then he'd have at least valid legal grounds. Of course, actually backing up his claims would be hard.