GameStop Sued Over "Deceptive" Used Game Sales

[Heart of Darkness]

There's no case here. He failed to read the packaging and failed to clarify what that asterisk meant. Any competent judge would throw this case out and fine the guy for a frivolous lawsuit.

People need to take the time to read stuff...I mean, really. Really? You waste time on this? Just fork over the $15 and be done with it.

 

[Aurora219]

I can see where he's coming from, but at the same time I think he should go and get a life.

The time and effort spent harassing Gamestop could have been spent doing something creative, like reading the back of the box.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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

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

why are used game sales a bad thing?

They're not, at least not as bad as publishers like to paint them. I often buy used, although normally only when the discounts are substantial and, more often than not, when the games are no longer readily available as new releases. But Project Ten Dollar is fantastic, especially when you're talking about a five dollar difference in price between new and used. Did you see all the free shit that came with Mass Effect 2? If EA wants to dump a bunch of free stuff on me for buying new, you better believe I'll get in that line.

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

Regardless of whether or not you like gamestop, a games distributor should not get sued over a customer failing to read the label. This should get shot down hard to teach people from making stupid lawsuits over trivial crap. AT WORST this issue is over 60$ for the cost of a new copy.

The lawyer will prolly charge more than that just for you to step in their office.

 

[Shapoolaman]

Surely there's no case here?It says on the packaging that the free DLC is only for new purchases so how can this possibly be Gamestop's fault?Cheapskate should have just forked out the extra $5 and bought it new

The weird thing is that it isn't cheap to hire a lawyer or bring a case to court. This guy was really determined to make a quick buck, just like the person who sued McDonalds over hot coffee. Its ridiculous. This world is insane.

 

[dragontiers]

As many people have pointed out, I believe the case will probably be thrown out once the judge finds out about the whole * business. On the other hand, I'm actually surprised that GameStop didn't do anything to prevent it, as during the period I worked there (that's right, get it out of your system), we were given sheets of stickers to apply to any used copies of Gears of War II that came in that stated the downloadable map pack was only available on the new version and not the used version. I figured they would do a similar thing here, but apparently not.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Surely there's no case here?It says on the packaging that the free DLC is only for new purchases so how can this possibly be Gamestop's fault?Cheapskate should have just forked out the extra $5 and bought it new

The weird thing is that it isn't cheap to hire a lawyer or bring a case to court. This guy was really determined to make a quick buck, just like the person who sued McDonalds over hot coffee. Its ridiculous. This world is insane.

Why, oh why, do people always bring up Stella Leinbeck? She had solid grounds for her case. For more information, here's a link: http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

 

[RikSharp]

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?

to answer your question, a quote from this very thread:

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.

 

[Woodsey]

That's the game box; what's that got to do with the shop that sells the game?

 

[MrPop]

This guy is a real idiot.

What does he hope to get from this? He's just ending up wasting money suing them.

Crazy foo'!

 

[squid5580]

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.

I don't know much about the laws but isn't there some kind of assessment inbetween filing and actual court so the courts don't get bogged down with frivilous lawsuits? It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I hope he doesn't give up like the disbled guy lol.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Luckily I got my copy of DA:O new for £25 so I had savings and DLC.

Really it says on the box one time use only, and the case should be dismissed.

 

[squid5580]

That's the game box; what's that got to do with the shop that sells the game?

Part of his case is fraud. Claiming that the box says you get DLC with the game. You can't use part of it and disregard the stuff you don't like.

 

[Coldman42]

Personally i hope he takes GS for a lot of money. I greatly dislike that store. Seriously, why do they get to have games with extra content that you can only get by going to their store to buy the game? How does that make sense to anyone?

And also the nearest GS is about 150 miles away from me...

 

[Pyro Paul]

ultimatly pointless lawsuit.
his claim 'Package Says Free DLC!' is quickly squelched when the box also specifically says 'only for full retail'...