Look, I hate Gamestop just as much as anyone else, but this is a bit much.
They don't need to get sued over this. It's not their fault.
They don't need to get sued over this. It's not their fault.
GameStop Sued Over "Deceptive" Used Game Sales
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
How much is he suing for? That is the fundamental point. If its for the price of a full, new retail version of Dragon Age, thats fine; he's stupid but still in the right, technically.
However, if the greedy bastard wants anymore than that then...well let him enjoy his legal fees, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally; outside of claiming a refund.
However, if the greedy bastard wants anymore than that then...well let him enjoy his legal fees, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally; outside of claiming a refund.
Actually, all he should be suing for is the price of the DLC, as that is what he was unable to access. By all accounts, he was able to access the game itself just fine, it was the "free" DLC he missed out on. So, yeah, $15. Totally worth the legal fees.Davrel said:
The legal fees I'll give you, as that's pretty standard for a lawsuit. But "Pain and Suffering"? What pain? What suffering? No injury was involved, nothing impeded his ability to play the base game, he wasn't subjected to any form of humiliation because he was unable to access the DLC. I see no reason for a judge to award "Feel sorry for me money", wait I mean "Pain & Suffering".HG131 said:
How dare they make a profit from lazy people who don't want to sell it for more on Ebay!James Cassidy said:
Actually, 20 dollars or more is the requirements for small claims court, so he couldn't sue over 15 dollars.. At least he was smart in THAT case.Davrel said:
I don't think the issue is really that they lied about it and he didn't get his DLC for free.
It's that they're selling a product that's clearly worth at most 45 dollars for 55 dollars. I saw that at my EB games, and I KNEW that someone was going to have a problem with that.
It's that they're selling a product that's clearly worth at most 45 dollars for 55 dollars. I saw that at my EB games, and I KNEW that someone was going to have a problem with that.
I disagree, the customer is not a moron. You forget that you are likely much more well informed then the average, casual video game player, and are assuming that you can reasonably require even the most casual consumer to know the same breadth of video game marketing knowledge that you do. It is not unreasonable to assume that a box being sold to you contains the things that are advertised on the box. The asterisk is immaterial. Yes, it said that it included a code that can be redeemed for DLC. The fact remains that the consumer was told that there was a code that can be redeemed for the DLC AND THERE WAS NO SUCH CODE, AS ADVERTISED (Emphasis, not yelling there). From the average consumers perspective, one who does not read a bunch of gaming sites paying attention to certain publishers new marketing strategies, it's not unreasonable to assume that the code can be used multiple times if it has gone back through gamestop, that a new code will be given for that particular sale, that the DLC is already linked to the account, and quite possibly, and they may not even be aware that the game is used in the first place. In fact, though I would be knowledgeable enough to ask, I might assume that I could access the DLC through this copy considering the fact that they are falsely charging you for the DLC. GS is definitely to blame here, because if they were at all competent, they could have avoided this in the first place. They could have charged the correct price, they could have put a sticker over the part that said that you would get the DLC, or they could have just told the customer when they went to buy it that the DLC wasn't availible. They also could have admitted to a mistake, and given the guy back his 10 extra bucks.HG131 said:
You know, when I was considering buying Dragon Age, and saw the blurb about the free DLC, and the little asterisk, I immediately scanned the case and read the restrictions on it. I bought it anyway, new, but it seems like it would be common practice to actually read the back of a box before making a purchase. It's not like an EULA where it's 7 pages long, it's a paragraph. The dumbass should have his lawsuit thrown out of court on account of the plaintiff being a dumbass and suing over $10. I don't think that's something even a small claims court would hear, the judge would probably hand you $10 and tell you to kindly fuck off so he can get on with important matters. And honestly, what's the point of buying used if you only save $5 off the new price? You have no idea what kind of problems you'll have with it, if the previous owner left some dorito crumbs in the drive and scratched the hell out of it. The only time I buy used is if the game is no longer being produced, or it's been years since it came out and it's down to $20 so the risk of it being crap is reduced.
And it's not false advertising, or misrepresentation. The box itself said it was a one time use code on new purchases. Just because you don't read the fine print doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
And it's not false advertising, or misrepresentation. The box itself said it was a one time use code on new purchases. Just because you don't read the fine print doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
