GameStop Sued Over "Deceptive" Used Game Sales

[the_tramp]

How has this dude not heard of Project 10 dollar? It's been all over the net.

Well, I had heard of it from here but never really understood what it meant and quite frankly I wouldn't have heard of it if I hadn't come here so it's not that strange to not have heard of it.

 

[squid5580]

It wasn't unforseen. That is why they put in the *. Shouldn't the lawsuit be directed at EA though? It wasn't GS who packaged it. The end result would be the same sure but he might have a chance at some free swag. If EA wasn't bitter about him buying used.

It is stupidity like this that gives "gamers" a bad name.

No, it's not EA. Actually, it's Gamestop's responsibility for whatever they resell. If you buy a whole PC at a Pawn Shop and it's missing the HDD, do you blame HP for it or do you blame the reseller who sold you the used product? You blame the Pawn Shop (well, blame yourself for buying a used PC and not turning it on at the store 1st to see if it works). But, you see the point, right?


Gamestop has done this before. If a game is missing it's manual, they still charge the full price and don't cut it in the slightest for missing parts of the game's product. Missing it's case? Well, they'll give less money back to the person selling the used game to them, but they'll still charge it the full used game price that's equal to all their other used game prices. They scam as much as possible to get the most money out of their customers, and they even lie to them at the POS (point of sale).

I originally bought a subscription to Game Informer because the sales associate at Gamestop swore up and down that I'd get 10% off all my purchases there; boy was I fooled, as it was only 10% off of USED game purchases only, no new games, consoles, accessories, or anything else. And of course, because it was a magazine subscription, it was none refundable. So, I was stuck with a (luckily 6 months instead of 12) magazine coming every month without any useful bonus to me.

So it is GS's fault you bought a game missing it's case or manual? It is a risk you take when you buy used. Now I don't know about the GS's in your area but at mine I can look at the disc, look at the case, open the manual all before buying. If I choose not to do this and then get it home to find the manual is MIA well I can't fault them can I? Since I didn't do my job as a consumer and make sure I am informed before the transaction takes place.

Oh crud I forgot this is 2010. It is everyone elses fault because no one was there to hold my hand. I can't be held accountable for my own business transactions. Even if I was the one who initiated it in the first place.

 

[DarkRyter]

I'd usually side with Gamestop because the guy seems just plain foolish.

But Gamestop ran out of my Ho-oh figurine, so screw them.

 

[squid5580]

I checked out my own copy of Dragon Age: Origins and it does specify, on the back, that it includes Shale, The Stone Prisoner [http://dragonage.bioware.com/addon/] and Blood Dragon Armor as DLC, but each is marked with an asterisk; reading further, the asterisk is revealed to mean, "One time use code available with full retail purchase. Expires April 30, 2010." It seems clear enough, but then again, who's got time to read and comprehend when there's five bucks on the line?

God Damn how can people be so retarded to not read the god damn games they buy but go to the trouble of taking on a massive retailer-chain?

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?

How is what GS does deceitful? Unless of course the employee specifically said "ya you get the DLC" I don't see how they are to blame.

It's "deceitful" because in their store, they were selling a product that clearly states on the front that the game they were buying had something that it did not have, and charged them for it. Of course, I suppose its not exactly deceitful since they almost definitely did not realize the problem. But that's not the customers fault. Yes, any of us well informed gamers would put 2 and 2 together and realize that something was off. But to a person who just happens to play a few video games here and there, they have likely never logged on to a game news site, and read an article on Project $10. They probably assumed that the game contained what the box said, instead of piecing together Gamestops pricing scheme together with the publishers recent marketing strategy. It's not a strange mistake to make, I will bet that the vast majority of gamers would make a similar one. What should have happened is that when the game was brought back, past deadline or no, GS would realized that the pricing error was there fault, and given the guy his 10 bucks. That's just decent customer service. If sueing is what it takes for GS to realize there mistake and charge the correct price, hey, I'm fine with that.

You do know that this is a far stretch right? If I were to buy it used without knowing about Project $10 and not ever been on a gaming site I would ask an employee. Stuff goes missing from used games all the time. I would have taken the case up to the counter and said "I do get the DLC with this right?". It isn't even a question about his gaming knowledge. It is just common sense.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Numbnut should have read the packaging better.

 

[coldshadow]

thats almsot as bad as the guy who tried to sue blizzard because he didnt find WoW to be fun...

 

[squid5580]

[small]Hahaha, EA finally screwed somebody other than the consumer...[/small]

They didn't screw over anyone with project $10.

[small] and they have weirdo defenders[/small]

Or wierdo attackers. So how is project $10 screwing anyone over exactly? Other than the used game buyers who EA owes nothing to since they are supporting the stores not EA.

 

[Pendragon9]

So if he shelled out 5 extra dollars and cared to read a little more, he would've been spared the fifteen dollar DLC charge.

Thus, he would've saved ten dollars, instead of wasting a million on a lawsuit he's just going to lose.

-_-

Yup. He's a moron. I am no fan of big business, but I'm even less a fan of morons.

Yeah. It makes me feel like a moron though for trading in all my used games to Gamestop. So I guess it would make me a hypocrite for calling this guy out. (ten dollars for 20 used games. Ugh. >.<)

Next time I'm doing the research to see who will give me the best deal. Which is something this guy should've done as well.

Wow. I got 160 for 12 used games.

Are you serious?

Were they triple A titles? If they were then it would make sense. I only got rid of some cruddy titles, and Metroid Prime. :O

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

God what a dumbass...

 

[anyGould]

Guy may have a case, though...

Asterisk or no, I'd say buying something counts as a "full retail purchase". He purchased it, at a retail outlet. What "full" means in this context is anyone's guess.

The other thing he has going for him is the fact that the store is literally overcharging for the box (if the DLC is $15, then the product they're selling is $10 more than the "retail" price). Maybe not illegal (although price gouging is in some neighborhoods), but definitely unscrupulous.

 

[James Cassidy]

Dude, it's you local store. The GS I go to is awesome. They are fast (they can take the disk out from under the counter, put it in the case, get the receipt and give it to me in 5 seconds for a used game), they are always good about the codes, and they don't even bother with trying to sell me Game Informer, I go there enough that they know I won't get it. I always get the disk warranty, if only because I'm always slightly paranoid over my disks, even though I never damage them.

Well then I guess all the gamestops in Florida suck then because I have been to several of them and EACH ONE did the same thing to me twice.

I have been to ones between Orlando and Tallahasse and they all suck. I guess standards are lower in Florida than for most.

So let me ask you, if I got to my gamestop and they offer me $5 for it, then if I go to your gamestop they will give me more for it?

 

[Bosola]

So the morons who don't do the research should be rewarded? He doesn't just not know about gaming, he knows nothing about simple stuff like asterisks. That is something even 10 year olds know about. This guy probably knew and just wants cash.

There is such a thing as 'reasonable burden of research'. Because not everyone has the time nor will to intensively research purchases beyond what seems 'reasonable', there is an onus on advertisers not to mislead. The question is, what constitutes 'reasonable'? When I buy a blender advertised as coffee-grinding capable, I do not log on to the internet to determine whether the item can do this 'out of the box'. Likewise, most consumers expect this sort of 'single purchase' functionality from DVDs, books, and videogames. However, if it became common practice to only release addons to blenders and food processors separately, then I might not have a case. That is the issue at stake.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

I checked out my own copy of Dragon Age: Origins and it does specify, on the back, that it includes Shale, The Stone Prisoner [http://dragonage.bioware.com/addon/] and Blood Dragon Armor as DLC, but each is marked with an asterisk; reading further, the asterisk is revealed to mean, "One time use code available with full retail purchase. Expires April 30, 2010." It seems clear enough, but then again, who's got time to read and comprehend when there's five bucks on the line?

God Damn how can people be so retarded to not read the god damn games they buy but go to the trouble of taking on a massive retailer-chain?

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?

How is what GS does deceitful? Unless of course the employee specifically said "ya you get the DLC" I don't see how they are to blame.

It's "deceitful" because in their store, they were selling a product that clearly states on the front that the game they were buying had something that it did not have, and charged them for it. Of course, I suppose its not exactly deceitful since they almost definitely did not realize the problem. But that's not the customers fault. Yes, any of us well informed gamers would put 2 and 2 together and realize that something was off. But to a person who just happens to play a few video games here and there, they have likely never logged on to a game news site, and read an article on Project $10. They probably assumed that the game contained what the box said, instead of piecing together Gamestops pricing scheme together with the publishers recent marketing strategy. It's not a strange mistake to make, I will bet that the vast majority of gamers would make a similar one. What should have happened is that when the game was brought back, past deadline or no, GS would realized that the pricing error was there fault, and given the guy his 10 bucks. That's just decent customer service. If sueing is what it takes for GS to realize there mistake and charge the correct price, hey, I'm fine with that.

You do know that this is a far stretch right? If I were to buy it used without knowing about Project $10 and not ever been on a gaming site I would ask an employee. Stuff goes missing from used games all the time. I would have taken the case up to the counter and said "I do get the DLC with this right?". It isn't even a question about his gaming knowledge. It is just common sense.

Yet millions of people lack common sense, and it is the people with common sense who are punished for the people who don't. I seriously hope this dumbass loses this case.

 

[Poofs]

Wow
they probably dont say it because its common sense
obviously the codes are only one time

 

[James Cassidy]

How dare they make a profit from lazy people who don't want to sell it for more on Ebay!

It's not just making a profit from it, it's making a SHIT-LOAD of profit from an old game.

My brother traded my Shenmue II game to them for like $6 without my permission. I asked them if I could buy it back from them. They told me "Sure....for $35." The same game mind you. You think I could get it back from them with the money they gave me.

Unhanded? Quite. Greedy? Definitely. If I give them a game, I should get more than a mesly couple of bucks.

Heck I should get some of that 4000% profit of each game that they make.

I also think it is bullshit to buy a USED GAME that is merely $5 cheaper than brand new.

They are stingy with their prices and selling. You can't even heckle with them. I wanted World At War one time and they wanted $50 used. I bought the same game brand new next door at Target for $35. Yeah I know which one I am buying.

 

[Low Key]

I guess it depends on how much the guy is suing for. Almost any amount he asks for is way too much, but seeing as it's a class action suit, there might be some merit to his case depending on how many people participate.

I mean, there is no where on the box indicating that the code was actually used. You'd have to assume that who ever sold the game to GameStop would have used it, but without an indication, a $5 discount from regular price would be worth it.

Then again, it's that guy's dumbass fault that he didn't try to use the code before the 7 day return policy.

 

[squid5580]

So the morons who don't do the research should be rewarded? He doesn't just not know about gaming, he knows nothing about simple stuff like asterisks. That is something even 10 year olds know about. This guy probably knew and just wants cash.

There is such a thing as 'reasonable burden of research'. Because not everyone has the time nor will to intensively research purchases beyond what seems 'reasonable', there is an onus on advertisers not to mislead. The question is, what constitutes 'reasonable'? When I buy a blender advertised as coffee-grinding capable, I do not log on to the internet to determine whether the item can do this 'out of the box'. Likewise, most consumers expect this sort of 'single purchase' functionality from DVDs, books, and videogames. However, if it became common practice to only release addons to blenders and food processors separately, then I might not have a case. That is the issue at stake.

Sorry but asking the employee at the store 1 simple sentence consisting of 7 words (or 9 if you wanna count DLC as 3) is not unreasonable. Giving someone a week to test a used product for a full refund is reasonable. The consumer does have some responsibility other than holding onto the money. He didn't live up to his and was punished. And since he obviously didn't learn the first time he will be punished again by having to pay for GS's legal fees. Unless of course he wins then we will be looking at 1000 page contracts to buy a loaf of bread since the seller will no longer have any protection.

 

[Geoff101]

All I can say is "just wow". I'm not getting how the amount cited in the brief is related to anything and how exactly does a game lacking some content you thought would be there mke you an injured party entitled to punitive damages? I hope he loses so this doesn't cause any ripples about used games or any other odd remedies by the gaming industry to fix something most people don't see as a problem.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

This shouldn't slide, it's printed quite clearly on the box. Free DLC with the game disc comes as a conditional thing, one set of DLC per disc. The asterisk is there for a reason. Gamestop isn't responsible for false or misleading advertising, since they in no way offered any kind of free DLC with purchase. Consumer's fault, not retailers. No merit.