Gamestop being sued over used games

[CeeKay]

all because a customer cannot read, or didn't bother to read.  either way hopefully he loses and the judge gets him Hooked on Phonics.

[rickfc]

He has probably already been on it.

[MaxSteele]

all because a customer cannot read, or didn't bother to read.  either way hopefully he loses and the judge gets him Hooked on Phonics.

Perhaps I am completely missing something, but the link you provided leads to a site for a company called Macguffin Games, and a page for their game "All Heroes Die".

What does this have to do with Gamestop getting sued?

[leo8877]

all because a customer cannot read, or didn't bother to read.  either way hopefully he loses and the judge gets him Hooked on Phonics.

Perhaps I am completely missing something, but the link you provided leads to a site for a company called Macguffin Games, and a page for their game "All Heroes Die".

What does this have to do with Gamestop getting sued?

CEEKAY IS IN CAHOOTS WITH GAMESTOP!

[CeeKay]

all because a customer cannot read, or didn't bother to read.  either way hopefully he loses and the judge gets him Hooked on Phonics.

Perhaps I am completely missing something, but the link you provided leads to a site for a company called Macguffin Games, and a page for their game "All Heroes Die".

What does this have to do with Gamestop getting sued?

CEEKAY IS IN CAHOOTS WITH GAMESTOP!

 

fixed.

[MaxSteele]

all because a customer cannot read, or didn't bother to read.  either way hopefully he loses and the judge gets him Hooked on Phonics.

Perhaps I am completely missing something, but the link you provided leads to a site for a company called Macguffin Games, and a page for their game "All Heroes Die".

What does this have to do with Gamestop getting sued?

CEEKAY IS IN CAHOOTS WITH GAMESTOP!

 

fixed.

Ah ha!  It took about 4 months before we had our first public complaint about that $15 purchase for used titles.  I thought it would have come sooner.

He waited weeks before finding out about the extra charge?  Way to be on top of things there....

[Misguided]

I wonder if the guy told the manager why he wanted to return it. Sometimes it is far better to take a return outside policy than to dig in.

[Caine]

I can't fault the guy too much for waiting. He probably figured on the dlc being something he'd do on a later playthrough and never bothered to try it. Bad assumption on his part and definitely something that should have been pointed out at time of purchase.  On that at least I agree with. If it's sold with the card in the box, you might think it was unused. Not unreasonable.

He may have waited too long before trying it, but how many of us have done the same thing?  He'll, I bought DAO a week after release and only put in about two hours due to how packed the 4th quarter was.
 

[Misguided]

It's amazing this hasn't happened more often, like with song downloads with RB/GH. Eventually, I think you might see console games that require an "activation" in order to function at all.

Then the publisher can sell codes to Gamestop at $5 a pop and they have to eat that when they sell the game.

[mytocles]

I'm 50-50 on this.  On the one hand, misleading advertising stinks - not everyone has all day to read fine print on everything... 

On the other hand, when I bought a 2 year old copy of Pirates of the Caribbean, I wasn't too surprised that the Free Ticket to the Movie contained therein, had expired.

[denoginizer]

It's amazing this hasn't happened more often, like with song downloads with RB/GH.

I think it happens alot.  I just don't think people feel the need to file a lawsuit over it.  The Gamestop clerk should have just charged the guy the extra $5 and exchanged it for a new copy.  Silliness on both sides.

[Destructor]

It's amazing this hasn't happened more often, like with song downloads with RB/GH.

I think it happens alot.  I just don't think people feel the need to file a lawsuit over it.  The Gamestop clerk should have just charged the guy the extra $5 and exchanged it for a new copy.  Silliness on both sides.

Because the person in question tried to return a game beyond its used game return period (a week)?

I look at it this way:

1) Person who can't read box and knows absolutely nothing about how the 'new game deal' thing works with EA/Bioware buys used game.
2) Person realizes he loses out on the bonuses, but instead of doing something about it (once again, Gamestop gives you a no-questions asked return policy (unless you abuse it) of a week after purchase) just sits on said game.
3) Person tries to return game beyond return policy and manager says no.
4) Person sues Gamestop for $10. Yes, $10.
5) ...
6) Profit?
7) In reality, person loses bigtime to Gamestop and is now out thousands of dollars because of #1.

This shouldn't have even been accepted into court. It's just that retarded. I'm sorry.

[Chaz]

It's amazing this hasn't happened more often, like with song downloads with RB/GH.

I think it happens alot.  I just don't think people feel the need to file a lawsuit over it.  The Gamestop clerk should have just charged the guy the extra $5 and exchanged it for a new copy.  Silliness on both sides.

Why would it happen with RB/GH? Aside from the RB2 20-pack of songs, you can buy DLC with a used copy just as well as with a new copy (though I'd obviously prefer if you did it with a new copy ).

[Harkonis]

maybe the ac/dc one had a one time code?  can't remember

[Chaz]

Yeah, the track packs have a one-use code, but I don't remember how that's advertised on the box.  Plus, those discs are self-contained, and no additional content needs to be downloaded for them.

[denoginizer]

If someone wants to exchange a used game for the same new game due to exclusive DLC they should allowed to even if they are beyond the return window, provided they pay the price difference. Every policy needs to have room for common sense opportunities to take care of the customer.

[Tebunker]

If someone wants to exchange a used game for the same new game due to exclusive DLC they should allowed to even if they are beyond the return window, provided they pay the price difference. Every policy needs to have room for common sense opportunities to take care of the customer.

Except that a lot of retail monkeys don't understand this. There is a lot of room in policy. I know when I worked at Ebgames the DM essentially said, if I get a phone call from a customer saying that you said no, I will overrule you every time. So we learned to A: Not sweat the details, and B: Make sure the customer is happy, even if it means bending the rules.

I carried this to my current job at Sherwin Williams. I have a policy until my customer asks me to do something different. As long as it isn't unethical or illegal, I really don't care. It builds customer loyalty and I have profited greatly from it, but we have a lot of employees who just can't make that connection. They just aren't capable of seeing things outside of the barriers put up by the Company. I've told my employees the same thing that EBgames DM told me. We win nothing by arguing with our customers.

[Sarkus]

If someone wants to exchange a used game for the same new game due to exclusive DLC they should allowed to even if they are beyond the return window, provided they pay the price difference. Every policy needs to have room for common sense opportunities to take care of the customer.

It depends how far up the chain the customer in this case decided to go.  From the articles I've read, all they ever reference is a manager saying "no."  But as someone who used to work for GameStop (several years ago now but I was a manager), I'd be really surprised if a district manager also told him no.  I remember when we were told that the original "seven day return even on new" policy ended we were told it was because of a California lawsuit and that the manager in the case should have just made the customer happy. 

Chances are this gets settled quickly anyway.  What remains to be seen is what changes GameStop makes in response to it. 

[EddieA]

"GameStop, who makes more than 20% of its revenue and nearly $2 billion from the sale of used video games, is aware of this issue, and continues to fail to alert customers that this content is not available on used games," the suit states. "As a result, GameStop tricks consumers into paying more for a used game than they would if they purchased the same game and content new."

How do they know that Gamestop is aware of the "issue"?  Are clerks required to know every detail about every product they sell?  Also, while Gamestop does sell MS Points and PSN cards, you can buy them many other places.  It's not like they sold the guy a copy of the game and a points card together in order to jack up the price.  If the used game were unplayable, this case may have had some merit, but as is, it's absurd.  This fact that the code is one-time only is clearly marked on the package, which the plaintiff admits to having read.  His lack of reading comprehension is not Gamestop's fault; they did nothing wrong here.

[Purge]

You can't blame the customer for product knowledge - you can blame the employee. Fair or not; only one person is being paid to work in that situation.

It is also the employee's job to notify customers of the game rating system in cases where questionable content is being purchased for a minor. Regardless of policy or law, it is the ethical thing to do. If the person has the used reciept, and is effectively screwed out of the DLC for a 5 dollar difference where the employee did NOT highlight the difference, then they should have given him 10 bux back in compensation and be done with it.

As was stated above - fighting with your customer is no way to run a business.

[Purge]

And once they paid that 10 dollars, they invest in .08 dollars in Sharpie marker ink to black out the DLC offering on the box on any used titles that state they have the DLC available, and distribute that policy across the organization.

As to RB; DLC is registered to the user profile, not the game. The only RB situation would be the AC/DC where a code is provided. IIRC, you can still buy it new online via Walmart.

[Misguided]

I'm with Sarkus here. You can't let people abuse returns (e.g. using the store as a library), which is why the policy exists. However, the customer had a legit issue here. A DM's approach is generally going to be to make the problem go away as long as it isn't costing the store money. Accepting a late return and making a customer happy would have been the thing to do based on the information we've been given.

[Chaz]

I'm going to start by saying that the smart thing to do would have been to let the exchange happen.

That said, I can understand the desire to refuse it.  Gamestop makes the vast majority of its money from used sales, and leans hard on sale staff to keep used sales up.  They do that by incentivizing used sales (Edge card) and by constantly pushing used games in the hopes of training customers to always seek used.  Their ideal customer is someone who walks in, finds a new game they want, and asking if they have a used copy, then trading that game in to buy more used games.  They pay lip service to publishers by saying that they want customers to trade old games toward new ones, but what they really want is for customers to trade used games toward other used games. 

From the manager's point of view, exchanging the used copy for the new one not only costs him in terms of profits and used sales goals, but it's also taught the customer not to buy used.

Of course, managers in every retail store refuse returns exactly like this every day.  The vast majority of the people refused don't turn around and sue.

[Misguided]

Their ideal customer is someone who walks in, finds a new game they want, and asking if they have a used copy, then trading that game in to buy more used games. 

I disagree. You undervalue the importance of new titles to the company.  New titles are what drive trade-ins (towards reservations of that new shiny game) and games purchased new become trade-ins later. For a store to thrive you need to have both cycles working. You must be selling large quantities of new as well as churning the used. Otherwise, trades and the used product will wither and die over time.

[Chaz]

I've never really bought that Gamestop cares a heck of a lot whether you buy new games from them or from someone else.  They want you to buy from them only inasmuch as it keeps you coming into the store.  I think they'd be perfectly happy in a world where I buy new games at Best Buy, then trade them in at Gamestop for other used games.  Yes, you constantly need new releases being traded in to keep the used cycle going, but the original source of those new titles is far less important.

[Misguided]

Yes, you constantly need new releases being traded in to keep the used cycle going, but the original source of those new titles is far less important.

In my experience, there's a direct correlation between how many copies were sold of the game new at a given location, and how many get traded back in. And again, purchase of new titles drives trades in a major way. Sure, they could do plenty of business if every copy bought at Wal-Mart were traded in at Gamestop, but in practice it doesn't work that way.

[DamageInc]

IMO and experience, it's about relationship building. If you build relationships with customers on new games they may drive your used game market.

As far as profit/margin goes GS, or any retailer for that matter, makes hardly anything on the sale of a new game.
All the profit is in the buying and selling of used games. (pretty obvious to most)

What most retailers are counting on when you buy a low margin item is that you will also buy high margin items like accessories.
Even if customers don't buy them that day (which they hope for) maybe due to relationship building you will come and buy those items when you need them.
Most retailers are performance rated on their attachment rate of low to high margin items. This is the indicator of how well they are "selling".
This directly correlates to how profitable a retailer is.

[The_Man]

I'm 50-50 on this.  On the one hand, misleading advertising stinks - not everyone has all day to read fine print on everything... 

On the other hand, when I bought a 2 year old copy of Pirates of the Caribbean, I wasn't too surprised that the Free Ticket to the Movie contained therein, had expired.

I would never expect DLC or preorder bonus cards that are still in used games to actually work.  If they do, then that's a bonus.  This guy is an idiot, but it would not surprise me if he won just so a precedent could be set,

[Bullwinkle]

I'm 50-50 on this.  On the one hand, misleading advertising stinks - not everyone has all day to read fine print on everything... 

On the other hand, when I bought a 2 year old copy of Pirates of the Caribbean, I wasn't too surprised that the Free Ticket to the Movie contained therein, had expired.

I would never expect DLC or preorder bonus cards that are still in used games to actually work.  If they do, then that's a bonus.  This guy is an idiot, but it would not surprise me if he won just so a precedent could be set,

It wouldn't surprise me if some game company (or companies) didn't support his case to make that precedent happen.  Anything to stop used games from eating away at their profits.  Hell, the conspiracy nut in me wouldn't be surprised to find the whole thing had been orchestrated by them. 

[tcweidner]

i have a feeling next gen console will have a feature that attaches a game to the individual console.  Bye bye used game sales. 

Eb games days are numbered eitherway,  look at blockbuster,  bankruptcy is just around the corner for them. Downloadable content is the wave of the future.

[denoginizer]

I foresee waiting through a Gamestop salesperson's mandatory dissertation about possible content not being available every time I buy a used game from now on.

[Destructor]

Eb games days are numbered eitherway,  look at blockbuster,  bankruptcy is just around the corner for them. Downloadable content is the wave of the future.

Downloadable games are not the wave of the future - especially with ISPs limiting how much you pull on a monthly basis (Comcast). And it's not like games will get smaller in the future, either. Remember - the PS3's BR discs hold 50GB worth of data. At my download cap of about 1.3MB/sec, that would take hours and hours to pull.

[Owain]

Eb games days are numbered eitherway,  look at blockbuster,  bankruptcy is just around the corner for them. Downloadable content is the wave of the future.

Downloadable games are not the wave of the future - especially with ISPs limiting how much you pull on a monthly basis (Comcast). And it's not like games will get smaller in the future, either. Remember - the PS3's BR discs hold 50GB worth of data. At my download cap of about 1.3MB/sec, that would take hours and hours to pull.

That wouldn't be a problem with steam-like pre-loading, but the $50,000 needed for an Xbox HD large enough to hold the games would be.   

[Gratch]

Eb games days are numbered eitherway,  look at blockbuster,  bankruptcy is just around the corner for them. Downloadable content is the wave of the future.

Downloadable games are not the wave of the future - especially with ISPs limiting how much you pull on a monthly basis (Comcast). And it's not like games will get smaller in the future, either. Remember - the PS3's BR discs hold 50GB worth of data. At my download cap of about 1.3MB/sec, that would take hours and hours to pull.

That wouldn't be a problem with steam-like pre-loading, but the $50,000 needed for an Xbox HD large enough to hold the games would be.   

My thoughts exactly.  As someone who is still running the original 20 GB HD that came with my 360, downloadable games aren't even really an option unless I upgraded.

[mytocles]

Eb games days are numbered eitherway,  look at blockbuster,  bankruptcy is just around the corner for them. Downloadable content is the wave of the future.

Downloadable games are not the wave of the future - especially with ISPs limiting how much you pull on a monthly basis (Comcast). And it's not like games will get smaller in the future, either. Remember - the PS3's BR discs hold 50GB worth of data. At my download cap of about 1.3MB/sec, that would take hours and hours to pull.

That wouldn't be a problem with steam-like pre-loading, but the $50,000 needed for an Xbox HD large enough to hold the games would be.   

My thoughts exactly.  As someone who is still running the original 20 GB HD that came with my 360, downloadable games aren't even really an option unless I upgraded.

Lol, $50K - probably not too far off the actual cost, sigh...

I had two 20 GB HDs until fairly recently, but I eventually ended up with two 60 GB HDs.  Now, I see the 250 GB, and I hunger for at least a 120 GB, but really, I don't need one. If I had more than 60 GB, I would end up just leaving disc games there to play from the HD - and most games, I play to death, so I don't really care if I save them - I can always DL them again if desired.

But I still want a 120 or 250 GB HD.