Gamestop giving used Arkham City buyers Catwoman code

[Haakmed]

Ok kinda on topic here kinda not. Hell it may even be in here and I don't want to dig for it. But every time I look at one of these gamestop related topics it always goes to the same things that the first page is.

"Gamestop is trying to take money away from the people making the games!"

Now think of it as if you owned the store your buying your games from. Now if you are selling a product you pay $30 for $40 you are making $10 in profit off that item. Now if you have the same product you bought from someone else for $10 and can sell it for $35 your now making a $25 dollar profit. You now more than double your money which is what you have to do to make a Business work. Now if you have to pay $5 dollars to make your used product more desirable wouldn't you do the same? You still offer both products and you still make money but which one would you rather sell?

No Business isn't fair and the corporations that run most things are not out there to make people happy with their business practices. They are all trying to get the consumer to purchase their item from them so they can make money.

Now if you shop at a gamestop and want to buy a new game, buy it new! if you want to save a bit of money and buy it used do that! But all this bickering while funny never goes anywhere.

 

[kenu12345]

i was referring to the fact that nothing we say will change your mind

We've clearly reached the root of opinions in this with no give either way, and I've got Rage to play.
Incidentally I just noticed your avatar and it's awesome.

thx man its is awesome too dude

 

[m0ng00se]

I'm a bit confused as to his this makes sense. As already posted, where are they getting the codes? Only thing I can see is that they're actually buying themselves, which seems rather unlikely. But if that is the case, good on them for doing it.

Buy the codes for 10$ , sell used copy for 54$ ,44$ profit . Seems simple enough, no? They would make more money on the used copies than the new copies anyways . Bravo gamestop, bravo.

Well, you aren't taking into account that they are buying the games from customers so they are probably making closer to $25.

since it's store credit and not cash, it actually kind of works out to be more. if you trade in say, 6 games for $20 credit each, and use it to buy two brand new $60 games they end up losing less money on account of simply cutting out their profit in exchange for the new inventory which sells for far more. it's that weird business thing where you kind of have to just know it's going to work out as more money because if they explain it to you they make it sound like they're doing you a favor instead. multi-billion dollar corporations don't become multi-billion dollar corporations by actually doing favors for their customers.



whatever, doesn't matter, i'm down with this deal whether it costs gamestop money for the pass or not. like i just said, they're not ever going to do you a favour for your own sake, but being able to present the used copy as functionally identical to new is still worth over twice as much money to them as a new game on the self, even if they have to cut a full ten bucks out of their profit.

when companies fight, customers tend to win.

 

[Epona]

I'm a bit confused as to his this makes sense. As already posted, where are they getting the codes? Only thing I can see is that they're actually buying themselves, which seems rather unlikely. But if that is the case, good on them for doing it.

Buy the codes for 10$ , sell used copy for 54$ ,44$ profit . Seems simple enough, no? They would make more money on the used copies than the new copies anyways . Bravo gamestop, bravo.

Well, you aren't taking into account that they are buying the games from customers so they are probably making closer to $25.

since it's store credit and not cash, it actually kind of works out to be more. if you trade in say, 6 games for $20 credit each, and use it to buy two brand new $60 games they end up losing less money on account of simply cutting out their profit in exchange for the new inventory which sells for far more. it's that weird business thing where you kind of have to just know it's going to work out as more money because if they explain it to you they make it sound like they're doing you a favor instead. multi-billion dollar corporations don't become multi-billion dollar corporations by actually doing favors for their customers.



whatever, doesn't matter, i'm down with this deal whether it costs gamestop money for the pass or not. like i just said, they're not ever going to do you a favour for your own sake, but being able to present the used copy as functionally identical to new is still worth over twice as much money to them as a new game on the self, even if they have to cut a full ten bucks out of their profit.

when companies fight, customers tend to win.

These passes are probably paid for by the people who buy new and then trade in the games (lower trade in values). The publishers are hurting new buyers more than anyone else, HOLY BACKFIRE BATMAN!

Even if Gamestop is buying these passes out of their own pocket (which I doubt), they won't do it for every game with an online pass.

 

[EzraPound]

Fine let's put it in practical terms. I'm about to pay $60 for the game. Why do you feel you deserve just as much product as me for paying a fraction of the cost?

say my friend gives me his copy does that mean I should have the story stripped off of it

No I think it should crash and erase your xbox as a dirty thief. Look, I can think of wildly exaggerated scenarios too. But yes, you also shouldn't be able to play your friend's Catwoman either.

Okay, wait--so your idea is that once you purchase a game, you do not have the freedom to gift it to someone or resell it after you've played it? In effect, what you're endorsing is a massive restriction of consumer rights--one in which the act of "ownership"--already a perversely qualified concept--is replaced by "the right to access"; the latter of which is bound by a million profit-serving caveats. Let's see how this would play out, if it were uniformly exercised:

If you buy a car you cannot resell it or lend it to someone, because it hurts corporate profits. Also, buses and taxis are tenuous.

If you buy clothing you cannot donate it to Value Village or a Salvation Army Store, because it hurts the profits of clothing manufacturers. Used clothing sales are outlawed.

If you buy a DVD you cannot watch it with a friend, because they will be less likely to purchase an individual copy. Used DVD sales are outlawed.

Etc. . .

 

[IceStar100]

There's already used Arkham City copies? wuh

It was a really bad game. So bad it was traded in before they even got it.

 

[Continuity]

Haha, this is actual commercial warfare. I find that hilarious for some reason... perhaps because its enevitable that the brick and mortars will lose in the end but are fighting so hard anyway.

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

Okay; I'm biased. I hate companies now trying to get money out of a game on top of the original sale that they planned for. For a game to be preowned it has to have been previously purchased. That means the company made their money, and now they are extorting money from any other consumer. I think it's disgraceful.
Some people buy certain games preowned because they missed them, or just didn't consider them worth the full price. I myself rent a lot of games, and buy the ones I really enjoy.

That said: I think the big problem here is advertising personally.

EA have stated that Catwoman is free unless you buy preowned. Otherwise you have to pay for an **Online Pass** (I hate this phrase with every fibre of my being. People, like me, probably see online pass, and think to themselves "Here we go again, more profiteering).

What they SHOULD have done is put two little words on the box: **Special Edition**. Then release a Standard Edition (Exactly the same, but without a code inside, doesn't need any changes to coding etc), for anyone that wants to save a little money, or isn't interested in Catwoman. Every game should have a barbones edition, it's what makes the other version (with added content) "Special".
Everyone knows that you only get the bonuses from a special edition copy if you buy new (or are extremely lucky and find a copy that hasn't had the code activated), so that would solve the problem of people complaining about a feature being removed for preowned gamers. It would instead be seen as a bonus for buying the special edition.
Then EA should have announced that they will release a Catwoman **DLC Pack** on launch day, for anyone who didn't get the Catwoman DLC code with the game.

Granted, at the end of the day it's pretty much the same thing. However, one comes across as a money grabbing corperation, who doesn't care about it's consumers, and the other is giving a free piece of DLC to certain customers, that others will have to buy seperately.

 

[Radelaide]

Your comment has entirely no relevance to what was said.

One commenter said that Gamestop are filtering the money that consumers would be forced to give to another company their way. Second commenter essentially said that in retail, customers mean fuck all because we have to spend money on it anyway.

Then you come along with some bizarre doomsday scenario about how we're going to be paying for every level because we're buying demos? I think you've got yourself a little confused. Do some research and come back with a better informed idea.

OT: Funnily enough, I'm okay with the idea of an online pass. Everyone is like "OMG HOLY SHIT THEY'RE TAKING AWAY MY SHIT" but if you think about it, even with an extra $10 for the DLC or whatever, you're still getting it cheaper than if you bought the game new. A used game is say $50 and the new copy would be $100 (I'm working from Australian prices here), if you spend the extra $10 for the pass, you're still getting all the content for less than the RRP of the new game. Unless you're not connected to the net (in which you wouldn't get the DLC from the new copy of the game anyway) the consumer is coming out on top.

I'd like to hug you really, really tightly for noticing his comment was completely left of field. I left it out of my post but I was pretty sure the poster was a sandwich short of a picnic.

I agree with you though, as far as I'm aware you're always getting it cheaper buying used but I think it's more to do with American used prices being so close to new value.
Whilst over here in the UK prices are pretty reasonable I'd say, nothing to outlandish. When I went to visit my fiancée in the US, I took a visit to Gamestop because she wanted to pick up ME2 for the PS3 after fininshing ME1 on my laptop.

Brand new the game was still being sold for $60 and this was May of this year, a used copy cost $50. You're practically paying a new price for a used game and thus the whole "I can't afford it, woah is me" comes into it.

Unfortunately, being Australian, I suffer from incredibly high games prices. I'm talking upwards from $100 so getting it for $50 (+$10 DLC) is a bargin!

Also *arms open* hug? You said there would be a hug?

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

lol @ all the people who still think they're entitled to just as much product for a lower price, than the people that buy it new.
"I know this car is used, but I deserve all new paint, motor, upholstery and drivetrain, just like the people that bought it new."

It's not a scam you simpletons. You are buying a used product. You get an inferior one. Games are just catching up to the rest of the world. In the Diablo 3 bashing, MANY people echoed that "The gaming companies are the only industry that complain about used sales", but at the same time, the game consumers are the only customers who feel they deserve the exact same product for less money. So who is being greedy?

So tired of the whiny self-entitlement here.

Lol? You should think it through first. A used product is inferior because it got used. Not because someone went and tried to make it worse for anyone except the original buyer. It's more along the lines of removing the paint etc on a car. It's absurd to compare actively making it worse to not repairing a vehicle.

^Exactly this. The physical product won't be in mint condition, but the content should be the same.
If I buy a car and the paint is dulled, fine. But if I find out it has no gearbox I'm going to get annoyed.
Buy a second hand book, cd or dvd. Id the content any different?
How about a fridge, oven, washing machine?
No, in all instances you are paying less due to wear and tear, not content, so what exactly is the gaming industry catching up to here?

 

[StarCecil]

I'd like to point out, given the bent of some of these stances, that I, as the consumer, have no obligation to either Gamestop or WB or Rocksteady - only to whoever will give me what I want for the cheapest price.

 

[limberer]

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. EA are right by me with the move to put aside what is essentially DLC and give it for free to people who buy the game new. From what I've seen the main thing everyone is complaining about is their timing on announcing this move. Yeah, they shouldn't have advertised these missions months ago and only just told us that they wouldn't be included, but it doesn't take anything essential away from the game besides a few side missions and alternate character, only the same as forking out the little extra to get Robin edition anyway.

 

[Kris Maclean]

I'm guessing the code will come in the form of MSP instead of a locked DLC code.

As I say I'm guessing..

 

[Pandabearparade]

And in completely unsurprising news, Gamestop is an evil money-grubbing corporation that wouldn't give a fuck if you needed it to live.

That's every corporation on the planet.

I think Gamestop is a bigger industry-killer than piracy. That's just my opinion of course.

...right, a glorified gaming pawn shop is hurting the industry more than copy/pasting entire games free of charge. Right. I see your logic there.

Though, once again, if the 'industry' isn't producing a product worthy of a first buy, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[mrc390]

So.. Gamestop are trying to increase there profits by screwing over game developers.. And people are siding with gamestop? WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO????

More like screwing over money hungry publishers and protecting the First Sale Doctrine.

So in the battle between the money hungry corporation that made a good product and the money hungry corporation that took that finished product, stuck it on a shelf and made all the profit... You are siding with the latter?