GameStop Nailed With Class Action Over Deceptive Used Sales

[JordanMillward_1]

Any reason to sue Gamestop = good reason, in my book.

Given that it's used games sales that are driving up the prices of new games, anything that means Gamestop, or other companies, make less profits and sales of used games, means a greater chance of those of us that buy new games don't get screwed over in future.

 

[JediMB]

Is it really that big of a surprise? GameStop makes most of their money off their evil used game practices than anything else. I've already sworn off them for as long as I live anyway so it doesn't affect me much.

"Evil" practices? Alright then...

Exploitative and damaging to the industry would be a more accurate description.

 

[WarpCode]

Every GameStop/EB I have ever went to always state that the DLC in a used game is generally not usable. I have also never seen any advertising where they state buy this game used and get the DLC included. Either these people suing dealt with retarded sales reps, or more then likely, they looked at the box art which said it included DLC X and assumed even used copies got that DLC with them.

 

[Something Amyss]

I swear to god if i see a news post relating to a mew law suit being launched against someone i am going to murder someone. Seriously enough is enough i have seen 'law suit" WAAAY too much this year.

Are you going to murder someone because I have a malpractice suit?

Guy removed the wrong organ.

(Not really, but it's silly to put any sort of "cap" on the number of times the general population can legitimately sue before "enough is enough")

 

[Something Amyss]

I just take someone to task over complaining about lawsuits in general, and then...

Any reason to sue Gamestop = good reason, in my book.

Someone gives a good example of why people hate lawsuits.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Is it really that big of a surprise? GameStop makes most of their money off their evil used game practices than anything else. I've already sworn off them for as long as I live anyway so it doesn't affect me much.

"Evil" practices? Alright then...

Exploitative and damaging to the industry would be a more accurate description.

And I will continue to call BS on that until someone provides me with a strong argument as to why the games industry is in any way "special" when it comes to used sales. We have used books, used movies, used CD's, used cars, used computers, etc etc etc. But suddenly, when it's a used game, it's suddenly evil!

Give me a break.

 

[Leg End]

Looking at the back of Bro Company 2...

Bonus Downloadable Content Included.*

Little further down in even bigger lettering...

*AVAILABLE WITH FULL RETAIL PURCHASE. SINGLE-USE CODE EXPIRES APRIL 1, 2011.

So, if people can see the bonus content bit on this case, they can easily see the full retail purchase warning. Though, they may not know what that means. :/

Ehh, I am... somewhat siding with GameStop. :/ I think it's pretty much just a bunch of sue happy, ignorant customers. :/

Well yes, and as that's the only game that's had this sort of DLC promotion or the only one that ever will, it's the consumer's fault.

Oh, right. Not every game with Bonus DLC Content does that so explicitly.

Actually, most do. Usually on the back. Depends though.

Damn you project $10, damn you.

Even funnier when in Bro Company's case, it's not even technically DLC.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

This is just stupid. You buy a used game, you knew very well that the code inside might be used.

However, if they are not clearly representing to customers that there is no guarantee that the DLC code will be already used, then people are legally allowed to rely on the product case for what is included in their purchase, which means that Gamestop are in the wrong, as that is falsely representing what is in the product.

 

[Ariyura]

More people just hopping on the sue happy bandwagon it seems. I'm pretty sure most people know that downloadable content is not included in used purchases but it's easy to blame someone else.

That's pretty convenient reasoning. Not particularly solid reasoning. But hey, it's "easy to blame someone else."

Why? Because you don't think most people don't know that codes are one use only? Or you believe that gamestop should have to replace those codes for all their used games. In the end if you're unsatisfied with a used game from Gamestop just return it within the seven days and get your money back.

 

[Marmooset]

I think "nailed" is a bit of a premature term in this context. Someone filed suit. Gamestop hasn't settled, and the outcome hasn't been determined. It could be anything from bank-breakingly successful to tossed out as frivolous. If having suit against you is being "nailed", than Microsoft, Exxon, and the US Govt. are probably getting "nailed" several times weekly - and they all still seem to be doing all right.

This is like saying a waiter's been fired when they've just received a customer complaint. The waiter might get fired, but chances are greater that no one's gonna remember the event by the following week.

PS - three plaintiffs may be the smallest class action suit I've ever seen.

 

[KefkaCultist]

There needs to be a law set in America that says something like, "You cannot sue others for your own stupidity."

Instead of suing for everything people just need to stop, learn a life lesson, and move on.

the suit claims. "This situation is analogous to selling a used book to customers without telling them that there are chapters missing."

And that is a terrible analogy and nothing like the situation at hand.

A better one would be: Selling a used book to customers without including the optional bonus chapter

 

[luckycharms8282]

Gamestop's prices on used games are only five dollars lower than their price on new games. It makes me mad how my friends and others sell their games to gamestop for 5-10 dollars and think they are getting a good deal. Little do they know it's gamestop who makes out like a bandit when they sell that game to someone else for 30-40 dollars.

 

[KefkaCultist]

Is it really that big of a surprise? GameStop makes most of their money off their evil used game practices than anything else. I've already sworn off them for as long as I live anyway so it doesn't affect me much.

"Evil" practices? Alright then...

Exploitative and damaging to the industry would be a more accurate description.

And I will continue to call BS on that until someone provides me with a strong argument as to why the games industry is in any way "special" when it comes to used sales. We have used books, used movies, used CD's, used cars, used computers, etc etc etc. But suddenly, when it's a used game, it's suddenly evil!

Give me a break.

If we had a 'like' or thumb up system I would do it to this comment, but instead I'll just quote it and agree.

Its like a damn conspiracy theorist spewing out a bunch of words with nothing to back it up with.

 

[disfunkybob]

I haven't bought anything at GameStop since 2 years ago when a girl refused to sell me a game because I didn't want to buy the extended warranty. She told me they wouldn't give a replacement if it was defective out of the box. I complained to the manager and told him I was going to buy it at Target that was 2 blocks away.

So when pushing this BS is half of their job, I'm not surprised that some stores would gloss over these inconvenient truths.

 

[kasperbbs]

More people just hopping on the sue happy bandwagon it seems. I'm pretty sure most people know that downloadable content is not included in used purchases but it's easy to blame someone else.

This ^
I have never shopped at gamestop, nor have i ever been in america and i know about this dlc business. F**k, you could probably get sued if someone slipped and broke his arm next to your house.

 

[JMockShepard]

This is just stupid. You buy a used game, you knew very well that the code inside might be used.

However, if they are not clearly representing to customers that there is no guarantee that the DLC code will be already used, then people are legally allowed to rely on the product case for what is included in their purchase, which means that Gamestop are in the wrong, as that is falsely representing what is in the product.

Whether or not they are "legally allowed" doesn't mean it isn't stupid. Just because my cup of coffee doesn't say "Caution: Hot" doesn't mean I should sue someone if I spill it on myself. Coffee is generally hot. It's not always the case, but it usually is (and before anyone even brings up the actual case I'm referring to, yes the fast food company who was sued there was heating their coffee up WAY too much).

Basically, people now need a sign for everything. Another example would be a warning on a candy bar that clearly contains nuts that says "May Contain Nuts." It's unnecessary. Everything is just becoming redundantly redundant. "Caveat Emptor" and now, it's apparently "Caveat Venditor" as well.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Gamestop's prices on used games are only five dollars lower than their price on new games. It makes me mad how my friends and others sell their games to gamestop for 5-10 dollars and think they are getting a good deal. Little do they know it's gamestop who makes out like a bandit when they sell that game to someone else for 30-40 dollars.

It always depends on the game, and it depends on when you decide to shop. For example, we just ended a program that gave you a 50% bonus in trade-in credit. I got nearly $30 for Super Mario Brothers DS. That's $5 less than what we sell the game for.

On the other side of the argument, used game sales are how Gamestop makes enough profit to stay in business. We promote new games and hardware constantly, but the profits from those new sales go primarily to the developer/publisher. If it wasn't for used sales, a lot of people would be out of work and the games industry would lose one of their primary means of getting sales.

 

[sindremaster]

This is just stupid. You buy a used game, you knew very well that the code inside might be used.

However, if they are not clearly representing to customers that there is no guarantee that the DLC code will be already used, then people are legally allowed to rely on the product case for what is included in their purchase, which means that Gamestop are in the wrong, as that is falsely representing what is in the product.

It says clearly on all games that you get it on a "one time use code available with full retail purchase." So yes you can rely on the case, people just don't bother to look or choose not to care.

 

[high_castle]

What a stupid lawsuit. I worked for Gamestop for years, and while the company was far from perfect, it never while I was there falsely claimed anything about DLC being included with used games. In fact, when customers asked pros versus cons for used/new, DLC was always mentioned as being a benefit of a new game unless you got super lucky and the person who traded the title in never used the code. It's not hard to figure out. People need to stop assuming things and just ask the damn employees if DLC comes with it. No one's being told to lie here.