Man Sues GameStop Over Used Game DLC
Unfortunately, James hadn't heard of EA's new initiative to bundle new games with free downloadable content in an effort to add value to purchasing games new. According to James, the sticker on the box promised a new character and quest content, but found that he had to pay an extra $15 to get that content in-game because he had a used copy.
In response, James is doing what any red-blooded American would do: he's suing!
"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."
I'm not so sure GameStop is actively "tricking" customers, so much as not informing them of this particular practice. GameStop makes more money off of a used game and it behooves them to sell these over new copies whenever possible. Sure, the sticker promising free DLC should have been removed, but I'm not so sure this suit will be successful.
When James tried to return the game, he could not, as it was outside of the 7 day window for refund. I suppose he could always trade it in.
-
AgentPothead
replyWhatever happened to personal responsibility and the informed consumer?
-
[deleted]
-
Here here! You're right on Watcherxp. He's suing because the sticker on the box that stated a new character and quest content was not removed prior to resale. So of course he would think he'd be getting it.
-
If it was something printed on the box like
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/950918_108169_back.jpg
what were they supposed to do, magic marker it off?
And it even says with full retail purchase.
Now if it were something like an added Gamestop sticker that could have been peeled off there would be a leg to stand on, but i dunno what was on the box and I'm just speculating.-
Wow, so it's actually labeled as requiring a full retail purchase. I'll assume Mr Collins is illiterate.
-
That's only if that was what the suit was referring to. It could just as easily have another sticker slapped on it.
-
The suit is referring to an ill-informed consumer with no personal responsibility who thinks it's a stores fault for his inability to read. It's disturbing a lawyer would even take this case.
-
Oh I agree that if that's the issue, but if there was an additional sticker on the box there's atleast a chance the guy could win.
Now ask me if anything about this story isn't nauseating that it's escalated into a legal suit. :P-
I seriously never thought I'd see the day when I'd be on GameStops side in a lawsuit, but this is pretty much a waste of time and resources.
-
-
-
-
While I hate to be the devil's advocate, there's no reason to think that buying a used game at GameStop isn't a "full retail purchase". I mean, the customer is buying the game legally at a retail store. The fact that the game was $5 off certainly doesn't make it less than a "full retail purchase", games are discounted all the time but that wouldn't invalidate any offers contained in the box.
The only way that a customer would know that "full retail purchase" doesn't mean "not a pirated copy" would be if they already knew about this used game sales crippling practice.
(That said, I'm generally anti-lawsuit and this guy should have just said, "Oh shit, I lost $15 bucks because of this DLC shit. I won't do that again!")
-
-
I'm reading the suit now.
#3 page 1
The avilability of this additional content is prominently advertised on the packaging of these games. The problem arises when GameStop sells used copies of these games. Despite the representations on the packaging that the game comes with a free use code, unbeknownst [sic] to consumers who purchase a used copy of one of these games, upon attempting to download the content identified on the game's packaging, cunsomers are unable to do so unless they pa an additional fee.
There is nothing in the claim about gamespot adding a sticker or some kind of label of their own. It is all based on packaging.-
And I can totally see why he'd sue GameStop since they packaged the games. Oh, wait.
-
-
-
-
An informed consumer would go into the situation with more than just the information on the game box :)
-
-
-
Why, when you can sue people and blame someone else for it. You'd figure that people would've learned to read the fine print by now.
-
In his and a lot of these other shackers defense, READIN IS HARD.
-
-
