OT: GameStop Faces Action Over Deceptive Used Sales

[GTHobbes]

Gamestop's being sued over its pre-owned program, although if I had to bet it will probably just mean a sticker gets added to Gamestop's pre-owned games at some point down the road.

"In a complaint filed March 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs claimed GameStop knowingly neglected to warn customers that any free additional content advertised on a game's packaging was typically no longer available when they bought the game used.

The extras, referred to as downloadable content, are usually locked behind one-time codes that come with new games, according to the complaint. If the original purchaser of a given game redeems the code and later sells the game to GameStop, the code will no longer unlock the downloadable content, though the game's packaging still advertise the freebies, the complaint says."

http://www.law360.com/productliability/ ... tliability

[Rodster]

I'm not a fan of Gamestop for numerous reasons but I think this lawsuit is going nowhere. It's the game companies who should PUT labels on the package to clearly indicate the online code is a one time use only code. Gamestop is just a reseller of the game.

Also all that information is clearly available on the web and if one is connected to the gaming community and who isn't no a days with XBL and PSN.

[GTHobbes]

I'm not a fan of Gamestop for numerous reasons but I think this lawsuit is going nowhere. It's the game companies who should PUT labels on the package to clearly indicate the online code is a one time use only code. Gamestop is just a reseller of the game.

As part of its motion to dismiss, I wouldn't be surprised to see GS say the game companies are necessary parties without whom the suit cannot continue, although that sure would put GS in an awkward position with respect to the hands that feed. I don't know if the case will survive a motion to dismiss or not, but I'm kind've surprised it took this long for someone to file a suit like this (not surprised to see it was filed in California).

[vinny-b]

i hope they have to file bankruptcy.

[toonarmy]

I agree that this may only amount to GS having to put a sticker on games. Not everyone who purchases games is savvy, so I can see how people could be led to believe they were buying a complete game when in fact it is not. Just putting on a sticker with a clear explanation makes sense and would avoid this kind of foolishness.

[spooky157]

I don't see how this could be the game publisher's responsibility. Publishers don't get a cut from re-sells so their only "contract" is with the original customer and the retailer, not with someone who buys second hand.

[jLp vAkEr0]

This bring me to the question, when in hell will I have the option to buy EVERY game I want via download w/o having to go to sleezy GS?

They keep putting bigger HD's in consoles and must of it is useless unless you fill it with movies or demos (PS3) specially.

[Naples39]

Mr first thought is that it's a incredibly dumb suit, but I guess it depends on the wording on the box.

i guess it would be analoguous to electronics being sold where the box clearly says "batteries/cables included"' only for the consumer to get home and find the store is selling it without those pieces and not telling the buyer. Kind of.