84 réponses à ce sujet

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1079852p1.html

Now I know this is GameStop being sued, but this involves DA:O so I think it should be discussed.  A lot of people have complained about how if they try to buy the game used, they not only have to pay for the game but pay $15 for Shale.  In this case, GameStop charged $55 for an used copy of DA:O meaning that if the customer wanted Shale he would have had to pay MORE for the used copy than a brand new copy.  I think this case has implications not just for DA:O but any game offering DLC with new games.  Shale and the Cerebus Network are used basically for the developer to get a piece of the used game sales by forcing those who buy the game used to pay more to get the full content that someone who buys the game new gets.  I've always thought this is unfair, and this case may not only mean bad news for GameStop but anyone developer who releases games with extra free content only available free to those who buy the game new.

[Petsura]

Nobody's forcing you to pay such a ridiculous sum or do you want to tell me GameStop employees are threatening customers with pistols to do it?

[Bryy_Miller]

This is GameStop's fault, not the developers. They obviously knew the score, but still advertised it like their used copies would still have the free DLC.

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

I could see this playing out as devs having to provide disclaimers for DLCs like Shale are only available for new copies. What is GameStop going to do? Rip out the Shale insert?

[Goth Skunk]

Interesting...

[khathaway71]

I did read an article a while back that game companies were going to make it harder for people to buy and trade used games and that it would be effecting stores like Gamestop and even Walmart. Though it didn't mention lawsuits just that they were going to make it so you couldn't easily transfer registration and reinstall limits and of course charging more money to do so.

[Proph2525]

I think what happened was the box cover advertised the content, which isn't unusual. Someone purchased the game, put in all the codes for the DLC, then returned it. GameStop decided to resell it as a used copy, but unless they put it in a completely different box it wouldn't lose the advertising on the cover.



You can't return PC games purely for the reason of the activation keys, and it looks like now the same is going to have to be done for console games. Nobody's really at fault here, except maybe the customer that believed someone would return the game without using the DLC codes.

[Zenon]

I have been a few times at Gamestop. I wanted to buy a game there, but so far I never did. Reasons:

Dragon Age: Origins Collectors Edition was not available even 3 days after official release date.

Dragon Age: Awakening costs 10 EUR more than the offer at Amazon. (Would have liked to get it faster this way, but paying about 33% more for being able to play perhaps 1 day earlier? NO WAY!!)



After reading this now I know, that I'll probably don't need to give them more chances. I wouldn't want a 2nd hand game for the full price. And considering the extra 15 bucks (Shale also costs about 15 EUR) for this great add-on to be paid on top of this makes Gamestop's business policy unacceptable to me.

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

Proph2525 wrote...

I think what happened was the box cover advertised the content, which isn't unusual. Someone purchased the game, put in all the codes for the DLC, then returned it. GameStop decided to resell it as a used copy, but unless they put it in a completely different box it wouldn't lose the advertising on the cover.

You can't return PC games purely for the reason of the activation keys, and it looks like now the same is going to have to be done for console games. Nobody's really at fault here, except maybe the customer that believed someone would return the game without using the DLC codes.

All I'm saying is that in a country where a woman can successfully sue because her coffee was hot, it isn't unfathomable that there are going to be implications from this lawsuit that could affect DA:O, Bioware, and the gaming community as a whole.  In american courts, you can't use the defense "if they only used their brains."  Although I will say that $55 for a used copy is ridiculous.  I can find a new copy on half.com for $40.

[K2daE]

im sorry but if you buy a used game you should expect that the download codes most likely have been used.

[TheMadCat]

Oh joy, another BS lawsuit.

[BanksHector]

Why would you pay that much for a used game when the new game is only a few dollars more?

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

BanksHector wrote...

Why would you pay that much for a used game when the new game is only a few dollars more?

Good question.  Like I said before, you can't expect everyone to use their brains.

[Starchs]

I was wonder when this will happen. False Advesitment

[Ryzaki]

I actually hope the guy wins just to kick it to bloody GameStop. Maybe they'll stop charging 55 bucks for a 60 dollar game. (Hell they tried to charge me 40 bucks for a used game that I found New someone else for 30 >_> )

[the_one_54321]

You know, it's BioWare that is charging the extra money, not GameStop.



Maybe GameStop does charge ridiculous prices for used games, but call it what it is. Just because it's BioWare's game doesn't mean the blame goes elsewhere. When you pay the extra $15 for Shale or Cerberus it goes in BioWare/EA's pockets, not GameStop.

[TJSolo]

This will be interesting if it leads to Gampstop having to reduce used game prices based on incentive items like Shale.
Used prices would be somewhere around; 40-45 bucks. VERY attractive to those that are not able to get DLC or don't like the direction DLC is going.

Modifié par TJSolo, 25 mars 2010 - 09:11 .

[the_one_54321]

TJSolo wrote...
This will be interesting if it leads to Gampstop having to reduce used game prices based on incentive items like Shale.
Used prices would be somewhere around; 40-45 bucks. VERY attractive to those that are not able to get DLC or don't like the direction DLC is going.

It would turn into a very cost effective way of saying "I don't want your stupid DLC."

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

the_one_54321 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
This will be interesting if it leads to Gampstop having to reduce used game prices based on incentive items like Shale.
Used prices would be somewhere around; 40-45 bucks. VERY attractive to those that are not able to get DLC or don't like the direction DLC is going.

It would turn into a very cost effective way of saying "I don't want your stupid DLC."

Love Shale, but she's not worth $15.  I'd be angry if I bought the game used.

[Drake Sigar]

Shhh, do you hear that? It's the sound of EA laughing maniacally. They do despise used game sellers.

[the_one_54321]

Crazy_Cat_Lady wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
This will be interesting if it leads to Gampstop having to reduce used game prices based on incentive items like Shale.
Used prices would be somewhere around; 40-45 bucks. VERY attractive to those that are not able to get DLC or don't like the direction DLC is going.

It would turn into a very cost effective way of saying "I don't want your stupid DLC."

Love Shale, but she's not worth $15.  I'd be angry if I bought the game used.

That's only because you want the DLC. I want them to stop making DLC. I hate it. I want all that time and those resources devoted to expansions.

[London_Liche]

I had the same problem with Amazon.com. On the page where they advertise the Collector's Edition, it clearly states that it comes with The Stone Prisoner, The Blood Dragon Armor, etc. Nowhere does it tell you that if you purchase it used, this content will not be included. Hey, it doesn't even mention that this is DLC. It simply says the content is included. Then, it links directly to other companies who will sell you a used copy without so much as a word mentioned about the fact that the added content is no longer available to you. Is this Bioware's fault? I would say that, in part, it is. They need to do more to inform people that they will not be receiving the DLC if they purchase the game used. Instead, we get a tiny little caption on the back of the box. Not cool. Now, I was fortunate. The seller whom I purchased the game from refunded my money and my shipping fees both ways. In the end, I purchased the Collector's Edition new.

[BanksHector]

I do not feel sorry for the person that had to pay more money for Shale. I saw the case and knew that if I got the game used it would not come with the code. Why would a game company make it where you could use the same code over and over? I just saw it as a reward for buying the game new. If they did not tell him that it came with the dlc and stuff then I believe its his fault for not being more careful. If they told him it came with it then I can see them being at fault but that is the only way.

Modifié par BanksHector, 25 mars 2010 - 09:32 .

[Crazy_Cat_Lady]

London_Liche wrote...

I had the same problem with Amazon.com. On the page where they advertise the Collector's Edition, it clearly states that it comes with The Stone Prisoner, The Blood Dragon Armor, etc. Nowhere does it tell you that if you purchase it used, this content will not be included. Hey, it doesn't even mention that this is DLC. It simply says the content is included. Then, it links directly to other companies who will sell you a used copy without so much as a word mentioned about the fact that the added content is no longer available to you. Is this Bioware's fault? I would say that, in part, it is. They need to do more to inform people that they will not be receiving the DLC if they purchase the game used. Instead, we get a tiny little caption on the back of the box. Not cool. Now, I was fortunate. The seller whom I purchased the game from refunded my money and my shipping fees both ways. In the end, I purchased the Collector's Edition new.

Glad you were lucky and got your situation sorted out.  But I think this is exactly the type of situation that needs to change.  Should people be suspicious?  Yeah.  But you can't expect everyone to know absolutely that this additional content isn't included if you're buying it used when it is still advertised on the product.

[the_one_54321]

Crazy_Cat_Lady wrote...
Glad you were lucky and got your situation sorted out.  But I think this is exactly the type of situation that needs to change.  Should people be suspicious?  Yeah.  But you can't expect everyone to know absolutely that this additional content isn't included if you're buying it used when it is still advertised on the product.

Well hey, like you mentioned about the cat lady, I mean coffee lady.
That lawsuit was nuts. "I'm an idiot and you didn't take into consideration that idiots would be buying your coffee, and you should have taken that into consideration." After that, I remember all kinds of crazy warning labels were going up all over the place.

Similarly here (though perhaps not the so much the "I'm an idiot"), they needed to inform their customers of exactly what they were buying. Still, the root cause of this is the developer/publisher trying to extract more money out of the process. GameStop was already charging that much for used games that just recently dropped.