Tiger Woods 11 ripoff

AnneFrank

amacachi wrote: »

I'd give them an angry phone call or drop in about that tbh.

I'd give them the people's elbow

CiDeRmAn

Why on earth should Gamestop give a toss about a publishers decision to limit DLC, which has an intrinsic value outside of the base product, to the first owner of the game?
The publisher only has a responsibility to honour deals with the original owner.
Gamestop has no obligation to preowned buyers, other than to make sure that the item does what it says it does.
Those pack in DLC deals, with codes on scratch cards and the like, what fool would possibly believe they are "entitled" to them as a second (or third) owner?
All they do is hope that the previous owner never bothered to cash them in, and if they did, that's the chance you take .
The Publishers don't take this course of action, with regard to the DLC being limited to the first owner, because of some lack of a deal with GS.
Are people really so naive that they'd think that profits recouped by publishers on the sale of preowned games would be fed back to the punters?
These are publicly owned companies in many instances, any profits have a long ways to go before the punter can expect a little bit extra.

If anything, they don't want a cut of the preowned market, they want to kill it outright, hence the enthusiasm Sony and MS have had with online stores.
You're right to sell your own possessions is undermined when a company says you can't do it, or we want a portion of the profits, and again, don't you think the establishment of a "tax" on games to be fed back to the publishers would immediately be added onto the price of the game?
Of course it would, and preowned games would all get more expensive.

So, please, if you buy a pre-owed game, don't fool yourself into believing you are buying exactly the same product, with the same attached expectations, ultimately a preowned game is always compromised in some way, be it a missing manual, a slightly damaged disk, a soiled game box etc.
And that's why it is cheaper for gods sake!
If you to ensure you get absolutely everything as you would buying new, buy it new!

gizmo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Why on earth should Gamestop give a toss about a publishers decision to limit DLC, which has an intrinsic value outside of the base product, to the first owner of the game?
The publisher only has a responsibility to honour deals with the original owner.
Gamestop has no obligation to preowned buyers, other than to make sure that the item does what it says it does.

The items the retailers are selling come with text on the box stating what is included. If the item is no longer included then it is their legal responsibility to ensure the customer is informed of this. Gamestop clearly haven't made this a store policy as they know people will be turned off second hand games as any normal person would have been in the Dragon Age issue I linked earlier.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The Publishers don't take this course of action, with regard to the DLC being limited to the first owner, because of some lack of a deal with GS.

Yes they do.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Are people really so naive that they'd think that profits recouped by publishers on the sale of preowned games would be fed back to the punters?

Why would they be fed back to the punters? They'd be fed back to the publishers and developers, the people who created the product in the first place.

humanji

Is there a warning of any sort on the boxes of games affected by this?

gizmo

humanji wrote: »

Is there a warning of any sort on the boxes of games affected by this?

Judging from the two issues mentioned so far? Nope. I've not seen any additional stickers on second hand copies in the local Game or Gamestation either,

super_furry

I've been 'encouraged' to buy a second hand copy by till staff when going to buy new games in both GAME and Gamestop recently. When I pointed out that I'd have to spend an extra tenner to be able to play them online and that would make them more expensive than buying them new, they just shrug their shoulders.

The game staff don't care and just want to get the managers off their backs about making their pre-owned and pre-order sales targets.

CiDeRmAn

gizmo wrote: »

The items the retailers are selling come with text on the box stating what is included. If the item is no longer included then it is their legal responsibility to ensure the customer is informed of this. Gamestop clearly haven't made this a store policy as they know people will be turned off second hand games as any normal person would have been in the Dragon Age issue I linked earlier.

From what I read of the article you linked to about Dragon Age the label not only offered this DLC free to purchasers of the game, but also “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.” Now, a preowned purchase of a game, getting $5 off the retail price, does not constitute "full retail purchase", in fact, seeing as it is most game stores policy to clearly mark a game as preowned, it is the buyers own fault for not making himself fully aware of the consequences of buying preowned.
If he can't tackle small print, then maybe he shouldn't buy preowned anything.

gizmo wrote: »

Yes they do.

Yes they do?
Where did you get this bit of information?
The devs and publishers?
The very people who detest preowned sales?
Who would rather trample on your right to re-sell your property?
Do we expect Nissan now to look for kick-backs when you sell your Almera?
It's a nonsense business idea, the game producers are simply trying to provide incentives to buy brand new, if you buy preowned it should be buyer beware, as it is in every other 2nd hand market.

gizmo wrote: »

Why would they be fed back to the punters? They'd be fed back to the publishers and developers, the people who created the product in the first place.

The profits, in this case, bolstered by a return from preowned sales, and you suggest that the lack of these is what results in the DLC being limited to the first owner only and so costs the preowned buyer, therefore if the money was forthcoming, the DLC would be free to all owners of the software.

This is, of course, wishful thinking.
No reason at all that money recouped from preowned sales would make a blind bit of difference to the provision or lack thereof of free DLC to preowned games.
And this you do say above, making my point, thank you very much.
The idea that the money would go straight to the publishers and devs.

Now I would say that, googling the lawsuit, all I can find is the initial lawsuit announcement and the same text sent around most of the various gaming news sites, and this all dates from March or so.
No word of a result of the case anywhere.
The law allegedly in breech here is also a Californian law, not something seen across the US, and not something possibly seen in our courts either.
In fact, he could have returned the game and gotten a refund with which to buy the new copy of the game in a shop where he feels more welcome, but he failed to return the game in the 7 day returns period.
I mean, he could have brought it back, once he realised the DLC he wanted wasn't available, but didn't, not til weeks later,
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/GameStop-BioWare-Game-Lawsuit-DLC,news-6270.html
See this link for a far more balanced report on the whole business.

CiDeRmAn

super_furry wrote: »

I've been 'encouraged' to buy a second hand copy by till staff when going to buy new games in both GAME and Gamestop recently. When I pointed out that I'd have to spend an extra tenner to be able to play them online and that would make them more expensive than buying them new, they just shrug their shoulders.

The game staff don't care and just want to get the managers off their backs about making their pre-owned and pre-order sales targets.

And you know of these sales targets because?
What?
You work there?
You were told by a member of staff or a manager there?
Or is it something you think might be going on?

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.
In fact more cases have been when I went with a preowned game and the new version of it is cheaper, because the game price new has dropped but the electronic point of sale system hasn't updated the used prices yet.
This has happened to me on several occasions.

Shiminay

We've already had this discussion before, here are my thoughts on it.

gizmo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

From what I read of the article you linked to about Dragon Age the label not only offered this DLC free to purchasers of the game, but also “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.” Now, a preowned purchase of a game, getting $5 off the retail price, does not constitute "full retail purchase", in fact, seeing as it is most game stores policy to clearly mark a game as preowned, it is the buyers own fault for not making himself fully aware of the consequences of buying preowned.
If he can't tackle small print, then maybe he shouldn't buy preowned anything.

Nope, it'll be the legal responsibility of the store to highlight this, either through a sticker or at the till.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Yes they do?
Where did you get this bit of information?
The devs and publishers?
The very people who detest preowned sales?
Who would rather trample on your right to re-sell your property?
Do we expect Nissan now to look for kick-backs when you sell your Almera?
It's a nonsense business idea, the game producers are simply trying to provide incentives to buy brand new, if you buy preowned it should be buyer beware, as it is in every other 2nd hand market.

You seem to be taking this as an attack on you, the consumer when it isn't. This is squarely aimed at publishers trying to recoup some money lost when they are completely cut out of the second hand market by retailers. As for where I get the info, it's an industry I'm involved in and one which I keep myself fully informed. One need only look at the developments over the last few years to see this coming a mile off.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The profits, in this case, bolstered by a return from preowned sales, and you suggest that the lack of these is what results in the DLC being limited to the first owner only and so costs the preowned buyer, therefore if the money was forthcoming, the DLC would be free to all owners of the software.

The idea of Project Ten Dollar from EA and the subsequent Online Pass was specifically brought in to combat the loss of sales from second hand sales. They do it by their very nature, rewarding first time buyers with additional content yet charging those who buy it second hand.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Now I would say that, googling the lawsuit, all I can find is the initial lawsuit announcement and the same text sent around most of the various gaming news sites, and this all dates from March or so.
No word of a result of the case anywhere.
The law allegedly in breech here is also a Californian law, not something seen across the US, and not something possibly seen in our courts either.
In fact, he could have returned the game and gotten a refund with which to buy the new copy of the game in a shop where he feels more welcome, but he failed to return the game in the 7 day returns period.
I mean, he could have brought it back, once he realised the DLC he wanted wasn't available, but didn't, not til weeks later,
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/GameStop-BioWare-Game-Lawsuit-DLC,news-6270.html
See this link for a far more balanced report on the whole business.

That link does actually state the case more clearly...

However GameStop should make an effort to inform the uninformed consumer by attaching labels or marking out the promise of free content on packages.

Which is what I suggested above.

As for US law, well with the recent decision by the US Supreme Court that EULAs are legally enforceable, the entire issue of second hand sales will be called into question. As for what happens next, well all I know for sure is it's going to be interesting to watch the publishers and retailers battle it out.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.

That's incredibly naive. You are being encouraged to buy the preowned game because all of the money goes straight to the retailer, simple as that.

CiDeRmAn

If you would quote a little more generously you'd show the rest of what I said, which was that when the new game was cheaper than the preowned due to some delay in the point of sale system, I have been advised to go for the new copy.
There is no pressure, at least no pressure I have ever heard of, and I have know most of staff in GS for quite sometime, not to mention have worked in that retail business myself some years ago.

As for taking it personally, no not me.
Aside from the issue of, what seems to me, people being unable to spur themselves to read fine print, I have had plenty of disagreements with individuals working for GS, not to mention the, at times, meagre trade in prices and small discounts on certain preowned games compared to their new, in demand, brethren.

This topic has, as a previous poster has said, come up before, it would be more illuminating to actually see the ruling the courts made, instead of websites publishing a customers grievances, with wording that suggest a big bad corp is out to steal his money.
Of course they are, it's called exchange of money for services, and they will make sure to maximise profits where they can.

If I were to compromise on this, it would be to say that GS policy has not kept up with the devices used by publishers to get their games into the hands of inital buyers and then poison them for subsequent owners.
Every Gamestop preowned game has a preowned sticker on it, as said they could add yet more small print to direct myopic buyers aware of the limited nature of any possible DLC deals mentioned on the cover.

Helix

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.

shops encourage you to buy second hand because they get 100% of the takings, rather than around 30% on new games

Helix

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

as said they could add yet more small print to direct myopic buyers aware of the limited nature of any possible DLC deals mentioned on the cover.

and the fact that they wont be able to use the games online after their free 7 day trial is over

ShooterSF

As a gamer who can only afford to buy second hand these days it won't bother me. In the long term I can only see this having a negative impact on people who buy new games and trade them in. Resale value will decrease and to keep their profit margins gamestop will have to offer less to buy the game back meaning the game cost "more" to the original purchaser.

Helix

ShooterSF wrote: »

As a gamer who can only afford to buy second hand these days it won't bother me

unless youre buying your second hand games 8-12 months after original release, are you REALLY that hard up that you cant spend the extra fiver for it new?

ShooterSF

Helix wrote: »

unless youre buying your second hand games 8-12 months after original release, are you REALLY that hard up that you cant spend the extra fiver for it new?

I bought Mass Effect last week for ten quid! Fable 2 next. I guess it's also the library of old games I haven't played that impact me. Howover as a redeeming factor I did just buy Fallout new from gog.

I do agree people saving a fiver for second hand is crazy. When I did buy new releases I bought them new and even spent a little more in my friendly local gameshop to try and help them stay open after gamestop opened.

The sad fact of life though is capitalism works and the games industry is not going to get some special reprieve and while I do respect the rights of publishers to sell online content separate (throwing it in free with a purchase of the game) I am uncomfortable with the idea that I cant sell something I have bought. I was never keen on buying a license that cannot be transferred.

Drakar

Maybe people should be saving like 50% and buying online anyway...

Helix

ShooterSF wrote: »

I bought Mass Effect last week for ten quid! Fable 2 next. I guess it's also the library of old games I haven't played that impact me. Howover as a redeeming factor I did just buy Fallout new from gog.

I do agree people saving a fiver for second hand is crazy. When I did buy new releases I bought them new and even spent a little more in my friendly local gameshop to try and help them stay open after gamestop opened.

The sad fact of life though is capitalism works and the games industry is not going to get some special reprieve and while I do respect the rights of publishers to sell online content separate (throwing it in free with a purchase of the game) I am uncomfortable with the idea that I cant sell something I have bought. I was never keen on buying a license that cannot be transferred.

They can still be sold, but itll be for a tenner less than it used to be. The market will adjust itself to it

whiterebel

So if a Ford is sold second-hand by a Renault dealer, they have to pay a cut to Ford?

Helix wrote: »

i do believe this is correct

I spoke to one of the main dealers last night, and he confirmed this is complete tripe. He gets a car on his forecourt, and he pockets the money, end of.

pablomakaveli

There is another negative effect of this and that is for people who want to buy a game that was released a couple of years ago. It's often harder to find a brand new copy in a shop a year or two after a games release so buying a second hand copy might be the only option.

If that game includes a code to access certain features than that person who might have intended to buy a new copy but could only get a second hand one is screwed. I think they should drop the price or get rid of it altogether a year or two after a game is released.