Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 35678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Gamestop Forced To Indicate Used Online Pass Games

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name View Post
    If a cunt was ignoring me for my behavior, I would not change my behavior. But I also wouldn't specifically address him in a thread. No one asked you to sit out of the topic.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have a conversation with George Washington, because trying to have a conversation with someone who can't hear me is all kinds of sane.
    I think you're making too big of a deal out of it. I'm accustomed to clicking quote and then responding.

    It would take more effort to structure my responses to avoid or ignore him.

  2. The NES I bought from a game store didn't come with Super Mario Bros.
    I am outraged that there was no disclaimer.

  3. #63
    Did you carry the actual console out, in your hands?

  4. Of course. There was no box, just like many of the used games sold at Gamestop.
    The moment I realized the cartridge port was empty, I just went numb. It was like being raped.

  5. #65
    I'm fairly certain that I learned about "reasonable expectations" in business law.

    Which is why "THIS MAY KILL YOU" is not written all over lawn mowers. It is "reasonable" to expect all adults to know that it might kill you.


    It is also reasonable for you to know how to check a 27 year old console for a game.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    The NES I bought from a game store didn't come with Super Mario Bros.
    I am outraged that there was no disclaimer.
    that kind of pack-in differs a little bit from pay-walling basic game features

  7. Being able to play games is a basic feature of a console. Besides, Mcrosoft has put online play for every game on their platform behind the XBL paywall.
    I don't like online passes at all, nor do I like Gamestop, but the responsibility for regulating this kind of thing falls squarely on the company supplying the platform. If Sony or Microsoft had just said "No, we won't allow this on our console" that would have been the end of it.

  8. I think that's probably a good way to piss off third parties. I'm not really sure why Sony and Microsoft should be held responsible for the DLC models publishers choose to use for their own games, anyway. Consumers not using their goddamn brains and realizing the extra 5 bucks they think they're saving might not be worth it if the bonus DLC/locked content that's plastered all over the case has been used already certainly doesn't help, nor does buying the fucking passes at all.

    I'm glad to see Gamestop get nailed, but this is really only an issue because we can't control ourselves and enable this kind of greed.

  9. it's still a bad example, plus xbox live gold is platform-specific and is stated/implied/noted/assumed that you would need the paid version to play online in numerous locations

    e: and there's absolutely no way ms or sony are going to stand up for the consumer regarding this, because the publisher can just say "no? aight, fuck you then" and then just not release any games on that platform and/or do really half-assed sub par ports, and they need that software to push the hardware sales

  10. Microsoft and Sony already impose plenty of fees and conditions on third parties. They have the installed base and they dictate the terms.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo