Page 1 of 8 1235 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: Gamestop Forced To Indicate Used Online Pass Games

  1. Gamestop Forced To Indicate Used Online Pass Games

    http://www.gamesradar.com/gamestop-t...gs-used-games/
    The Northern California District Court has ruled that GameStop stores throughout the state must place warning labels on used games with content locked behind Online Passes or similar schemes. The company will also pay restitution to purchasers of second-hand titles affected by such restrictions.

    The news comes after Senior District Judge Thelton E. Henderson approved a settlement between the company and legal firm Baron & Budd, who brought a class-action suit against GameStop for its second-hand practices. B&B alleged that the company was buying up used games at low prices then marking-up the titles to within $5 of their original value – even though Online Passes require customers to pay up to $15 to access some of the games' content (GameStop also sells Online Passes). B&B says this practice has allowed GameStop to make over $2 billion per year on used game sales alone, without paying royalties to the games' original publishers or developers.

    Under the settlement, GameStop will now have to provide in-store and online warning labels for Online Pass-enabled second-hand games such as SSX and Mass Effect 3. The company will also issue rebates to buyers of such titles in checks and GameStop vouchers. Baron & Budd says it will post instructions for customers who feel they may be eligible for such a rebate on its Facebook page.

    “if GameStop discloses the truth to consumers, it is unlikely that they will be able to continue selling used copies of certain games for only $5 less than the price of a new copy,” says B&B's Mark Pifko. “In fact, we already know that not long after the lawsuit was filed, GameStop lowered prices for used copies of many of the game titles identified in the lawsuit.”

    While the settlement only applies to Californian stores and customers, Baron & Budd says it's investigating the chain's practices throughout the US and urges customers affected by the company's second-hand practices to make contact. B&B's contact details can be found at the firm's website.

  2. It's odd. Gamestop getting legal-slammed is usually a good thing.

    But all this does is give more reasons for publishers to rip us off with Online Passes and day one DLC, doesn't it?

  3. Day one DLC has no effect here but I'm not sure if ripping us off with online passes is the right term here. It does encourage developers to use them but if it also means lowered prices for used games then it should work out for everyone. Places can still sell used games (albeit at a lowered profit), developers get revenue from some second-hand sales, and consumers get cheaper used games where they can then choose if they want to spend the money for the locked content and bring it in line with the old cost of used games.

    That is, of course, supposing that they continue to lower the sales of online pass games. Which I doubt they will.

  4. Ive been bitching about this ever since the online pass thing started. We lowered the prices of the used games that had online passes to account for the extra cost for the customer, but those fucks at gamestop didnt. Im glad someone is taking them to task for it.

    It didnt result in lost profit percentage wise for us. We just lowered what we paid people for their games. Which funny enough was often still more than what gamestop would offer when they were marking the games anywhere up to $15 more than what we sold them for.

    As far as more publishers enacting online passes, we will see. From the research i did, it seemed EA was quite underwhelmed by how many online passes have actually sold.

  5. But did it increase new game sales?

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name View Post
    As far as more publishers enacting online passes, we will see. From the research i did, it seemed EA was quite underwhelmed by how many online passes have actually sold.
    Which kicks off some unformed thoughts about the rumors of the next generation of consoles requiring always-on connection. The used game market is substantial and doesn't care (much) about being online. Are Sony and MS really going to pass them up?

    James

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Joust Williams View Post
    But did it increase new game sales?
    Honestly? Not at all.

  8. I dunno. It's one thing to be underwhelmed by the performance and another to be second-guessing the idea if it negatively affects anything else. It still might be a decent stop-gap for the pubs.

  9. I've been saying from day one that killing the used game market is a bad idea for the publishers. I honestly think all these companies will keep at it just for the appearance. They will never admit that second-hand sales and reselling can help grow the industry.

  10. #10
    If anything, it helps to justify the price they set for new games.

    If you walk into a game store, you will find an assortment of used and new games at different prices. With the cheapest games typically being used and the highest being brand new. Its subtle, but all the cheap used shit around the minty super new stuff justifies the high price tag in the eyes of the consumer.

    aka, price referencing.

    Which is important in an industry of negligible manufacturing costs.


    Not to mention the impact lower priced used games has on store walk throughs. If game stores suddenly become populated in nothing but brand new $60 games, I guarantee game-stores will see a drop in store browsing. Which is important because it gives salesmen a chance for up-sale. You can't do that if no one comes to your store because they know it has nothing under 60 bucks.

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