Gamestop removing OnLive vouchers from PC copies of Deus Ex:HR

Gamasutra - News - GameStop Removing OnLive Vouchers From PC Human Revolution Boxes

Not that I really give a crap about OnLive. I don't think it will ever be capable of replacing having an actual PC or console in a lot of situations, but this is still really smurfed up.

For those who don't know and refuse to click the link, Square put vouchers for a free OnLive copy of the new Deus Ex in retail copies of the new Deus Ex. Gamestop is removing them saying Square didn't tell them about it and they didn't want to promote a competitor.

If you can't guess why I don't like it, this basically means they're defrauding the customer since they're not only removing part of the product the customer is buying, but selling copies which have been opened and tampered with as new copies (not that that practice is entirely new for them). Honestly, I hope they get sued over this just for having the gall to do it.

Gamestop's pretty slimy in general, but yeah this is really titty. I respect myself a little bit less for having pre-ordered the game from them at all. Luckily DXHR is so good that it lets me forget about the parts of myself that I don't like. :kakapo:

they have since updated and are just pulling the product from the shelves. Apparently they have been in communication with Square-Enix and they are setting the product aside for a recall. Of course, this is what should have happened in the first place.

THE JACKEL

Yeah, I see they updated the article again. This raises an interesting question though in that if they're removing this game from store shelves for basically pushing a competing distribution system, will they stop selling retail copies of games which require Steam? I can think of at least three off of the top of my head that require it, but they'll probably never mention it since two of them are MW2 and Black Ops, and MW3 may follow suit and require it for all we know. Odd that they made a stink over this in retrospect when there's another, far more successful service, which actually costs them PC sales.

Boo hoo, promoting a competitor. Way to make yourself look like tools GameStop :p

First off, I think it goes without saying that GameStop officers wouldn't issue an order like this without their legal team providing some sort of foundation for doing it. One of my more aggressive and renowned professors knows one of them so I'd imagine they're fairly competent over there.

In all likelihood, there's a boilerplate provision in GameStop's distribution agreement that includes promoting GameStop's competitors as a material breach of the contract. Considering they went ahead and did this, there's probably a provision following that claiming that GameStop may adjust any products violating those obligations.

Because of the update to the story, that they're not selling the game at all, they may not have that expressed that right. A court would probably see altering the package as an unreasonable reaction to such a breach, the normal thing would be, as they're doing now, to send it back. However, in the update, Square publicly recognized that it was GameStop's right to alter the package to correct any deficiencies. So this one is kinda ambiguous.

Of course, it's not just Square they need to worry about. Breaking a game's seal and selling it as new probably votes some kind of consumer protection laws, but as Vivi said, GameStop's been doing that for a while, where they'll put a transparent sticker over the opening and sell it as new.

Does anyone recall if there was a class action suit about that? I seem to remember that there was. If that's the case, this action's legality depends on that outcome, although I'd say there's certainly some kind of precedent in music or movie retail. Since nearly all cases settle, a class action like that probably would, too. The way a lot of class actions settle is that the company provides credit/gift cards to the plaintiff class, which they usually take because each person's stake in the litigation is small and it's usually a lawyer and a friend of his/hers making the decisions. With a community like gaming, a bunch of kids and broke young adults, we're even more likely to take it, unfortunately.

I asked about it. It's because they have Impulse which is a competing streaming game thing and squenix never told them about their's being included soooo why would we give their competitor free room and board in our territory? I dunno still seems lame to me. Maybe cause I don't give two licks about Origin, Steam, Impulse or this OnLive thing. :/ I guess they're only taking the PC version ones. Because that's what has it? I don't know I forgot already. You can see how much this has affected me >.>

Onlive isn't really the same as just an "online store for games" though. Does gamestop's own service run the games serverside and stream it to the clients? If not, it's not in direct competition!

Also, OnLive isn't Square Enix' own thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Also, OnLive isn't Square Enix' own thing.

---

Did anyone say it was?

Yes.

You'll have to point out where then because I've re-read every post in this thread and I'm not seeing where anyone said such a thing. Maybe it wasn't clear enough in my OP that OnLive is a service separate from Square, but no one said, or even implied that OnLive is a service operated by Square from what I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

It's because we have Impulse which is a competing streaming game thing and squenix never told us about their's being included

---

Wow, my apologies. Can't believe I missed that after reading it twice.

Urm that was my interpretation of what it is cause as I said, I don't give two licks so if i'm wrong, meh. I don't know much about any of them. I'm not a PC gamer. I apologize if I mislead you here. It wasn't my intention. In fact I'm not suppose to be commenting on this at all lest my view is seen as the companies blah blah. Don't take my word for fact.

To be honest it's not surprising though. That's gamestop for you. People complain but they still shop there.... convenience over well where else would you get games? Walmart with a small selection or online. People are impatient. Kinda like phone services, people complain but they continue to buy the newest trendiest smart phones all while bitching. Just how it goes. Put up with the nonsense or don't have it at all! They kinda have a corner on the market so there isn't much people can do. And the gaming companies know that. That's why they get special treatment and exclusive pre-order merch.

I think it's probably just gamestop being offended that they weren't offered the service first since they do have that ego corner of the market thing. That's MY opinion NOT the companies.

I don't know about the people who complain still shop there. I believe us hardcore gamers wouldn't do that, but I'm doubting this will affect their casual customers that much given that they don't follow video game news. There's people besides Wal-Mart too like Target and Best Buy. There's also local game stores which I don't see really any of anymore where I live. There are few of them, but some still exist.

Gamestop has been full of bull for years now. I know they didn't want to promote competition but it's not right to open up new packages, remove content, reseal it and sell it as new. They knew what they did wasn't right and didn't care. There's no word of apology from them. From the last thing they posted they sounded like they're justifying it.

^ Also KMar'ts been making a huge push as a gaming retailer in the states, having a lot of awesome deals and even starting up their own game news service similar to Best Buy. While this is good, I live in Philadelphia and the small game stores I've seen since I moved here have almost all gone out of business. So it's good there's some competition but sad "it's over for the little guy."

As aware as I am of all the problems, I still shop at GameStop. It's just convenient. Yes, I'm hardcore & opinionated, and I like shopping at newegg and amazon, but I still like to order from them so I can get Modern Warfare 3 at 7/8 o'clock in the morning and play the crap out of it all giddy.

There are only ever 2 reasons for me to shop at Gamestop.
1) Used games on old systems, just for the convenience of going in and finding it cheap. Such as PS2 games
2) They have a pre-order exclusive far better than anywhere else.

Otherwise I hate shopping there, and 90% of my game purchases are through Amazon, release date delivery, and with some sort of pre-order bonus usually as 10-20 dollars off a future game.

THE JACKEL

Perhaps I'm underinformed, but I've never had an issue with Gamestop. I pre-order through them, I buy new through them, and I buy used through them. I've even had them hunt down older games in other stores, and they, free of charge, would ship store to store from several states away if they didn't have an older title in stock locally. I love their new "premium" rewards program as well. Same cost as the old power up card, still get magazine subscription as a bonus, and now the whole points/rewards program.

Then again, I never trade games in, so i've never been boned by the resale vaue. I recognize and disapprove of used games taking money out of the developers pockets, and prefer to buy new if it's available. This particular incident... While obviously handled badly, is both parties fault though. I feel that the difference between Portal 2's steam copy, and this OnLive debacle, is that they were notified about the steam copy, and this was sort of slipped in. If they had been properly notified i don't think it would have been an issue.

The only thing I don't get about this thread is the indignant rage some of you are exhibiting about the idea that game cases might have been opened and then sold as new. News flash, game stores do not get provided with dummy sleeves for games in 99% of cases. Without dummy sleeves and the fact that under copyright law, duplicating the sleeve of the game with a colour printer/scanner combination can get you in legal trouble with the publisher how do you expect games stores to put high value, high risk product on the shelves? Well it's generally speaking simple as hell and done by every shop in the UK I can think of and wouldn't be surprised if it is true in the USA and world wide over too. We open cases of games, remove the highly valuble contents and put the empty box on the shelf as a display. Depending on stock levels you could find EVERY copy except those pre-ordered to be opened on shelf or you might find half of them have been processed this way. Once we sell the game we often have to put a copy of the game removed from the packaging back in. There is nothing illegal about that as far as I am aware (and considering every major and minor games store does this I doubt it is) so why the fuss on that point.

As to the OnLive offer being removed? Well thats neither here nor there, being that on one hand if Gamestop were not informed by SE of the offer they have the right to refuse to honour that offer. Yet if SE did inform Gamestop of the offer then it is Gamestop who are in the wrong by refusing to honour it. In short, whatever way you look at that you the consumer is going to get smurfed by the long dick of someone's legal team. Not much you can do about it so why get all indignant about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

The only thing I don't get about this thread is the indignant rage some of you are exhibiting about the idea that game cases might have been opened and then sold as new. News flash, game stores do not get provided with dummy sleeves for games in 99% of cases. Without dummy sleeves and the fact that under copyright law, duplicating the sleeve of the game with a colour printer/scanner combination can get you in legal trouble with the publisher how do you expect games stores to put high value, high risk product on the shelves? Well it's generally speaking simple as hell and done by every shop in the UK I can think of and wouldn't be surprised if it is true in the USA and world wide over too. We open cases of games, remove the highly valuble contents and put the empty box on the shelf as a display. Depending on stock levels you could find EVERY copy except those pre-ordered to be opened on shelf or you might find half of them have been processed this way. Once we sell the game we often have to put a copy of the game removed from the packaging back in. There is nothing illegal about that as far as I am aware (and considering every major and minor games store does this I doubt it is) so why the fuss on that point.

---

Simply removing the contents for display purposes and putting them back when the game is sold is not where the problem lies. It's that they tampered with the product so that it was not being sold with the original contents of the packaging. They removed vouchers, which do have some inherent value of their own, and threw them out. And when I said this wasn't an entirely new practice for them, I've actually seen them try selling game copies as new when they had lost the manual, or some other contents after they had been removed from the package. It's not something that happens frequently to my knowledge, but if the original contents aren't their in their entirety, then it isn't a brand spanking new copy, period.

Quote:

---

As to the OnLive offer being removed? Well thats neither here nor there, being that on one hand if Gamestop were not informed by SE of the offer they have the right to refuse to honour that offer. Yet if SE did inform Gamestop of the offer then it is Gamestop who are in the wrong by refusing to honour it. In short, whatever way you look at that you the consumer is going to get smurfed by the long dick of someone's legal team. Not much you can do about it so why get all indignant about it?

---

Gamestop has the right to refuse to honour it in so far as they have the right to refuse to sell the game and discuss a return of the product with Square. Being butt hurt about the vouchers being included with the product does not give them the right to open the packages and remove them, while still selling the game for the same price as other stores who didn't resort to such tomfoolery. The only way they might be able to get away with that is if they had informed every single customer that they had removed something and threw it away when they bought it. Regardless, they clearly acknowledged they were in the wrong in how they handled this with the reparations they offered customers who bought the game.

And I disagree with your very last line. Those that don't like these kinds of business practices can clearly do something about it by purchasing the game somewhere else, or emailing Gamestop to explain exactly why they do not like what they're doing. Maybe there won't be enough people to make a difference right now, but that can change. Regardless, the gift cards and free used games they gave away tells me they were very likely listening to people after the news broke.