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

[Slothy]

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.

[Flying Arrow]

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.

[ljkkjlcm9]

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

[Slothy]

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.

[Jiro]

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

[Bolivar]

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.

[Freya]

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 >.>

[Mirage]

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.

[Slothy]

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

Did anyone say it was?

[Mirage]

Yes.

[Slothy]

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.

[Mirage]

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

[Slothy]

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

[Freya]

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.

[Depression Moon]

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.