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

[Bolivar]

^ 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.

[ljkkjlcm9]

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

[GhandiOwnsYou]

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.

[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.

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?

[Slothy]

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.

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.