Slashdot Mirror


Wal-Mart's Terrible Nintendo Wii Knock-Offs

MaryAlan writes "Wal-Mart is now selling an electronic LCD game in the kid's section that resembles a Wiimote so closely that even Wal-Mart employees can't tell them apart in a picture. But the games — made by ToyQuest out of L.A. — are complete and utter crap, to the point of being unplayable. Their only redeeming feature is that they look like the Nintendo Wii, which means Wal-Mart is relying on brand confusion to sell any of these things to unsuspecting customers. There is a gallery of photos online, so you can take a look at side-by-side pictures with a true Wiimote, down to the fake speaker on the front. "

19 of 490 comments (clear)

  1. unethical by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this is a highly unethical business practice which must be stopped. It is somewhat akin to companies in China producing brand-name knock-offs that so closely resemble the original product that they can only be described as counterfeit.

    The best thing to do is to take a few minutes of your time and send a short, concise, and polite letter to:

    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    Attn: Customer Service
    702 S.W. 8th Street
    Bentonville, AR 72716

    Believe me, they will notice your letter and do something about it.

    1. Re:unethical by stevenvi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless the promotional materials (such as the packaging of the toy) refer to it as a device for your Wii, how is selling this unethical? The photo gallery (not article, as there was none) only showed pictures of the toy out of the box. There was no mention of a deceptive box, only a statement that, "hey look, this toy is designed to look like a wiimote. And the toy sucks."

      Is it also unethical to sell squirt guns on the basis that they are (or were, anyways) designed to look like guns, except instead of using gun powder to propel bullets, they shoot water? If you look at the box before you buy something, you can save yourself some embarrassment when you have to return it later.

    2. Re:unethical by aichpvee · · Score: 5, Informative

      Three points:

      1) This "story" is really OLD. It did the rounds on the Internet MONTHS ago.

      2) As stupid as I'm sure a lot of walmart employees are, I have a hard time thinking even many of them would be able to confuse these two items.

      3)
      a. Either zonk has trouble telling the two apart and thinks this is legitimate "news."
      -or-
      b. zonk believes that it has already been posted on /. and is posting it again just to make a dupe.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    3. Re:unethical by feepness · · Score: 5, Funny

      1) This "story" is really OLD. It did the rounds on the Internet MONTHS ago.

      3)
      a. Either zonk has trouble telling the two apart and thinks this is legitimate "news."
      -or-
      b. zonk believes that it has already been posted on /. and is posting it again just to make a dupe. Maybe Zonk just has difficulties telling the stories apart?
    4. Re:unethical by Jerf · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The true, original purpose of trademark law (which I am aware I'm the first to bring up) is to protect the consumer from products that are designed to fool you into believing you are purchasing a product from somebody other than the true source. That is why the touchstone of trademark infringement is "Would a reasonable consumer confuse the two products?"

      As usual, you can skirt the line. You can argue about whether it claims to be a Wii, exactly what the box says, exactly what it claims to be, etc. Nevertheless, I'd say the intent here is pretty clearly to pick up sales through deception, with varying degrees of plausible deniability. That they try to stay on the legal side of the line doesn't make it automatically ethical.

      They don't give me enough data to come to a conclusion. But it's certainly enough to be suggestive.

      Is it also unethical to sell squirt guns on the basis that they are (or were, anyways) designed to look like guns, except instead of using gun powder to propel bullets, they shoot water?
      "Guns" are not a protectable item. A closer analogy here, despite my hatred of using analogies in online debates, are the numerous "generic controllers" that you can buy that contain games in them, but are not unauthorized representations of any particular controller. Only a squirt gun that looked like a specific, trademarked gun would be comparable, and yes indeed, the law will require you to get permission. You can't make a model car that looks exactly like a real car without permission, which is why the Grand Theft Auto world is populated by knockoffs. You can't make a model Enterprise without permission from Paramount, but you can make any generic space ship you want. As is invariably the case with analogies used in debates, the difference between the analogy and the real-world situation render your analogy irrelevant.
    5. Re:unethical by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep that in mind next time you go to the pharmacist. Or have your brake lines replaced. Or buy meat.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  2. Shit, calm down by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've been making little LCD toys that looked like console controllers since the Atari 2600.

    They make lighters that look like pistols and male masturbators that look like flashlights. If you dont want to be "taken", read the package first.

    Slow news day? Is this the best you can do to muster nerd rage?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  3. Re:They don't look at all alike. by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They don't look alike at all.

    Yes, they do. It's not just superficial... It's fairly obvious that the knock-off was intentionally designed to look like a Wii-mote.

    the changes are significant enough that I wouldn't be fooled.

    You aren't the target here.

    I used to work at Electronics Boutique over the holidays, and I can guarantee that there are plenty of parents out there who would purchase this thing without a moment's hesitation - believing the whole time that they were purchasing a Wii-mote, or even the entire Wii system.

    Parents used to show up with the most vague descriptions of what their child wanted... Or pictures clipped from catalogs, sales fliers, and magazines... Folks wouldn't know whether they needed a game for the PS2, Xbox, Game Cube, or computer. All they knew is that their kid said this, or it looked like that, or it had some guy with wings in it.

    We had plenty of returns after Christmas because of this confusion. Folks who bought the game for entirely the wrong system...or the wrong kind of memory card...or bought some part of the system instead of the whole thing... And that was all without overly deceiving advertising or product design like this thing.
    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  4. Foreign imports by fmarkham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Damn those cheap foreign knock-offs of quality American designs! Oh wait...

  5. So what!? by Lethyos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares if some fool is so easily taken by this product. If someone could be so stupid to plunk down their hard-earned cash without understanding what they are paying for in the first place then they should suffer the consequnces. Promoting nannyism to prevent dumb behavior will solve nothing. Idiocy has to hurt or people will never stop being idiots.

    --
    Why bother.
    1. Re:So what!? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've got a better mnemonic:

      If it looks like a snake, get the fuck away.

  6. Re:How can you confuse them? by reddburn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Far more likely than your utter slam of everyone else in the US (which tells us nothing more than that you think you're better than everyone else) is what the GP said - they're relying on brand confusion and poverty to sell something that looks like a Wii to people who can't afford the real thing and whose kids want a game system. Have you ever been that kid? Ever wondered why Christmas was a big deal in everyone else's house but not yours?

    I have, and looking back with a kid of my own, I feel worse for my parents for picking up the knockoff than for myself for getting it. I can't imagine how they felt when they realized it wasn't worth fifty cents and broke the first time I used it. Blame Walmart for targeting desperate parents who want to do something really good for their kids but end up getting cheap crap instead of what they thought they were getting. We can't all be as wonderfully gifted as you, and an eighty hour workweek at a demanding physical job can wreak havoc on a mom who's out doing her last minute shopping.

    Think of self-important, critical dickheads like you and realize that while your witty repartee might amuse you for a moment, it doesn't do a goddamn thing to help. Realize that if everyone you meet is "retarded," it may not be them. It may be you.

    --
    "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  7. Re:Obvious by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Funny

    I quite agree. For example, union shop General Motors' cars are almost always of far superior quality and reliability compared to worker oppressing Toyota's cars in comparable categories. They might cost a little more, but you know you're getting quality and helping to fund someone's retirement.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. Re:How can you confuse them? by Whiteox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even though there's no Walmart around here (for about 10,000k or so), there are certainly stores that sell crap.
    What should annoy everyone is that valuable raw materials are being used to make this crap (often unusable) that shouldn't be made in the first place.
    Simple example: I can buy a chinese dustpan on a stick and brush for $2.00. It can't be used though as the pan's edge has been warped during manufacture and it would be pointless trying to use it. There's about 10 of them, lined up, ready for sale.

    In other words, some factory in China is pumping out this useless product, some importer/wholesaler is paying for the transport and a distributor sends them out and consumers are supposed to buy it (I don't think the store sold any).
    That translates into throwing away oil.

    What is needed in situations like this is some kind of authority with enough clout to stop or even prevent material wastage on products that just can't be used.

    There should be a form of quality control in the design and manufacture that is definitely missing in certain parts of the world.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  9. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whoosh.

  10. Re:Obvious by LeoHat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    *cough*Bullshit*cough*Bullshit*

    Walmart average wage is $9.68/hr. Costco's average is $16.

    Walmart: only 38% of nonsupervisory staff has health care. Walmart dumps its employee health care on the state health care system.
    Costco: 85% of employee's are covered. Costco offers part-time employees partial coverage. There is even a test program to offer a health care plan to self employed customers.

    On a per store basis Costco does double that of Walmart
    "Wal-Mart operates 5,332 stores with annual sales of $288 billion, or $54 million per store. Costco has 452 stores with annual sales of $48 billion, or $106 million per store."

    Costco's turnover is about 1/3 of Walmarts.

    http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005107_6620.htm

    The Costco Mission Statement
    1)Obey the law.
    2)Take care of our members.
    3)Take care of our employees.
    4)Respect our vendors.
    5)Reward our shareholders.

    Walmart does not even have a official mission statement

    (disclaimer: I work for Costco)

    --
    The mistakes of a clever man are equal to the mistakes of a thousand fools.
  11. Re:Obvious by Cuppa+'Joe'+Black · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obey the law? It's a sad commentary on corporate culture that that should have to be specified in a mission statement.

    --
    Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
  12. Re:Obvious by smurfsurf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The funny thing about Ford vs. Toyota is that as Toyota as a japanese company already provides its workers much of what unions care about. Job security, long time relationship perspective and care for the employee instead of workers vs. management for example.

  13. Re:Obvious by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hope you get to +5 for that comment, because you're right on the mark. The reason why there's no huge incentive for Japanese workers to unionize is because the work culture is much different over there. I'm not saying it's necessarily better in every way, but there are reasons why U.S. workers had to unionize when they did. Working conditions were simply intolerable to the point of being inhuman, a situation they haven't had to deal with over there, thanks to a different culture and different regulations on what corporations can and can't do.

    In our relentless strive for economic freedom, we've given corporations way too much power, power that corporations don't have in other countries such as Japan. As a result, we've had to, over time, develop organizations to protect ourselves from that which we have created. :-(

    It's ironic that so many countries have learned lessons from us so well, lessons that we ourselves still haven't picked up on. While they're learning from our mistakes, we just keep right on making them.