GameStop Sued Over Lack of DLC For Used Games

Absolut187 writes "According to IGN, 'A lawsuit filed earlier this week against retailer GameStop says the company is "deceptively misleading" its customers into believing a used game purchased from the store comes with all packaged downloadable content advertised on the box. This content, however, is only made available for free to those who purchase the game new, as the code to access the content can be only used one time.' I personally don't have a problem with publishers charging for DLC. IMHO, you put in the effort to make it, you have the right to (try) to charge whatever you want. I have the right to take it or leave it if I don't find your price fair (same goes for the main game). But what about the used game market? Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code? Should the copyright doctrine of 'first-sale' have any effect here? Or is it up to the consumer (frequently children) to realize that the product will have a reduced resale value due to the one-time nature of the DLC code? Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?"

Comments

Re:Why not both?

[delinear]

The problem is publishers can't be trusted not to abuse the system. Already in Dragon Age you have to buy DLC in order to increase your backpack beyond a tiny limit. For a game that involves a fair bit of trawling dungeons and collecting junk to sell, having sufficient storage space for your non-quest items, while not being critical, does make life a hell of a lot easier. By allowing essential game components to be pushed into one time use DLC, they can kill the used market or charge ridiculous prices for their DLC.

Re:Suckers.

[Schnapple]

This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous.

I take it you never went to college. This is what the used textbook market is founded on.

And it kills me how people get indignant over this. GameStop wants to make a profit. They buy the game for $20 and sell for $55 and they make $35 profit. Are you saying they should pay more? Why? They've already proven they don't have to.

they're doing crap like this with new releases

[jollyreaper]

Buy the standard version of the game for $49.99. But wait, the gold edition is shipping the same day! Get this exclusive handsome corinthian leather bullshit gold edition for $59.99. It includes those two skins and another special character.

I'm more than happy to pay for games but there's no fucking way I'm paying for this shit.

Re:Why not both?

[h4rr4r]

They are not losing anything you shill. How much do you get paid to make these posts?