Slashdot Mirror
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)?"
/me peers into his crystal ball....
I see game publishers starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock code only valid for the original purchaser. That obliterates the resale market.
Trolling is a art,
Down-Loadable Content
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.
It's just like when I bought a Used Xbox 360. The description said "turn on the wireless controller and start playing immediately" but when I receive the X360 no controller was included. I contacted the seller and he tried to deny responsibility because "that was just a generic description from Microsoft and only applies to new consoles not used." However when I complained to Paypal they sided with me and gave me a $20 refund (which I then used to buy the missing controller).
Used or new, sellers are responsible for what they advertise. If it's on the cover's description it either must be included, or if excluded, blacked-out of the cover.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).
The article stated that such codes were available for sale, but the price was greater than the discount that GameStop offered for a used copy:
It's not going to work. Gamestop is rich enough to have lawyers that will squash this little unification of idiots. I have no love for Gamestop, but I downright hate litigous morons. This "I'll sue everyone because I'm almost too stupid to breathe!" attitude SHOULD be stomped on, even if it is stomped on by an "Evil Inc."
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that. What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.
Because they can. They already tried this with books, sheet music, and phonorecordings. Then we got First Sale law, which says that you can resell anything you get in your hands regardless of what it says on it, which is why used CD stores can sell you CDs released "not for resale - for promotional use only" etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree with ggeezz. I hate the "one time use codes". If it is part of the core game, then it should be on the disc with no need for codes. If it is an add on, then sell it to everyone as a separate add on. Even when I do buy it new, the need to input that code is an annoying detraction and slowdown from what is supposed to be a pleasant experience in my very limited leisure time. I love Dragon Age Origins, best game since Planescape Torment in my opinion, but putting in the codes for shale and the armor were a royal pain on a PS3. I do not think any party has done anything ethically wrong really, but I think the publishers, not Gamestop, is taking a consumer-unfriendly and inconvient stance on this. Also, this may not apply to eveyone, but when I buy a console game new, I do so factoring in the fact I can resell it as part of the price. If I loose the ability to do that, then either a game will have to be cheaper or it will have to be so good I am convinced it is really worth the full $60. Dragon Age Origins would pass that test, but most of the other games I have purchased recently would not...
If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"
If by $2.99 you meant $14.99, you have the situation described in the article.
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)?
Yes, the CD Keys for Blizzard Games travel with the game. Only one can be active online at any time, but you are perfectly able to uninstall the game and sell it to someone else. DLC is locked in.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games. Yes, this is going to mean the games aren't particularly attractive in the used-game market. The problem is stores like GameStop that don't clearly mark their used games clearly as to what's advertised on the packaging that isn't actually going to be available because somebody else has already used it up. And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher. They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.
Don't Lose Cash (on it).
Ezekiel 23:20
If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"
That is what happens already (EA even has a gimmicky name for it: "Project Ten Dollar"). And the basis for this lawsuit.
The lawsuit revolves around the box art advertising something like "2 Free Exclusive Maps for Download" and don't mention anything about it only working for the first buyer. So your used game advertises 2 free maps (due to the publisher's box art), but when you go to redeem, they demand payment. Cut and dry false advertising. I can't tell you 'buy this and you get this free!' but demand cash for the free part after you purchase the original item.
The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.
The buyers should be demanding a lower initial purchase price due to the lower resale value.
And if the box says there's included stuff that isn't included in the resale version the seller needs to state that. Just like that have to state that the manual is missing, etc.
Google told me that it's the Democratic Leadership Council. Must have to do with those MMORPGs or something....
Sure they do. The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new. Say they buy a $60 game. Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15. The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money). I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games. They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one... Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that. If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...
Because they can, and because we still buy their games. It's as simple as that. If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies. But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)... Does it suck? Absolutely...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games. We all know the Gamestop, as well as the other used game sellers, make a killing on buying and selling used games and this may get them thinking about reduced the price on these titles. I find buying a used copy for $5 less then the new copy and bit ridiculous in the first place and I'm hoping this will have the effect of reducing costs. As for the DLC itself, it is never a fundamental part of the game, it is simply a bonus you are getting for supporting the game developer. It is like getting something free for buying new and I like free stuff.
The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.
Why? The publisher does offer the content for free. It's GameStop who should be putting stickers on the pack saying, "You will be required to purchase the DLC for $x.xx".
Indeed. This is no different than buying a used box of LEGO bricks that claims "over 543 pieces!". If you buy the box used, and find just 300 parts inside, it is not The Lego Group's fault for false advertising. It's at most misrepresentation on the part of the reseller.
And even misrepresentation can usually be solved by a disclaimer posted at the point of sale stating that used products are sold "As Is". Missing the downloadable content advertised on the box is little different than missing the free stickers and included manual advertised on the box.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Look on the left.
It clearly says that the DLC is for retail purchases only.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not Gamestop's responsibility to look over every game's box art to ensure its advertising is legit.
It is if they are selling it.
No no, it's "Content we want to charge you extra for" as sometimes those (ever helpful) game publishers include it on the CD.
meep
DeLorean Car.
These restrictions, gimmicks, and weird clauses tied to the purchase of a game are probably legal. However, they are clearly an attempt to damage a product's resale value, and they are in spirit a violation of the first sale doctrine.
We need strong laws to protect the right to resell digital content, just as the first sale doctrine protects our rights to resell our physical property as we choose. Such a law would clearly be fair and in the best interest of the consumer.
If we're going to go with this crap about "intellectual property" the consumers better get the benefits as well as the disadvantages.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used. Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.
I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent. There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is ... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.
To developers the resale market is akin to the piracy market, the people stealing money from them.
Of course they will try to destroy it.
They even have more reasons to hate the resale market since not only does it remove game sales, people are making money off it their loss in sales.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Digital content is special, just about everyone has a fond memory with a movie or game. The real delusion is on the part of people like you that assume digital content production will exist at nominal levels without intellectual property laws. We've seen this is not true in Asian markets where piracy has restricted the growth of software markets that depends on such laws. Piracy disrupts working economic models and leaves digital producers with fewer options. Or perhaps you think open source developers will just pick up the slack. Sorry but Tux Racer and Quake III mods can't compete with games like Alan Wake.