Man Sues GameStop Over Used Game DLC

71
In January, a man named James Collins walked into a GameStop and purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins for $54.99, saving $5 when compared to a new, unused copy of the Electronic Arts game, according to IGN.

Unfortunately, James hadn't heard of EA's new initiative to bundle new games with free downloadable content in an effort to add value to purchasing games new. According to James, the sticker on the box promised a new character and quest content, but found that he had to pay an extra $15 to get that content in-game because he had a used copy.

In response, James is doing what any red-blooded American would do: he's suing!

"GameStop, who makes more than 20% of its revenue and nearly $2 billion from the sale of used video games, is aware of this issue, and continues to fail to alert customers that this content is not available on used games," the suit states. "As a result, GameStop tricks consumers into paying more for a used game than they would if they purchased the same game and content new."

I'm not so sure GameStop is actively "tricking" customers, so much as not informing them of this particular practice. GameStop makes more money off of a used game and it behooves them to sell these over new copies whenever possible. Sure, the sticker promising free DLC should have been removed, but I'm not so sure this suit will be successful.

When James tried to return the game, he could not, as it was outside of the 7 day window for refund. I suppose he could always trade it in.

From The Chatty

  • reply
    March 29, 2010 12:43 PM

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility and the informed consumer?

    • reply
      March 29, 2010 12:44 PM

      You mean like the sticker on the case that stated content that wasn't actually included?

      • reply
        March 29, 2010 12:52 PM

        Here here! You're right on Watcherxp. He's suing because the sticker on the box that stated a new character and quest content was not removed prior to resale. So of course he would think he'd be getting it.

        • reply
          March 29, 2010 1:05 PM

          If it was something printed on the box like
          http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/950918_108169_back.jpg
          what were they supposed to do, magic marker it off?
          And it even says with full retail purchase.
          Now if it were something like an added Gamestop sticker that could have been peeled off there would be a leg to stand on, but i dunno what was on the box and I'm just speculating.

          • reply
            March 29, 2010 1:07 PM

            Wow, so it's actually labeled as requiring a full retail purchase. I'll assume Mr Collins is illiterate.

            • reply
              March 29, 2010 1:11 PM

              That's only if that was what the suit was referring to. It could just as easily have another sticker slapped on it.

              • reply
                March 29, 2010 1:12 PM

                The suit is referring to an ill-informed consumer with no personal responsibility who thinks it's a stores fault for his inability to read. It's disturbing a lawyer would even take this case.

                • reply
                  March 29, 2010 1:16 PM

                  Oh I agree that if that's the issue, but if there was an additional sticker on the box there's atleast a chance the guy could win.
                  Now ask me if anything about this story isn't nauseating that it's escalated into a legal suit. :P

                  • reply
                    March 29, 2010 1:18 PM

                    I seriously never thought I'd see the day when I'd be on GameStops side in a lawsuit, but this is pretty much a waste of time and resources.

            • reply
              March 29, 2010 1:20 PM

              While I hate to be the devil's advocate, there's no reason to think that buying a used game at GameStop isn't a "full retail purchase". I mean, the customer is buying the game legally at a retail store. The fact that the game was $5 off certainly doesn't make it less than a "full retail purchase", games are discounted all the time but that wouldn't invalidate any offers contained in the box.

              The only way that a customer would know that "full retail purchase" doesn't mean "not a pirated copy" would be if they already knew about this used game sales crippling practice.

              (That said, I'm generally anti-lawsuit and this guy should have just said, "Oh shit, I lost $15 bucks because of this DLC shit. I won't do that again!")

              • reply
                March 29, 2010 1:35 PM

                Yeah so basically the guy probably thought there were two possibilities here

                1. Purchased games
                2. Pirated games

                Instead there's three

                1. Games purchased as new
                2. Games purchased as used
                3. Pirated games

                But yeah it's sort of weird that he's going after GameStop instead of EA

              • reply
                March 29, 2010 3:58 PM

                But Gamestop CLEARLY sold the game as "USED" - I don't like GS at all but cmon, this guy is retarded...

          • reply
            March 29, 2010 1:13 PM

            I'm reading the suit now.

            #3 page 1
            The avilability of this additional content is prominently advertised on the packaging of these games. The problem arises when GameStop sells used copies of these games. Despite the representations on the packaging that the game comes with a free use code, unbeknownst [sic] to consumers who purchase a used copy of one of these games, upon attempting to download the content identified on the game's packaging, cunsomers are unable to do so unless they pa an additional fee.

            There is nothing in the claim about gamespot adding a sticker or some kind of label of their own. It is all based on packaging.

            • reply
              March 29, 2010 1:14 PM

              And I can totally see why he'd sue GameStop since they packaged the games. Oh, wait.

              • reply
                March 29, 2010 1:15 PM

                right, this guy should lose given his claim.

            • reply
              March 29, 2010 1:14 PM

              consumers*

          • reply
            March 29, 2010 1:18 PM

            Page 6 of the suit has this picture. I think the guy should lose.

      • reply
        March 29, 2010 1:04 PM

        An informed consumer would go into the situation with more than just the information on the game box :)

    • reply
      March 29, 2010 12:51 PM

      when do you feel this existed? men used to shoot each other in the face over this exact type of thing.

      • reply
        March 29, 2010 4:18 PM

        maybe America should go back to that, it would easily thin out the herds of idiots that currently roam the jesusland

    • reply
      March 29, 2010 1:09 PM

      Why, when you can sue people and blame someone else for it. You'd figure that people would've learned to read the fine print by now.

      • reply
        March 29, 2010 1:11 PM

        In his and a lot of these other shackers defense, READIN IS HARD.

      • reply
        March 29, 2010 4:03 PM

        Under the saaying it says, WITH FULL RETAIL PURCHASE,
        however I really wouldnt care if gamestop lost this case

    • reply
      March 29, 2010 5:38 PM

      Exactly.

    • reply
      March 29, 2010 9:52 PM

      Personal responsibility and being informed requires some basic intelligence, which this pitiful human does not seem to posess.