GameStop to OnLive: Screw You

[RepoMan]

Um, yeah. Not quite so quick there (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/124849/gamestop-discarding-deus-ex-human-revolution-onlive-coupons) with the OnLive pimping, Squenix.

There's an image of an email on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/report-gamestop-opening-deus-ex-copies-removing-free-game-code.ars) allegedly from a Field Operations Manager with GameStop that instructs employees to "remove and discard" the coupon for a free OnLive version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution included with the Windows edition of the action/RPG sequel. Ars contacted GameStop public relegations [sic] and confirmed this, as GameStop apparently views OnLive as a competitor. Word is: "GameStop spokesperson Beth Sharum confirmed the practice, telling Ars that 'Square Enix packed the competitor’s coupon with our DXHR product without our prior knowledge and we did pull these coupons'."

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/30/129066416190351573.jpg

[JD]

Quick question: Is the coupon advertised/mentioned on the box of the game?

[Jason McCullough]

OH IT'S ON

[Telefrog]

Quick question: Is the coupon advertised/mentioned on the box of the game?

No. Which is apparently the loophole here.

[Dan_Theman]

New vendor exclusive content! Buy anywhere EXCEPT for Gamestop, and receive a coupon for a free OnLive version!!!

[rei]

...deusbags!

[Midnight Son]

GS, what a bunch of shitheads.

[Mr.GRIM]

New vendor exclusive content! Buy anywhere EXCEPT for Gamestop, and receive a coupon for a free OnLive version!!!
This really is the best part

[Gus_Smedstad]

New vendor exclusive content! Buy anywhere EXCEPT for Gamestop, and receive a coupon for a free OnLive version!!!
Ahahahahaha.

This reminds me of something that happened to me at Interplay. At the time, internet gaming was very new, and no one was supporting TCP/IP directly, so most online gaming was done with Kali fooling games into thinking they were playing on a LAN. Interplay had recently started Engage, which was their subscription internet matchmaking service. We were told, I shit you not, to look into ways to make our game not work over Kali, because that would compete with Engage.

Stupid, stupid crap. If it weren't for the fact that retail sales are not where they make their money, I'd be tempted to sell my Gamestop stock. I might anyway - management this stupid is bound to do something else crippling.

[JD]

Wired's piece on this topic. (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/08/gamestop-onlive/)

Though the new policy might seem outrageous to GameStop customers, lawyer and game industry analyst Mark Methenitis said it might not violate consumers’ rights, as OnLive coupons are not an “essential function” of the new game. However, Square Enix and OnLive “may have a claim against GameStop in terms of tortious interference,” Methenitis said in a phone interview with Wired.com.

Tortious interference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) litigation results when one party accuses another of intentionally damaging their business contracts or relationships. By removing OnLive’s coupon from copies of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, GameStop might have violated United States economic tort law.

Methenitis added that customers might be able to pursue legal action against GameStop for deceptive trade practices or fraudulent advertising, though he doesn’t think they’d have much of a case, as nothing on the game’s packaging suggests that it includes the OnLive code. He also said GameStop could be in the right if Square Enix had violated terms of a pre-existing agreement with the retailer.

“Existing contracts between GameStop and Square may have barred this kind of promotion, and so GameStop may actually be justified in their action if Square is in breach of some promotion/marketing agreement,” he said. GameStop did not immediately reply to Wired.com’s request for information on any pre-existing agreements with Square Enix.

When contacted by e-mail by Wired.com, a representative for Square Enix said, “We’re currently looking into it and have no comment for the time being.” A representative for OnLive also said the company had no comment at this time.

[roguefrog]

If GameStop opens a game box and then turns around and sells it as new: Automatic fail.

[JD]

Well, apparently Gamestop decided to stop opening boxes and removing the coupons.*




*Will be pulling the PC version of the game off the shelves completely instead it seems (http://www.giantbomb.com/news/gamestop-pulling-deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-off-shelves/3618/).

[Mr.GRIM]

And the net effect will be that consumers who want the game will look into thier not-gamestop options. Silly gamestop.

[Royal Fool]

This just keeps getting better and better. Keep at it, GameStop.

The boxed PC version has already been pulled from their site database, but the front page still claims this:

http://i51.tinypic.com/nxtmxd.jpg

Also, their suggestions for similar games and prequels are pretty good. Grand Theft Auto IV, Saints Row 2, Mafia II and both the Kane & Lynch games...

[extarbags]

If GameStop opens a game box and then turns around and sells it as new: Automatic fail.

They do this constantly even when they don't tamper with the box's contents. Can these dipshits just close up shop already? There's really no point to them anymore.

[RepoMan]

Wow, didn't see that total send-back coming. Who is screwing who here?

[Marcin]

my Gamestop stock.

GET OUT

[Nesrie]

They do this constantly even when they don't tamper with the box's contents. Can these dipshits just close up shop already? There's really no point to them anymore.

They've been selling opened copies of games as new for years so their employees can preview them and other reasons. I have no idea why that is considered a legal process. I thought at least the PC boxes were safe though.

[Midnight Son]

Awesome! Shoot themselves in the foot. Idjits.

[Harkonis]

GS, what a bunch of shitheads.

this might be the first time I'm on GS's side. I see no problem with not wanting to advertise or give business to your competitor.

[Midnight Son]

this might be the first time I'm on GS's side. I see no problem with not wanting to advertise or give business to your competitor.

Really? I guess you don't realize it's a Steam game? And they are also competitors? They might as well stop selling all PC games, eh?

[Morberis]

I see how they're considered a competitor, but Gamestop really isn't in the PC business.

[Midnight Son]

I see how they're considered a competitor, but Gamestop really isn't in the PC business.

They want to be in the DL games market. They are just coming across as petulant little shits.

[Murbella]

Wait, gamestop still opens new game boxes? I seem to remember them doing this a LONG time ago, when they opened the box, set the insides aside and then reassembled it in the back when you bought it, but it was such a shitty thing to do that i thought more competition would make them stop.

If the promotion is inside the game box, it is pretty crappy to do, but if not, it is ok, in my opinion. Not wanting to host advertisement for competing services is one thing, but tampering with other products which advertise other services internally is clearly wrong. What if gamestop rewrote the game to remove logos they didn't agree with from the intro and then gave you a new dvd?

[McKnight]

Provided it's not advertised on the game box they can do whatever they want, frankly I don't see what everyone here is stuck up about. Obviously it's a retarded business decision but as a consumer none of your rights have been violated.

Square-Enix and Onlive however, now they can sue the fucking asses off Gamestop for tampering with their product and other stuff. I'd imagine that's the very reason Gamestop rapidly switched from this practice to a mass recall.

[Harkonis]

Really? I guess you don't realize it's a Steam game? And they are also competitors? They might as well stop selling all PC games, eh?
they can't do anything about the steam part, no need to be snide.

[Dawn Falcon]

Really?

Really. Unless Squeenix have explicitly cleared it with GS, it's also probably torturous interference on THEIR part as well. GS would probably have demanded a fee...

That's how retail works.

[McKnight]

That would depend on the nature of the relationship between Squeenix and GS. If they are supplying the same copy as any other outlet, then chances are that it's *not* torturous interference at all. It doesn't effect the POS of the game at all, and therefore doesn't effect GS in any way. Consumers get access to the voucher after the POS.

[JoshV]

Provided it's not advertised on the game box they can do whatever they want, frankly I don't see what everyone here is stuck up about. Obviously it's a retarded business decision but as a consumer none of your rights have been violated.



I'm surprised anyone actually shops at gamestop. So many alienating practices, and it's so easy to buy stuff online (digital or box), and the big chains are getting better at getting stuff in store quick and tend to be cheaper.

[McKnight]

I definitely agree, and it would be an interesting study to try and find out how much of brick and mortar sales are lost because of archaic business practices rather then say the ease of online purchase.

I mean this whole thing is silly, the voucher is given to the consumer *after* they buy it. From *your* shop. Why the hell do you care what's in it? All you should care about is selling the damn thing in the first place.

[Tom McNamara]

Gamestop's actions are arguably giving OnLive more publicity and possibly more business than if GS had remained silent.

[SpoofyChop]

Ok so I dislike gs as much as every red blooded gamer but this is definitely an odd scenario. This would be like Pepsi being forced to put coke coupons on their cans or Wendy's being forced to sell chicken McNuggets

I think they made the wrong choice but I understand (as Chris Rock would say)

[Chris Gwinn]

I've purchased DVDs with included digital download codes from amazon, without them opening up the case and yanking the coupon. And amazon actually has a digital video service.

[steve]

Ok so I dislike gs as much as every red blooded gamer but this is definitely an odd scenario. This would be like Pepsi being forced to put coke coupons on their cans or Wendy's being forced to sell chicken McNuggets

I think they made the wrong choice but I understand (as Chris Rock would say)
They should've refused to sell the game and sent back all unopened boxes to Square Enix.

[TheTrunkDr]

they can't do anything about the steam part, no need to be snide.
Sure they can, they can not carry the game. Seems the coupon is enough to get such a reaction, I'm surprised the inclusion of Steam doesn't. It could be argued that Steam is far more of threat to GS's overall business than a coupon for OnLive.

[Dawn Falcon]

Why the hell do you care what's in it? All you should care about is selling the damn thing in the first place.

...

You really know nothing about retail. That one's a howler if you do.

[McKnight]

Yea, I don't run my own chain of retail shops. How'd ya guess? ;)

[Dawn Falcon]

No I mean retail in general. I've just had the basics of marketing and retail (I've done some of it for independent new media companies), and that still strikes me as funny.

[McKnight]

Well I mean the whole post was a bit hyperbole-y, it's still technically true though :)

[Ex-S Woo]

I wonder what this will mean for Steam based games once GameStop starts to fully embrace Impulse and push it in all their retail stores?

[mrcjhicks]

What are these "game box" things and when did GameStop start selling them?

[Morberis]

I wonder what this will mean for Steam based games once GameStop starts to fully embrace Impulse and push it in all their retail stores?

That they won't be carrying some of the biggest name PC games each season?

[Nesrie]

Ok so I dislike gs as much as every red blooded gamer but this is definitely an odd scenario. This would be like Pepsi being forced to put coke coupons on their cans or Wendy's being forced to sell chicken McNuggets

I think they made the wrong choice but I understand (as Chris Rock would say)

I am not sure the primary issue for consumers is the idea that Gamestop SHOULD sell products with OnLive advertisement/coupons so much as they are ripping open boxes, dissecting the contents, reassembling them and telling you it's a new product sold from mnf when it's not. In addition, this is a company that habitually opens new products, repackages them after use and sells them as new, sometimes actually removing coupons and/or game codes in the process and then shrugging when you try to return them because the product was opened.

[Aeon221]

Buying the boxed copy of a game is almost as dumb as using a horse and buggy instead of a car.

[Dan_Theman]

I am not sure the primary issue for consumers is the idea that Gamestop SHOULD sell products with OnLive advertisement/coupons so much as they are ripping open boxes, dissecting the contents, reassembling them and telling you it's a new product sold from mnf when it's not. In addition, this is a company that habitually opens new products, repackages them after use and sells them as new, sometimes actually removing coupons and/or game codes in the process and then shrugging when you try to return them because the product was opened.
As much as I hate what Gamestop is doing, this line of thinking is something of a red herring. Retailers open boxes they receive from distributors. A lot. They are then repackaged and shrinkwrapped and sold as new. In most cases, including this one as far as I can tell, they are legally in the right to do so as the product has not been sold to an end user nor has it been used. Those "open box" sales you see are normally not there because the store opened the box and examined the contents. It's either because they damaged the box or packaging (marking down the price is how you move such a product), or they're returns from other customers.

Now just because it's completely legitimate doesn't mean it's ethically right. It sucks when as a shopper you imagine you're getting something that is "virgin" yet later find a wrinkle in a game manual where there's no reason one should be - lo and behold, someone handled your goods before. Please realize I'm not saying that sarcastically as I feel that way when it happens to me; I'm something of a game collector, and the little things like that have some meaning, albeit rather ephemeral.

[Nesrie]

As much as I hate what Gamestop is doing, this line of thinking is something of a red herring. Retailers open boxes they receive from distributors. A lot. They are then repackaged and shrinkwrapped and sold as new. In most cases, including this one as far as I can tell, they are legally in the right to do so as the product has not been sold to an end user nor has it been used. Those "open box" sales you see are normally not there because the store opened the box and examined the contents. It's either because they damaged the box or packaging (marking down the price is how you move such a product), or they're returns from other customers.

Now just because it's completely legitimate doesn't mean it's ethically right. It sucks when as a shopper you imagine you're getting something that is "virgin" yet later find a wrinkle in a game manual where there's no reason one should be - lo and behold, someone handled your goods before. Please realize I'm not saying that sarcastically as I feel that way when it happens to me; I'm something of a game collector, and the little things like that have some meaning, albeit rather ephemeral.

Gutting new copies and selling them as new is not an experience I have had from Target, Wal-mart... Amazon. I am not talking about just resealing it. I am talking about removing items, maps, phamplets, posters, even getting used codes, that every new copy should have. This is something GS employees do on a regular basis. The only difference here is there is a memo to do it to every single copy of a brand new game.

[Dan_Theman]

Talk to Best Buy and ask them where the spare cords and connectors are for their printers or PC's. It happens. A lot. Some retailers even add their own flyers - that's all dependent upon the agreement the distributor has with the retailer.

However, I think you missed my entire second paragraph where I said the practice sucks. I'm not defending it, just better defining it.

[Nesrie]

Talk to Best Buy and ask them where the spare cords and connectors are for their printers or PC's. It happens. A lot. Some retailers even add their own flyers - that's all dependent upon the agreement the distributor has with the retailer.

However, I think you missed my entire second paragraph where I said the practice sucks. I'm not defending it, just better defining it.

I didn't miss it. I just think this situation is getting the play it is because GS is especially known for this pracrice and were sued and lost over it. Best Buy isn't exactly at the top of the retail list either. I have certainly returned a fair amount of obviously opened products from a number of retailers before, but there are only a few products you are not allowed to return open and only one retailer I see hit forums on a consistent basis for gutting new copies video games.

[Ex-S Woo]

That they won't be carrying some of the biggest name PC games each season?

No, but I can imagine a situation where Impulse will be part of the default install package for all retail games (or at least be installable from the disc) even if the game is completely integrated to Steam.

[McKnight]

Weird since Impulse is incredibly un-intrusive right now. I'm sure they'd have to change the EULA to start doing stuff like that. Also a game that is completely integrated into Steam cannot even be registered on Impulse, only Steamworks. That's like the point.

[Aeon221]

I wonder how Gamestop deals with not being able to open the games they sell on Impulse before the customer gets them?

Speaking of Impulse, did they ever mention how much they paid? I've always been curious what the going rate for souls was.

[Murbella]

I wonder what this will mean for Steam based games once GameStop starts to fully embrace Impulse and push it in all their retail stores?
Impulse sucks too much to ever be a big force and gamestop's influence isn't likely to help. Thus, instead of competing with steam which people actually use, impulse competes with onLive for the leftovers that another better DD doesn't pick up before them.

[LMN8R]

I wonder when Best Buy is going to stop selling iPods since they come with iTunes vouchers.

[Kael]

My steam copy of Deus Ex didn't have an onlive coupon! Cheated! :)

Seriously I can see why GameStop would be pissed at this. Using them to distribute downloads for their competitors would be like Mars sneaking "half off M&M's at any participating WalMart" into candy bars sold by other grocery chains.

Though removing the ads and selling the boxes anyway is trouble. They should have went straight to pulling and returning all their copies, or gone nuclear and threatened to pull all Eidos/Square Enix games unless Square Enix agreed to pulling the ads.

[Volbard]

Though removing the ads and selling the boxes anyway is trouble. They should have went straight to pulling and returning all their copies, or gone nuclear and threatened to pull all Eidos/Square Enix games unless Square Enix agreed to pulling the ads.

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/24/gamestop-pulls-deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-versions-from-shelve/

[Murbella]

That seems slightly extreme for a coupon for a service nobody uses...

[Mr.GRIM]

Gamestop was put in a terrible position.
I'm sure they are applying the lessons they learned from Halflife 2 and Steam, and would be foolish to let it happen again. They failed in establishing a policy that would have prevented this gong show from happening.

[Teiman]

If Square Enix advertise the game by including a free coupon, and is not on the box. Is a scam. If what GameStop is doing is legal, then the legal system is flawed and allow for terrible scams.

Square Enix can include a "free coupon" for a 2000$ PC in every box of Deus Ex, then can coordinate with GameStop the removal and destruction of the free coupons. Consumers will buy the game box based on Square Enix ad, then find the box only contains a game, and not the 2000$ PC coupon.


note: it seems the value of removed coupon is 40$.

[JD]

I wonder what this will mean for Steam based games once GameStop starts to fully embrace Impulse and push it in all their retail stores?

This is not about Impulse. This is about Spawn Labs.

I attended Gamestop's session on their digital strategy at GDC Europe last week. Given how Impulse used to boycott Steamworks titles under Stardock, I asked Steve Nix about how they'll be dealing with this in the future, and he said that Gamestop will be "neutral as Switzerland" and offer games (digitally) even if they incorporate Steamworks or Origin.

Obviously, somewhere down the road there's easily potential for another clash, e.g. Steam starting some stream service on their own, developers pushing to sell more games through their own digital channels, Gamestop potentially insisting on companies using Reaktor etc. etc. etc.

[Alstein]

They should've refused to sell the game and sent back all unopened boxes to Square Enix.

If they had done that, I would have supported them on their decision. Taking stuff out , and getting called out on it- it makes me distrust Impulse even, and I was one of the folks who was willing to give Impulse a chance.

I expect Stardock to have announced that they are going to be on Steam and doing it themselves by the end of 2012 right now.

[WarrenM]

That anyone would defend this practice astounds me. I'm gobsmacked people, good work.

[Dawn Falcon]

That anyone would defend this practice astounds me.

What, Square Enix including a voucher in the game box which they hadn't cleared with (and paid for, likely, in an agreement) with GS? As I said, people here really don't know much about retail, and are showing it.

There are plenty of things to get worked up about in this world, retail acting perfectly normally isn't one of them.

[Teiman]

Dragon Age was distributed with "a promotional code on a promotional code card which when redeemed provides a free download of The Stone Prisoner (http://greywardens.com/the-stone-prisoner/)".


EA put this code in Dragon Age, to make used games less interesting. But GameSpot can remove the code and put it on a used game box. That would be rich.

[Dan_Theman]

That anyone would defend this practice astounds me. I'm gobsmacked people, good work.
We're not defending it as good for customers, just expressing that it's almost certainly legal and arguably sensible for the interests of Gamestop (which is all they care about).

My guess is that when Gamestop noticed these vouchers, they contacted the publisher and words were had. If the publisher refused to amend the agreement in a way that Gamestop viewed as acceptable, Gamestop had the option to pull the vouchers or remove the game from their shelves due to breach of contract. Apparently they started the former and someone had enough of a brain to finally realize that was horrific customer service, and then finally it dawned on someone that the customer fallout combined with any legal costs associated with wrangling claims and counterclaims against Squeenix if they amended their advertising campaigns and/or box design would likely very quickly dwarf any profits from the game itself.

general comments -

Be outraged, but do so because it's not fair to us instead of trying to imagine any tortious claims that can made in regards to it. Statements like "Now it's not new" have no basis in fact, nor is it being damaged or made defective by removing any feature advertised on the box. On the other hand, "I'm getting less than what the publishers wanted to give me becase my retailer is an ass" holds water. Gamestop didn't have to act like this, even though there was ostensibly some financial interest to do so. The next time you want to pick up a game, I'd suggest driving by your local Gamestop with your middle finger raised in their direction and go elsewhere to buy it.

Teiman - I'd laugh my rear end off. I sincerely doubt their retailer agreement with EA allows it, but it would be awesome if there was some sort of wiggle room that provided a workaround.

[Dawn Falcon]

EA put this code in Dragon Age, to make used games less interesting. But GameSpot can remove the code and put it on a used game box. That would be rich.

It was on the box. So they hardly tried, as happened here, to sneak it past the retailer.

Of course, DLC like that is very very unpopular...

[Murbella]

As much as I hate what Gamestop is doing, this line of thinking is something of a red herring. Retailers open boxes they receive from distributors. A lot. They are then repackaged and shrinkwrapped and sold as new. In most cases, including this one as far as I can tell, they are legally in the right to do so as the product has not been sold to an end user nor has it been used. Those "open box" sales you see are normally not there because the store opened the box and examined the contents. It's either because they damaged the box or packaging (marking down the price is how you move such a product), or they're returns from other customers.

Now just because it's completely legitimate doesn't mean it's ethically right. It sucks when as a shopper you imagine you're getting something that is "virgin" yet later find a wrinkle in a game manual where there's no reason one should be - lo and behold, someone handled your goods before. Please realize I'm not saying that sarcastically as I feel that way when it happens to me; I'm something of a game collector, and the little things like that have some meaning, albeit rather ephemeral.

With more and more games having various DLC codes and/or activation codes, this is an extremely dangerous practice for customers. They might buy a "new" copy of Starcraft IV: 3 Zergs 1 protess and find that they can't register it because someone bought it, used the code and returned it to be sold as new. The age where the worst that can happen is a wrinkled manual is over (somewhat because the age of the manual is over as well but that is another issue).

No offense to any gamestop employees here, but i also don't trust a minimum waged paid Gamestop employee who is probably a gamer to not pocket some of these codes.

[Dawn Falcon]

Um, Morbella? The common complaint is quite the opposite. It's that, in the UK, Game typically lets staff play early, return the boxes and have "second-hand" copies day one, perpetuating the second-hand game cycle.

(The law here is quite clear on not being able to sell those as new, and it needs to be mentioned at sale if the codes (if mentioned on the box) are not included...)

[McKnight]

GAME is walking it's own incredibly fine line right now, that is if this (http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1119494-Game-UK-Why-these-guys-are-ruining-your-consumer-experience-on-Steam-in-the-UK) is actually true.

[Dan_Theman]

With more and more games having various DLC codes and/or activation codes, this is an extremely dangerous practice for customers. They might buy a "new" copy of Starcraft IV: 3 Zergs 1 protess and find that they can't register it because someone bought it, used the code and returned it to be sold as new. The age where the worst that can happen is a wrinkled manual is over (somewhat because the age of the manual is over as well but that is another issue).

No offense to any gamestop employees here, but i also don't trust a minimum waged paid Gamestop employee who is probably a gamer to not pocket some of these codes.
Yeah - THAT'S illegal. Unfortunately, I agree that it has happened and there's always the risk it could again.

[Dawn Falcon]

McKnight - I don't believe that's actually illegal under UK law, as much as it's underhand. It will contribute to GAME's image problems though, and they're not exactly beloved at the moment.

Of course, it might also be other contractual squabbles, but...

[AlanQ]

My guess is that when Gamestop noticed these vouchers, they contacted the publisher and words were had. If the publisher refused to amend the agreement in a way that Gamestop viewed as acceptable, Gamestop had the option to pull the vouchers or remove the game from their shelves due to breach of contract. Apparently they started the former and someone had enough of a brain to finally realize that was horrific customer service, and then finally it dawned on someone that the customer fallout combined with any legal costs associated with wrangling claims and counterclaims against Squeenix if they amended their advertising campaigns and/or box design would likely very quickly dwarf any profits from the game itself.

general comments -

Be outraged, but do so because it's not fair to us instead of trying to imagine any tortious claims that can made in regards to it. Statements like "Now it's not new" have no basis in fact, nor is it being damaged or made defective by removing any feature advertised on the box. On the other hand, "I'm getting less than what the publishers wanted to give me becase my retailer is an ass" holds water. Gamestop didn't have to act like this, even though there was ostensibly some financial interest to do so. The next time you want to pick up a game, I'd suggest driving by your local Gamestop with your middle finger raised in their direction and go elsewhere to buy it.

Teiman - I'd laugh my rear end off. I sincerely doubt their retailer agreement with EA allows it, but it would be awesome if there was some sort of wiggle room that provided a workaround.

No offence, but unless you have actually seen the contract between the publisher and Gamestop you're just talking out of your ass. You don't know what is in the contract between the publisher and Gamestop, so you don't know whether including a coupon was in breach of contract, and you don't know whether opening the packaging and removing content was breach of contract.

Specifically this:
If the publisher refused to amend the agreement in a way that Gamestop viewed as acceptable, Gamestop had the option to pull the vouchers or remove the game from their shelves due to breach of contract.

You are saying that Gamestop (GS) and SquareEnix (SE) have entered into a contract. Later, GS is no longer satisfied with the terms of that contract, and asks SE to change the terms of the contract. SE had the right to refuse. If GS pulled the product, GS is then in breach, not SE. GS is liable to SE, not the other way around.

The terms of the contract could change this, but since we aren't privy to the terms of that contract, it is better not to speculate.

The reason this situation is hypothetically a case of tortious interference is because SE also has a contract with OnLive (OL). When GS interferes with SE's product, it makes it impossible for SE to fulfil the terms of its contract with OL. SE is liable to OL, and then SE can sue GS for tortious interference.

[Dan_Theman]

AlexB -

Of course I'm talking out of my ass. Maybe you missed the "MY GUESS" part of that quote. We're ALL talking out of our asses, and I'm pretty sure anyone with any sense here knows that none of us are authorities on the issue. It's a freaking forum with open registration, ffs. That said, there are common practices and experiences with them to draw upon, and that has illuminated some rather wrong-headed assertions from various people in this thread.

And yes, there absolutely is a contract between Squeenix and GS. That's how it works. Such contracts quite often include what items are able to included in the product for sale. Squeenix CHANGED that without consent, and therefore would (again, assuming that nothing unusual exists in the contract) be in breach. If one party is in breach, that gives GS the option they wound up taking.

[SpoofyChop]

My real question is why didn't they simply hand out a coupon for a free Impulse game with every copy of Deus Ex: Oh The Humanity?

That would have been a slap in the face to OnLive and it would have been customer friendly.

[McKnight]

LOL! Gamestop give out things for free? Customer *friendly*? Are you mad man?

Also Impulse can't sell Deus Ex, it's a steamworks integrated game.

Dawn, I know that's not illegal but like you summarized already they are putting themselves into a very sticky situation (and some of their claims are hilarious) :)

[Foxstab]

I wonder what this will mean for Steam based games once GameStop starts to fully embrace Impulse and push it in all their retail stores?
+

That they won't be carrying some of the biggest name PC games each season?
Impulse already been selling steam-required games, with a warning or otherwise note that states the game requires Steam. Or GFWL or whatever.
I don't see the problem here.


Weird since Impulse is incredibly un-intrusive right now. I'm sure they'd have to change the EULA to start doing stuff like that. Also a game that is completely integrated into Steam cannot even be registered on Impulse, only Steamworks. That's like the point.
People turned to Impulse not because it is a direct competitor of Steam in terms of games capacity, rather because it either offered games that Steam didn't or wouldn't and games that Steam did have while not being as intrusive and menacing/fascist as Steam is.

And yeah...I haven't read the new Gamestop EULA and I'm not buying anything from Impulse until I do. Meanwhile, all my games are backed up with the CD key noted down.



Impulse sucks too much to ever be a big force and gamestop's influence isn't likely to help. Thus, instead of competing with steam which people actually use, impulse competes with onLive for the leftovers that another better DD doesn't pick up before them.
Why Impulse sucks? Nice words, by the way.


What, Square Enix including a voucher in the game box which they hadn't cleared with (and paid for, likely, in an agreement) with GS? As I said, people here really don't know much about retail, and are showing it.

There are plenty of things to get worked up about in this world, retail acting perfectly normally isn't one of them.
I agree.
If you own a business, this is how you conduct yourself.

Now, personally, I work for a retailer chain. And I couldn't give a rat's ass about my employing company (because the company treats the usual employee like shit and only cares about the top upper-upper management's deep-deep pockets).
However, unfortunately, I do have a personal set of values and some level of work ethics is part of that.
And god help the son of a bitch who dare try sneak out something past the door, or under-deliver goods or over-deliver goods, or an agent who takes out merchandise that he has no business touching or not his own company, or use for-sale goods as non-sale customer-marketing (ex. taste offerings) unauthorized, or a competitor employee taking photos around or so on.
Yeah, I know, I won't get a bonus for this. I don't get any bonuses for sales either, too. I won't get a pat on the back, and on one will remember that I did something for the good of the company. But honestly, fuck them, because I was never thinking of the business in the first place. I did it simply because that's who and what I am.
Fuckers who wanna throw fishy shenanigans need go elsewhere (or come when I'm on leave).

And this is more than likely how GameStop found about it in the first place - a regular joe employee in one of the shops has (for whatever reason...more than likely an equivocal one, yes) opened a box and found that this coupon is inside, even though it's not supposed to/not said so on the box, then ran to his boss and reported. Then the boss phoned in the bigger boss, so on...

[XenoCrash]

Also Impulse can't sell Deus Ex, it's a steamworks integrated game.


WUT?!?

http://impulsedriven.com/deus3

[Foxstab]

WUT?!?

http://impulsedriven.com/deus3

Ignore the brain-damaged.

[Jason Townsend]

It seems to my finely tuned IANAL instincts that Gamestop's actions were a hell of lot more tortious than Square Enix' could possibly be construed as having been. For one thing, they had the option of simply refusing to sell the product if they (absurdly) felt it to be contrary to their competitive interests. I strain to even think of a plausible analogy for such a fishy, product-tampering response to a putative contractual grievance. Radio Shack removing batteries maybe?

[Foxstab]

It seems to my finely tuned iANAL™ instincts
Fixed that for you.

You're thinking with a customer's head who's ringing loudly, accompanied by twin chimps hitting on bongos, with the idea that "I've been ripped off from my duly deserved coupon!".
There was no product-tampering. That coupon was third party partnership advertising. It has nothing to do with the product nor does it tamper with it in any way or form. You've bought the PC edition of Deus-Ex 3 and guess what, you're getting the PC edition of Deus-Ex 3.

This is, in all likelyhood (since US law decided to mess itself up to the point an *ahem* alleged *ahem* burglar may sue your ass for hitting his toe on your couch and incurring an injury while in your home because a sharp object was neglectfully lying on the floor as he was leaping about in pain and accidentally stabbing his other foot in it, while he was *ahem* allegedly *ahem* surveying the premises for goods to lift), legally sealed.

[McKnight]

WUT?!?

http://impulsedriven.com/deus3

Well then that's new, because previously Impulse didn't sell them.

[Telefrog]

Well then that's new, because previously Impulse didn't sell them.

Impulse has sold Steam titles since the flip to Gamestop.

[McKnight]

Ah ok, my bad. Didn't realize that :)

[Jason McMaster]

Really. Unless Squeenix have explicitly cleared it with GS, it's also probably torturous interference on THEIR part as well. GS would probably have demanded a fee...

That's how retail works.

Retail may work that way, but opening a sealed product and removing the coupons is ridiculous and shouldn't be stood for or even defended, on a legal or moral level. It's a ludicrous practice that no amount of technical debate is going to absolve of being ludicrous.

[sluggo]

Yeah, this is simple for me as well. They opened a box, removed something, and put it back on the shelves as new. How that's defendable in any way is beyond me. I don't care if the game included a pack of GAMESTOP SUCKS stickers and $100 worth of Best Buy coupons, if GameStop was unhappy with the contents of the box, pull the game from shelves and deal with the publisher. That's it.

Then again, I don't understand why anyone shops at GameStop in the first place. They rarely seem to have bargains and I've already commented at length in other threads on how annoying I find their service. Is it all pre-order incentives? Are they just the only place to buy boxed games for some people?

[Jason Townsend]

You're thinking with a customer's head who's ringing loudly, accompanied by twin chimps hitting on bongos, with the idea that "I've been ripped off from my duly deserved coupon!".

I don't do business with retailers that bother me, Gamestop among them, unless I have some compelling reason to do so. I got my copy via Steam and will get my well-deserved comeuppance during the great non-boxed-game-screwover of 2020 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syzxPND8QE). We will look up and shout "save us." And you will look down and whisper "no."

Sarcasm aside I have no gripe at all with "boxed games" as some digital buyers do. I'm happy to buy boxed games at more reputable retailers for good prices. My bemusement/irritation is with the brazeness of Gamestop expanding one widely hated practice (box gutting and the vices that go with it) into an even more brazen practice (removing something the publisher intended for the customer.)


There was no product-tampering. That coupon was third party partnership advertising. It has nothing to do with the product nor does it tamper with it in any way or form. You've bought the PC edition of Deus-Ex 3 and guess what, you're getting the PC edition of Deus-Ex 3.

The box and everything in it are the product. It'd be product tampering if Best Buy harvested 5% of the styrofoam peanuts in TV boxes because they had a great recycling program and cared about the environment. Not your job, retailer.

If, and again I find this dubious, GS and SE had such an ironclad, product specific retail arrangement that the coupon was unacceptable to GS, there are a range of legally unproblematic solutions. Sending the boxes back; holding the boxes until the dispute is resolved with SE, even selling the games unboxed/with an explanation of what they were doing. They picked a course which can most charitably described - assuming they had legal grounds - as "surreptitious tort vigilantism." I don't see how that isn't a good reason to just go to Best Buy / Target / Staples / whoever for your boxed-game needs.

[Matt Bowyer]

There's one aspect of this I'm not sure about. Those OnLive coupons -- are those only good if the game is registered on Steamworks already or something like that? Are we going to see Gamestop-grabbed OnLive coupons for Deus Ex pop up on Ebay or something now? To me this feels like outright theft, but I likely don't completely understand the situation.

[Locker K]

Then again, I don't understand why anyone shops at GameStop in the first place. They rarely seem to have bargains and I've already commented at length in other threads on how annoying I find their service. Is it all pre-order incentives? Are they just the only place to buy boxed games for some people?

Unfortunately they always seem to have the best retailer preorder exclusives. Which usually results in me overpaying for that content from someone who doesn't want it so I can avoid giving Gamestop my money.

[Dawn Falcon]

They picked a course which can most charitably described - assuming they had legal grounds - as "surreptitious tort vigilantism."

Only if, again, you're completely unfamiliar with boxed goods sales.

Including coupons without the retailer's permission IS breach of contract as well, and is equal with any claims between online and squeenix. Neither is it remotely illegal to open boxes, as long as you're not selling the product without anything in advertised on the box or in your own advertising, and it's a first sale.

Really, this is like the people who got worked up over perfectly normal orders for disclosure in the Sony case, for instance...

[Rob_Merritt]

does the pc version forsale at target come with an onlive code?Ii heard that copies sent to gamestop were the only ones to get the code. I might try it out if I can snag a free code.

[Jason Townsend]

Only if, again, you're completely unfamiliar with boxed goods sales.

I gather that you are, and that this sort of law is consistent in English-speaking countries? (I don't ask sarcastically.)


Including coupons without the retailer's permission IS breach of contract as well, and is equal with any claims between online and squeenix. Neither is it remotely illegal to open boxes, as long as you're not selling the product without anything in advertised on the box or in your own advertising, and it's a first sale.

It seems bizarre - in other words, to be terrible law if it is the law - and the nearest PC box to hand here, GPG's Forged Alliance, doesn't seem to have a detailed manifest of box contents anywhere. And at any rate it if GS has a legal case against SE, I don't see how their response wasn't both "secretive" and on the sktchy side of "secretive." If you're going to intercept an item of value the publisher intended for the purchaser, you can at least be up front about it. (Or, far better, get your lawyers on the phone with Square Enix'.)

[Foxstab]

I don't do business with retailers that bother me, Gamestop among them, unless I have some compelling reason to do so.
Well, see, I stop right there, at the comma. I don't have an else branch in that statement routine.

Now, I fully agree that GameStop are baddies and that doing it the way they've done is likely to be very un-consumer acceptable. And that we've all heard about their immoral "screw customer" practices before.
However, removing something from the box which shouldn't have been there in the first place and you wouldn't know was there to begin with and isn't in any way related to the stuff you're buying and expecting to receive while not harming any of the contents...I really haven't much of a problem with and is more than perfectly legal for them to do.

By way of example:
Command & Conquer had two box covers printed:
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1/111472-front_cover_super.jpg
http://pics.mobygames.com/images/covers/large/1069508886-00.jpg

Mine came with the first one.

Now say some GameStop punk employee really liked that box and wanted one, but there's only a box of the second type left in the backroom.
So he takes out the contents of the first type that's on the shelf and switches it to an empty second box and keep the first box, which is now empty. And puts the second box, now full with the first's contents, back on the shelf.
So I come to the store wanting to buy Red Alert. I find the box, I buy it.
It has the CD case, the manual, the poster. All's new, fresh, squeeky-clean...not a scratch or anything.
I hang the poster on the door. I rifle through the manual. I boot the game. It runs. I'm having fun.
I already forgot what we were talking about...or that someone's fingers were on the CD case before my own...


So while it may feel 'dirty' for you that your acquired property was handled by someone else before you, you received exactly the goods for which you came and there was no visible or otherwise harm or deformation or any sort of noticeable defect to the goods as to diminish their value or use to you.

Therefore, no biggie, really...

[Telefrog]

By way of example:
Command & Conquer had two box covers printed:
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1/111472-front_cover_super.jpg
http://pics.mobygames.com/images/covers/large/1069508886-00.jpg

Mine came with the first one.

Now say some GameStop punk employee really liked that box and wanted one, but there's only a box of the second type left in the backroom.
So he takes out the contents of the first type that's on the shelf and switches it to an empty second box and keep the first box, which is now empty. And puts the second box, now full with the first's contents, back on the shelf.
So I come to the store wanting to buy Red Alert. I find the box, I buy it.
It has the CD case, the manual, the poster. All's new, fresh, squeeky-clean...not a scratch or anything.
I hang the poster on the door. I rifle through the manual. I boot the game. It runs. I'm having fun.


But the box printing has no real monetary value. The free Onlive Code arguably does. $40 if you bought it straight from OnLive.

[Jason McMaster]

Never mind.

[Foxstab]

But the box printing has no real monetary value. The free Onlive Code arguably does. $40 if you bought it straight from OnLive.

Did you come to the store to buy Deus-Ex 3 or did you come to collect coupons which you shouldn't have been aware to exist?

Some printing comes with the box, one way or the other. There's a cover. It's part of the package.
The coupon was something the publisher tossed in there that was in under no ordinary circumstances supposed to be there in the first place. Nor was it advertised anywhere.
Either a SNAFU in shipping those to GameStop in the first place or someone tried to sneak something under the table and for some moronic reason thought that the retailer won't find out.

Greedy customer is as bad as uncaring customer. Slice GameStop for their underhanded tactics, illegal or semi-illegal practices, hiring dumb staff and treating them like shit (which makes any good hiring run for the hills or stop being a good hiring after the system 'adjusts' their mind, motivation and mood), the re-used business douchbaggery...not for doing something that has zero effect on you or the goods you paid money for.

Heck, if GameStop opened the box and a piece that was supposed to be there was missing and they kept mum about it I'd be far more pissed. Which you can say they do when they sell you as new a used copy after they extracted something out of it (like DLC codes). Which, I do believe they were indicted upon and the court judged them guilty as charged.


Seems that for some the core issue is that they feel they're entitled to that coupon, by every right and just way or heavenly might...uh, what? nope.
You're entitled to Deus-Ex 3 and whatever other standard ordnance that was packaged and advertised to be packaged. Not some paper piece that someone slipped in.

[Jason McMaster]

Why are they opening the box?

[Dawn Falcon]

Um, because leaving contents in the boxes actually on the shelves is asking for shrinkage?

[Foxstab]

Why are they opening the box?

As an active policy or as an "how did they found out about this coupon"?
Basically, they're jerks. Don't buy from them.
This takes care of all FAQs regarding GS, really.

[Jason McMaster]

Um, because leaving contents in the boxes actually on the shelves is asking for shrinkage?

Oh, cool, thanks for that explanation.

However, when I go to Best Buy, I can pick up the game and take it to the front for purchase. They also have larger stores that would, in general, lead to easier theft, but they don't seem to need to open games.

Oh and Wal-Mart has a glass security case with their games. They don't seem to need to open them.

Same with Target.

[Jason McMaster]

As an active policy or as an "how did they found out about this coupon"?
Basically, they're jerks. Don't buy from them.
This takes care of all FAQs regarding GS, really.

I agree. I don't disagree with the idea that Square/Enix shouldn't have included that, though I think it's still silly, but GameStop responded poorly. They always respond poorly.

[Jason Townsend]

Um, because leaving contents in the boxes actually on the shelves is asking for shrinkage?

I think he means "why open more than just one wall-display box."

[Telefrog]

Did you come to the store to buy Deus-Ex 3 or did you come to collect coupons which you shouldn't have been aware to exist?

What does that matter? Now that the cat is out of the bag, a customer should feel pissed by the loss. Your tree falling in the woods scenario only works if no one is around to hear it. In this case everyone with an internet connection knows what happened.


Some printing comes with the box, one way or the other. There's a cover. It's part of the package.
The coupon was something the publisher tossed in there that was in under no ordinary circumstances supposed to be there in the first place. Nor was it advertised anywhere.
Either a SNAFU in shipping those to GameStop in the first place or someone tried to sneak something under the table and for some moronic reason thought that the retailer won't find out.

Obviously, a contractual violation is between those parties. As a customer, I don't care who didn't live up to their end of a byzantine retail shelf deal. My only concern would be that people who bought this product at another store got a coupon worth $40.


Heck, if GameStop opened the box and a piece that was supposed to be there was missing that should've been there and they kept mum about it I'd be far more pissed.

I would expect a package with a manufacturer issue to get sent back.

To address other comments, I know perfectly well what shenanigans retail stores conduct with regards to vendor contracts. In all my time managing a Target we never had instructions (or even clearance) to open boxes and remove components. A handful of times we were instructed to add items that the manufacturer left out. Frankly, I don't even consider Target to be a great example of customer friendliness, but I'll be damned if I'd shop at a place that I knew was removing items from packaging.

[Foxstab]

Oh, cool, thanks for that explanation.

However, when I go to Best Buy, I can pick up the game and take it to the front for purchase. They also have larger stores that would, in general, lead to easier theft, but they don't seem to need to open games.

Oh and Wal-Mart has a glass security case with their games. They don't seem to need to open them.

Same with Target.

Again, I'm not defending GS, how they do business on day to day basis or all their mundane practices. They're nefarious and notorious for it. And personally, I dread Impulse now that they own it. And if they had an Israel branch I would never visit it.

What I am saying...all I'm saying...is that in the case of opening a box to remove something that shouldn't have been there and has no affect upon the goods which you were to pay money for (unless they damaged them in the process) is really nothing to go ballistic about.
Especially given how the retailer wasn't notified about it, nor was it advertised to be contained as part of the goods, neither was it found acceptable by the retailer.
And the final blow is Square-Enix releasing a public apology, which places GS in the legal "all clear".
Essentially, and I do hope this is understood by all the adults here, such a public apology is the alternative to being sued by GS which means that SE were operating outside their trade agreements and GS were within their rights. Otherwise, had SE been the ones to have the legal ground then GS would be the ones apologizing or getting sued.


GameStop responded poorly. They always respond poorly.
That they do. Which is why none here will disagree they should go bleed in a corner and die. The 'argument' is really on whether or not it is within a business owner's right to remove an artifact from a bundled package under the current circumstances. Although, as said, I think that for some this is really an issue of "omg, there was something there, which I don't really know what and shouldn't have known of in the first place, and now I don't get to have it, gimme!!!!" green-eyes.

[Foxstab]

In this case everyone with an internet connection knows what happened.
Pray-tell, then, what has happened?
Because, for the great majority, I don't think they quite 'got it'.
Rather, they're stuck in the mindset that "OMG SOMETHING IS MISSING".
Personally, if I ran GameStop, I'd remove the coupon, ship it back and sell the regular edition as is. Then put a big sign saying "if you want the coupon, feel free to mail SE with your CD key and they'll send you one".




Obviously, a contractual violation is between those parties. As a customer, I don't care who didn't live up to their end of a byzantine retail shelf deal. My only concern would be that people who bought this product at another store got a coupon worth $40.
Then go buy at the other store? Why did you buy in GS to begin with after all the shit you've heard about them?
Again, as I keep saying: if you play with fire, after 'we' tell you not to and you get burned, we really don't care/want to hear your cries and screams.




I would expect a package with a manufacturer issue to get sent back.
Go write the new consumer/retailer manifesto.



To address other comments, I know perfectly well what shenanigans retail stores conduct with regards to vendor contracts. In all my time managing a Target we never had instructions (or even clearance) to open boxes and remove components. A handful of times we were instructed to add items that the manufacturer left out. Frankly, I don't even consider Target to be a great example of customer friendliness, but I'll be damned if I'd shop at a place that I knew was removing items from packaging.
So have you registered on EA's Neo-(Nazi)Origin yet?

[Telefrog]

Pray-tell, then, what has happened?

It seems pretty obvious Gamestop removed coupons from retail boxes. What more do you need? As I said a consumer shouldn't and doesn't give two figs about vendor contracts. That's between the vendor and the manufacturer, and sometimes the third-party distributor in between. Who is at fault in no way clears Gamestop from blame on choosing to remove contents without notifying customers.

This isn't the bygone days of yore. We have the internet now. People were going to find out. Which they did. Now GS looks even more dickish than before, which is something I didn't think was possible.


Then go buy at the other store? Why did you buy in GS to begin with after all the shit you've heard about them?
Again, as I keep saying: if you play with fire, after 'we' tell you not to and you get burned, we really don't care/want to hear your cries and screams.


Preaching to the choir on that one. I can't even tell you how long it's been since I shopped at a GS.




Go write the new consumer/retailer manifesto.

So have you registered on EA's Neo-(Nazi)Origin yet?

What is this? Seriously. Is this a discussion, or snark championships?

[Slainte Mhath]

Yeah, this is simple for me as well. They opened a box, removed something, and put it back on the shelves as new. How that's defendable in any way is beyond me. I don't care if the game included a pack of GAMESTOP SUCKS stickers and $100 worth of Best Buy coupons, if GameStop was unhappy with the contents of the box, pull the game from shelves and deal with the publisher. That's it.

Exactly. That is my problem with the whole thing in a nutshell. I don't care that the coupon was for a competitor's service, it was still $40 worth of value that the publisher intended me to have and Gamestop decided to deny me. They should not have that authority period.

Even before this fiasco I stopped buying anything "new" from Gamestop long ago. The only time we shop there now is to buy bargain priced used 360 and DS games for my kids. Anything new or for the PC I'll buy from Amazon, NewEgg or other vendors, never from Gamestop. Their prices are never competitive on new product, and their policies are terrible (as is evidenced by this genius decision).

[Foxstab]

Exactly. That is my problem with the whole thing in a nutshell. I don't care that the coupon was for a competitor's service, it was still $40 worth of value that the publisher intended me to have and Gamestop decided to deny me. They should not have that authority period.

And that's exactly /my/ problem with you people.
They SHOULD have this authority. They DO have this authority.
It's THEIR LAND, THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. And, more than obviously, their contract with the Publisher dictates the power is in their hands.
If this was a small shop dealing with EA, maybe the Publisher has the final say. But not in this case.
Publisher can intend all they want for you to have it...if they want you to have it this bad they should go and mail it to you.
The issue here isn't even Gamestop, it's the "I AM CUSTOMER! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT! GIMME EVERYTHING I DEMAND NOW! BUT I R STOOPHAD NUFF TO KEEP BUYING IN A PLACE THAT SUX YET EXPECT THEM TO CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES TO BETTER SERVE ME!" mentality that logically and personally piss me off.
It's like those nimrods who come to where I work, cry about the prices and then keep buying, week in week out...no brains no worries...only whinery...the big man is getting rich meanwhile, thank you come again next week!



Even before this fiasco I stopped buying anything "new" from Gamestop long ago. The only time we shop there now is to buy bargain priced used 360 and DS games for my kids. Anything new or for the PC I'll buy from Amazon, NewEgg or other vendors, never from Gamestop. Their prices are never competitive on new product, and their policies are terrible (as is evidenced by this genius decision).
Fuck Bargain priced used shit. Why buy there in the first place?
You just right now acknowledge them being a shifty and shoddy and shitty place. WHY BUY THERE?
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! YOU ARE WHAT KEEPS THEM IN BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SHITTY KIND OF BUSINESS THAT THEY DO!

GAH!!!!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3550421231_05e7939d58.jpg

[Dawn Falcon]

Exactly. That is my problem with the whole thing in a nutshell. I don't care that the coupon was for a competitor's service, it was still $40 worth of value that the publisher intended me to have and Gamestop decided to deny me. They should not have that authority period.

No, of course not, distributors shouldn't have legal obligations to retailers.
...
Sigh

Squeenix screwed up. They've admitted it.

[Sarkus]

Oh, cool, thanks for that explanation.

However, when I go to Best Buy, I can pick up the game and take it to the front for purchase. They also have larger stores that would, in general, lead to easier theft, but they don't seem to need to open games.

Oh and Wal-Mart has a glass security case with their games. They don't seem to need to open them.

Same with Target.

Having worked in at least a couple of the retailers mentioned (including GameStop), the thing is that there are trade-offs for each approach. Games locked up in cases are not easily able to be browsed by customers unless you can have someone over there to help them. And those big box stores hardly even have enough people around to do that. And Best Buys larger store is actually an advantage since you will note that the games are always a ways back in the store. So its quite a distance for someone to run. And they still have plenty of theft. There is also the option of those various plastic cases to put games into, though all they really do is set off an alarm at the door.

But what it really comes down to is that GameStop insists on a much lower "shrink" (loss of product) rate then just about any other retailer I've ever worked with. Shrink is based on comparing the total value of what was lost (based on regular inventory checks) verus sales in a given time period. When I worked at GameStop, .25% was considered normal, .5% was considered ok but a concern, and anything above .8% resulted in the store manager and assistant being automatically written up. Compare that to Walmart, where a 2.0 - 5.0% is considered normal and acceptable!

So GameStop has some practices that seem harsh but there is a reason for them. And while it makes less sense now to remove content from boxes on the shelf, back when the company had a very liberal return policy nobody complained (for the most part) about stuff that had been opened. So its a carryover from that period, even if its less justifiable purely from the customer perspective. But since a high percentage of their clients are used game buyers anyway, the outrage is muted.

What it comes down to is that if you aren't a used customer and if you do care about getting your games factory sealed, GameStop should be the last place you go looking for a game at.

[Foxstab]

Sarkus, I love you man.

[Jason McMaster]

I don't shop there. I just think its funny that no matter what happens, someone always comes to GameStops defense.

[Teiman]

I am reading all this, and eating pop corn, having a good time, and learnign things.

But as a customer, I don't care what is your business model. I don't care if you are making money, or running on red numbers or whatever is your spoilage/shrink number. Is not my problem.

I would not normally have a problem with buying a game from GameStop with the DVD separated from the box. Because I expect to receive all the parts of the game. Manuals, ads, coupons, ... everything. GameStop here is not selling The Product. Is selling the box with the same image has the product you get in other shop, but with differents things inside, less things, with -40$ of his original value, asking fullprice. To me this is a scam, even if is legal, and even if make sense for retailer-minded people.

Anyway, I buy my games on Steam. These brick and mortar shops are from the SXVIII, for all I know.

[RepoMan]

Squeenix screwed up. They've admitted it.

Wait, what? Where and when did Squeenix say anything other than "we're looking into it"? Link, please.

Edit: Never mind, found it. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36761/GameStop_Removing_OnLive_Vouchers_From_PC_Human_Re volution_Boxes.php)


[UPDATE 3: Square Enix America confirmed to Gamasutra that GameStop "was not made aware" of the OnLive coupon's inclusion in the boxed game, and said it "respects the right of GameStop to have final say over the contents of products it sells and to adjust them where they see fit in accordance with their policies."

The publisher also encouraged gamers "who want to purchase the PC version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution without additional coupons" to shop at GameStop.]

That last part is some truly awesome snark.

Edit: Gamasutra editorial nails it. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36776/Analysis_GameStops_OnLive_BoxOut_Hints_At_Greater_ Digital_War.php)


GameStop told Gamasutra, "We pulled the coupons because, like all retailers, we prefer not to promote our competitors and their competing offerings and services in our stores." GameStop is absolutely right -- but the issue is that its publishing partners who are essential to its largely physical business are slowly but surely becoming its digital competitors. And it's not just GameStop that will closely guard its digital business -- everyone that's making the transition is on unsure footing, and wary of fast-movers who have the technology, business savvy and agility to flip the boat.

The transition is going to be a rocky one: publishers, retailers, and their respective online businesses will be butting heads. As much furor that [sic] was raised this week over Operation: Voucher Freedom, it's only a hint at the the upcoming battle between online and physical retail, so time to suit up.

[Jason Townsend]

You don't need to unbox 200 copies of the game to have 1-3 empty boxes on the wall, though.

[Foxstab]

I don't shop there. I just think its funny that no matter what happens, someone always comes to GameStops defense.

I'm not defending GameStop.

[Dan_Theman]

I don't shop there. I just think its funny that no matter what happens, someone always comes to GameStops defense.


I'm not defending GameStop.
Nor I.

[Sarkus]

The funny thing is that GameStop is only doing this because Squenix is a small publisher who they can try and bully. If EA included a 40% off coupon for their service, for example, GameStop would probably pretend not to notice.

Its all about what they can and can't get away with.

[Armando Penblade]

*shrugs* I'll throw my lot in with Teiman et. all. I haven't shopped at this place in ages, but if I live in a country where they're legally allowed to fiddle with the contents of my games without my say-so, I find that pretty astonishing. I don't really give a flying fuck if that shows I "don't know anything about how the retail environment works" except insofar as it makes me wonder what I can do to start changing how it works away from atrocious policies like this.

But hey, it's Gamestop doing something slimy, evil, and blatantly anti-consumer. In other news, politicians argued ineffectually and rabbits bred indiscriminately today.

[AlanQ]

I don't t understand why foxstab seems to know what is in the contract between GS and SE. There is no particular reason to believe that the contract allows GS to tamper with the product. Even if SE was in breach, that doesn't entitle GS to tamper with the product- the remedy for breach is damages, not tampering with a consumer good.

[Sarkus]

I don't t understand why foxstab seems to know what is in the contract between GS and SE. There is no particular reason to believe that the contract allows GS to tamper with the product. Even if SE was in breach, that doesn't entitle GS to tamper with the product- the remedy for breach is damages, not tampering with a consumer good.

I hate to tell you this, but at least in the US it is not against the law for retailers to open up packages. Not to mention that returns are often put back on the shelf and sold "as new," for example, and that can include things not being exactly factory spec anymore. Same thing happens when customers open up boxes on the sales floor because they insist on looking at the product. This happens because manufacturers do not generally offer full credit for returns, so the retailer would view having to send back every returned or opened item as a loss on that item.

We can argue about whether or not GameStop opening things up intentionally to remove something is good or bad, but it isn't an legal issue.

[AlanQ]

I hate to tell you this, but at least in the US it is not against the law for retailers to open up packages. Not to mention that returns are often put back on the shelf and sold "as new," for example, and that can include things not being exactly factory spec anymore. Same thing happens when customers open up boxes on the sales floor because they insist on looking at the product. This happens because manufacturers do not generally offer full credit for returns, so the retailer would view having to send back every returned or opened item as a loss on that item.

We can argue about whether or not GameStop opening things up intentionally to remove something is good or bad, but it isn't an legal issue.

Sure, but just because something isn't against the law doesn't mean it's not a legal issue. Contracts between producer and retailer routinely put limits on what the retailer can do with the product. For example, Nike can require retailers to sell its product in Nike-brand packaging. If the retailer doesn't do so, that's not illegal, but Nike can sue the retailer. Apple is notorious for putting limits on how a product is displayed, packaged and sold. I haven't seen the contract between GameSpot and Square Enix, but I would be surprised if it allowed Gamespot to retail the product in just any which way, if only because it would potentially do damage to SE's brand.

[Nesrie]

What, Square Enix including a voucher in the game box which they hadn't cleared with (and paid for, likely, in an agreement) with GS? As I said, people here really don't know much about retail, and are showing it.

There are plenty of things to get worked up about in this world, retail acting perfectly normally isn't one of them.

There are two different issues here. You're focusing on one but not the other. There is an issue between GS and SE, but also an issue between GS and the consumer. It is not "normal" for games to be gutted outside of GS in the retail world.

[Dawn Falcon]

Because it's nothing at all to do with the consumer, legally, as long as they get what's on the box and they don't resell already-sold games as new. (And as I said, the problem here trends the other way...)

[Nesrie]

Because it's nothing at all to do with the consumer, legally, as long as they get what's on the box and they don't resell already-sold games as new. (And as I said, the problem here trends the other way...)

I don't care if it is legal or not. Legality isn't going to give GS their good PR, what's left of it back. IF i buy a game from retailer A or retailer B, I expect the same product unless advertised otherwise, certainly not an inferior product for the same price that has been gutted. I think you might be a little unfamiliar with some of GS practices, employee used products, used codes, missing brochures... etc. I already gave the list of things and there is a suit (prior to this) involved with them already so we'll see how that works out.

[Sarkus]

Sure, but just because something isn't against the law doesn't mean it's not a legal issue. Contracts between producer and retailer routinely put limits on what the retailer can do with the product. For example, Nike can require retailers to sell its product in Nike-brand packaging. If the retailer doesn't do so, that's not illegal, but Nike can sue the retailer. Apple is notorious for putting limits on how a product is displayed, packaged and sold. I haven't seen the contract between GameSpot and Square Enix, but I would be surprised if it allowed Gamespot to retail the product in just any which way, if only because it would potentially do damage to SE's brand.

Squenix has already said they aren't blaming GS for anything here. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Besides, what Nike and Apple can do is way different then what a smaller manufacturer can insist on in contracts. Squenix isn't either of those companies when it comes to their retail leverage.

[Dawn Falcon]

I think you might be a little unfamiliar with some of GS practices, employee used products, used codes, missing brochures... etc.

Compared to GAME in the UK, which has no meaningful specialist competition at all any more, they look like angels. Especially when it comes to PC games.

And, again, I find this kind of overreaction to a quite-normal retail occurrence to be amusing.

Square Enix America confirmed to Gamasutra that GameStop "was not made aware" of the OnLive coupon's inclusion in the boxed game, and said it "respects the right of GameStop to have final say over the contents of products it sells and to adjust them where they see fit in accordance with their policies."

[Nesrie]

Compared to GAME in the UK, which has no meaningful specialist competition at all any more, they look like angels. Especially when it comes to PC games.

And, again, I find this kind of overreaction to a quite-normal retail occurrence to be amusing.

Square Enix America confirmed to Gamasutra that GameStop "was not made aware" of the OnLive coupon's inclusion in the boxed game, and said it "respects the right of GameStop to have final say over the contents of products it sells and to adjust them where they see fit in accordance with their policies."

Their existing lawsuit should have you rolling in your seat then.

[Dawn Falcon]

You're talking about actually illegal practices like staff theft and selling second-hand goods as new, though. This isn't illegal.

Again, Squeenix have confirmed it was their mistake.

[Armando Penblade]

And I think a goodly portion of the world maintain that it's a needless apology on a moral level and that, informed or not, GS are *still* in the wrong on some deeper level.

[Sarkus]

And I think a goodly portion of the world maintain that it's a needless apology on a moral level and that, informed or not, GS are *still* in the wrong on some deeper level.

Which is why I don't understand these long threads everytime they do something stupid. They suck, we all know that. I haven't shopped in one for years and see no reason I should even have to again. And that was after I worked for them for almost seven years.

If you want them to change, then don't give them your money. Bitching about them on QT3 isn't going to change anything as long as you keep going back.

[Dan_Theman]

Alex, Armando, Nesrie, Sarkus, Slainte, Teiman, and pretty much everyone else in here arguing from indignation, frustration, dissappointment, a strange sense of humor, or resigned discontent, here's a little more from the a$$ ;) -

A great many of these contracts are made with the explicit understanding that opening and reviewing the contents of packages will occur and that modifications can and will be made within a prescribed range. In fact, back when I was in retail (admitting there has been some significant time since I worked a "real job" so certain procedures may have changed) some smaller distributors would occasionally send the contents partly unassembled with the express intent to have the retailer finish off the packaging themselves and customize the final product to a limited degree.

Retailer contracts are generally amendable boilerplates, which means most terms don't change very quickly and industry standards and norms have a chance to sink in. Each corporation also has its own ways of doing things, and publishers/distributors know that going into these arrangements. Whoever the bigger company is holds immense power in that relationship in most markets, and normally that's the retailer.

Your views of the way things should be are in line with precisely the way publishers would ideally want it, but unfortunately for most of us consumers the retail world is far from being so consumer/publisher friendly despite all attempts it makes to portray such an image. It should of course be noted that publishers are also not a blameless, benevolent collection as an entirety, but are far less likely to be in a position to take such liberties in most markets.

The interesting thing to me is really that I wonder how things will change as media goes more and more through digital distribution. Retailers will likely continue to lose clout and it could be that in time the surviving retail environment will shift in a more consumer friendly direction in an effort to compete with the convenience of their online adversaries. At least as long as any money is to be made, they won't abandon those markets entirely and so they'd have to try something so ... "exteme."

At that point, maybe some more meaningful oversight or regulation will have a chance to get legislated - right now I don't think there's much of a chance for real expansion of consumer rights in nations seemingly so beholden to corporate interests like the U.S. and U.K.. The overriding quest for a few extra cents on profit margins seems to inexorably lead to bad corporate actors which are almost incapable of being market corrected due to their strength. Things are just so slanted that a typical consumer doesn't have much of a chance at leveraging a good deal on their own behalf.

This is all why it's frustrating to me to see a bunch of people railing against perceived injustices like this for the wrong reasons. GS isn't going to get sued and this will likely wind up being just a blip on the radar because they were almost certainly within their rights to do what they did and can easily absorb any hit their image may have taken. That's not the real "crime," so to speak. Retailers feel they almost have to work every margin just to maintain whatever advantage they possess or shrink whatever disadvantage they're up against. They owe it to their stockholders, and the markets understand that. Where the real tragedy resides is the state of the retail environment. That's why individual corporations aren't the best targets for the wrath of a consumer activist even though they're the most visible. Rather, it's those who craft the rules by which they operate.

Don't hate player.
Don't hate the game.
Hate the damn casino.

[Foxstab]

I don't t understand why foxstab seems to know what is in the contract between GS and SE. There is no particular reason to believe that the contract allows GS to tamper with the product. Even if SE was in breach, that doesn't entitle GS to tamper with the product- the remedy for breach is damages, not tampering with a consumer good.

First of all, you consider a third-party-tied added coupon as part of the product. That's your first mistake.
Secondly, if the contract wasn't in favor of GS then SE would've been paid silence money under the table, so to speak, to not blow this onto a big issue right now instead of issuing a public apology.
Third, the removal of the coupon did not damage the SE brand. The game - the product - was left intact and, assuming it's a good product, the brand would've been just fine.



Which is why I don't understand these long threads everytime they do something stupid. They suck, we all know that. I haven't shopped in one for years and see no reason I should even have to again. And that was after I worked for them for almost seven years.

If you want them to change, then don't give them your money. Bitching about them on QT3 isn't going to change anything as long as you keep going back.
Once again, I love you man. So refreshing having someone else around who can SEE.

[Slainte Mhath]

And that's exactly /my/ problem with you people.
They SHOULD have this authority. They DO have this authority.
It's THEIR LAND, THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. And, more than obviously, their contract with the Publisher dictates the power is in their hands.
If this was a small shop dealing with EA, maybe the Publisher has the final say. But not in this case.
Publisher can intend all they want for you to have it...if they want you to have it this bad they should go and mail it to you.
The issue here isn't even Gamestop, it's the "I AM CUSTOMER! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT! GIMME EVERYTHING I DEMAND NOW! BUT I R STOOPHAD NUFF TO KEEP BUYING IN A PLACE THAT SUX YET EXPECT THEM TO CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES TO BETTER SERVE ME!" mentality that logically and personally piss me off.
It's like those nimrods who come to where I work, cry about the prices and then keep buying, week in week out...no brains no worries...only whinery...the big man is getting rich meanwhile, thank you come again next week!

So customers are idiots for expecting that what the publisher included in the retail box will actually still be in the retail box when they purchase it, especially since their friend who just purchased the same retail box at Best Buy received everything intact. The expectation that a consumer can buy an identical item at two major retailers and get exactly the same thing is somehow offensive to you, and anyone who expects that it will work that way is a moron. Man, you must be an absolute joy to deal with in customer service. Don't ever change.



Fuck Bargain priced used shit. Why buy there in the first place?
You just right now acknowledge them being a shifty and shoddy and shitty place. WHY BUY THERE?
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! YOU ARE WHAT KEEPS THEM IN BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SHITTY KIND OF BUSINESS THAT THEY DO!

GAH!!!!


And what would you, in your infinte wisdom, suggest that I do instead? Gamestop has driven every other used game retailer in my area out of business. My kids don't have $30 to drop on a new sealed copy of Call of Duty World At War from Best Buy when a perfectly good used copy is sitting at Gamestop for $15. Yes, the $15 every couple of months I spend on a bargain bin used 360 game is keeping GameStapo afloat and funding their research into ever more evil ways of screwing over the consumer. I am the problem.

[extarbags]

Guarantee you you would do better on eBay or Goozex.

[Misguided]

Aside from the consumer rights issue, I think this was not a smart move because the amount of publicity it has generated has been monumental. It has been making the rounds on mainstream news outlets. I think they have brought far more attention to OnLive and increased the service's legitimacy because they appear to be threatened by it. I don't think they thought this one all the way through.

[Dan_Theman]

Slainte -

That's when your kids can learn what's involved in supporting good businesses over bad. Teach them how Walmart has sucked mom and pop stores dry throughout the nation. Pass along the tales of tragedy where Gamestop gobbled up and shat out Babbages, Software Etc., Electronics Boutique, and others. Teach them that keeping an extra $15 dollars can still actually cost more in the long run, and then let them make the choice. If they keep the extra $15 in their wallets, then they're at least knowingly pocketing the consequences along with it.

[Slainte Mhath]

Guarantee you you would do better on eBay or Goozex.

That may be true, but with kids you're dealing with "I have $15 to spend RIGHT NOW" as well as the fact that they get a lot of giftcards for birthdays/Christmas/etc. from other folks who know Gamestop is an easy win for gift giving. I don't really want to deal with the hassle of selling/trading gift cards online just to avoid Gamestop.

[Slainte Mhath]

Slainte -

That's when your kids can learn what's involved in supporting good businesses over bad. Teach them how Walmart has sucked mom and pop stores dry throughout the nation. Pass along the tales of tragedy where Gamestop gobbled up and shat out Babbages, Software Etc., Electronics Boutique, and others. Teach them that keeping an extra $15 dollars can still actually cost more in the long run, and then let them make the choice. If they keep the extra $15 in their wallets, then they're at least knowingly pocketing the consequences along with it.

They are 8 and 12, that may sound like a noble idea, but anyone with kids knows that's not going to fly when your friend from school shows up at your birhtday party with a Gamestop giftcard.

[Dan_Theman]

Yeah, I'm a parent as well. I hear ya - the whole shopping conscience seemed to kick in with mine around 14, fwiw. Any earlier and I probably would have put him to sleep with that mild bit of preaching.

[extarbags]

Well you didn't mention gift cards before. Obviously just spending those at Gamestop is the only practical solution, but in every other case, there's probably a better alternative.

[Slainte Mhath]

Yeah, I'm a parent as well. I hear ya - the whole shopping conscience seemed to kick in with mine around 14, fwiw. Any earlier and I probably would have put him to sleep with that mild bit of preaching.


Well you didn't mention gift cards before. Obviously just spending those at Gamestop is the only practical solution, but in every other case, there's probably a better alternative.

I fully intend to try to introduce my son to the joys of saving hard earned money by shopping alternatives to Gamestop in another couple of years when he's old enough to care about the details behind why I'm not a fan of the store. He's already on his way to being Ebay savvy, having had me help him sell off a lot of his old PS2 stuff on there and using the cash to purchase his 360 last year (not from Gamestop).

I may not have to do the same with my daughter, as she looks to be ditching the DS in favor of casual gaming on the family PC and will likely have her own mobile gaming device (iPod Touch) within another couple of years. Alas, I have been unable to interest either of them in straight up PC RPG/Strategy, which is my personal chosen method of spare time destruction. I was hoping to raise a ready-made guild for myself in years to come, instead I got one addicted to FPS games and the other who would rather make friends with dragons than slay them. ;-)

[Foxstab]

So customers are idiots for expecting that what the publisher included in the retail box will actually still be in the retail box when they purchase it, especially since their friend who just purchased the same retail box at Best Buy received everything intact. The expectation that a consumer can buy an identical item at two major retailers and get exactly the same thing is somehow offensive to you, and anyone who expects that it will work that way is a moron. Man, you must be an absolute joy to deal with in customer service. Don't ever change.

1. Yes, customers are idiots. Usually. So is the retailer. Usually. Perfect match made in hell. Deserve each other; et cetera. The employees get to filter all the piss through their own mental fortitude - the unfortunate casualty.

2. The publisher can include his grandma in the box, it matters nill. Retailer advertise to sell certain product, certain contents. That's what you set out to go and buy. Did you get it? Good. Did you get a bonus? cool! Was something missing? Return the box and demand and threaten to sue or file a suit. Whichever, it's all good, man!

3. You bought something and got X, as expected. Your friend bought something and got X+Y, albeit surprisingly good? Go ask your shop why you didn't get Y. Don't like the answer? Return the product and stop buying there, start buying where your friend does. Or try to argue with management about getting you Y too...sometimes they relent.

4. As detailed in (3) above, this is how competitive corporate economics work. The expectation that customers who buy a certain product from different retailers and receive the exact same thing is indeed quite moronic and counter-intuitive to the above. The competition over business is done via price and added value or additional goods supplemented. Take these away and what you have is not a competition rather a cartel. And that's bad for the consumer. VERY bad.

5. I only work well with logical and reasonable circumstances. Whereever human over-emotionalism and depravities, I'm the least joy to handle you can find.



And what would you, in your infinte wisdom, suggest that I do instead? Gamestop has driven every other used game retailer in my area out of business. My kids don't have $30 to drop on a new sealed copy of Call of Duty World At War from Best Buy when a perfectly good used copy is sitting at Gamestop for $15. Yes, the $15 every couple of months I spend on a bargain bin used 360 game is keeping GameStapo afloat and funding their research into ever more evil ways of screwing over the consumer. I am the problem.
Don't play these games, find an alternative. Buy them a while later after their price dropped. Make online friends with your close 'neighbors' in the city who may wish to trade games. Try a digital distribution service. Pirate, if you're desperate that you'll stoop so.

Your $15, plus the other guy, and the other guy, and the other guy...



They are 8 and 12, that may sound like a noble idea, but anyone with kids knows that's not going to fly when your friend from school shows up at your birhtday party with a Gamestop giftcard.
So long the giftcard covers the game's fee I don't see wrong with using it. It's money that was already paid for to GS. Might as well put it to good use than go to waste. Ideally, ask them not to get giftcards from GS next time.

[Dawn Falcon]

Don't like the answer? Return the product

Software can't be returned. Oops for your argument!

[Nesrie]

3. You bought something and got X, as expected. Your friend bought something and got X+Y, albeit surprisingly good? Go ask your shop why you didn't get Y. Don't like the answer? Return the product and stop buying there, start buying where your friend does. Or try to argue with management about getting you Y too...sometimes they relent.


This step is not possible in a fair amount of the world. You cannot open software/video games and expect a refund which means you could only exchange for the same gutted version you got before.

Somehow you make it sound like you are somehow not involved in step 1 at all which is... interesting.

[Grifman]

Whoa, just got this nice email for the Evil Empire that is Gamestop:



Dear GameStop customer,

Earlier this week, GameStop removed a competitor's coupon from standard edition PC versions of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a recent release by Square Enix. We were not aware that the product box would contain this competitor's offer. We regret the events surrounding this title release and that our customers were put in the middle of this issue between GameStop and Square Enix, the publisher of this game. And for this, we are truly sorry.

For your inconvenience, we would like to offer you a free $50 GameStop gift card and a Buy 2 Get 1 Free pre-owned purchase. We want to earn back your trust and confidence in the GameStop experience. Please bring in this email and your store receipt or order confirmation from GameStop.com and present it to a Game Advisor.

Sincerely,
Paul Raines
CEO, GameStop

Funny thing, my coupon was still in the case - it has not yet been removed :)

Nice, will use this for SOTS2 :)

[Telefrog]

Oh, look. Who is apologizing now?

[Nesrie]

Whoa, just got this nice email for the Evil Empire that is Gamestop:



Funny thing, my coupon was still in the case - it has not yet been removed :)

Nice, will use this for SOTS2 :)

Wow, this should play out nicely for them, regardless of who is right or wrong on the legal front (again consumers don't care about that shit anyway).

[RepoMan]

Damn, that's a really good move on their part. Now I wish I'd bought the damn game there!

[Foxstab]

Somehow you make it sound like you are somehow not involved in step 1 at all which is... interesting.

I'm involved from both sides. Depends on the scenario.
I work for a despicable retailer chain that I despise to the core and get to encounter customers who make you question the idea that humans are indeed aware and intelligent creatures and not an organic machine; I have the pleasure of blowing these off until that day someone cause my firing...can't wait. So far the score is around 27-0.
Sometimes I got the fortune to have to turn to customer support for products or services or whatever that I've acquired elsewhere and then I try to be nice on approach...usually...sometimes I turn angry fierce...a few times a suit was filed...and some businesses I just crossed off on the spot and never used again.


Oh, look. Who is apologizing now?
That's not an apology. There's no acknowledgement of own fault or wrong-doing in there. Quite on the contrary, they're deflecting the blame and shifting, rolling it, over to Square Enix.
That's like saying "I'm sorry that you choose to interpret what I said as something offensive and got hurt from it." which is completely different from saying "sorry for saying that stuff and hurting you".
Or a more simplified version: "I'm sorry if you got hurt from what I said || I'm sorry that what I said hurt you" instead of "I'm sorry that I hurt you by saying this"

[Nesrie]

I'm involved from both sides. Depends on the scenario.
I work for a retailer that I despise to the core and get to encounter customers who make you question the idea that humans are indeed aware and intelligent creatures and not an organic machine; I have the pleasure of blowing these off until that day someone cause my firing...can't wait. So far the score is around 27-0.
Sometimes I got the fortune to have to turn to customer support for products or services or whatever that I've acquired elsewhere and then I try to be nice on approach...usually...sometimes I turn angry fierce...a few times a suit was filed...and some businesses I just crossed off on the spot and never used again.

Well I am sorry to hear that. It sounds like a very unhappy situation for all involved. Working in retail, you have to know the products we are talking about can't be returned. If they could be returned, I think a lot of these issues we're talking about, wouldn't be issues because you could just get your money back and part ways. THat is not the world we live in.

[Foxstab]

This particular retailer of mine takes almost everything back within two business weeks. Regardless of supplier return policy (usually there isn't one, as in no returns - broken shit gets destroyed and added to inventory depreciation).
Of course, if it's something that can be repackaged, taped or clipped back together or otherwise and re-sold...need I say more?

[Slainte Mhath]

Stuff...

Whoa. Ritalin man, check into it.


Whoa, just got this nice email for the Evil Empire that is Gamestop
Damn, that's a nice way of saying they're sorry for the inconvenience. That should smooth some ruffled feathers for sure. Hell, I'm tempted to run down to my local GS tonight and see if they maybe forgot to take the game off the shelf there just to get that deal, Gamestop hate is not strong enough to counter mega-deal pull...

[thehillissilent]

This whole thing comes down to Gamestop's upcoming console and pc streaming service. It was the reason that the bought Spawn Labs.

The big difference is that Gamestop's service and OnLive is that Gamestop will also stream console games. We would have to physically purchase the game in order to enable us to stream. That would help alleviate some fears for some gamers in case the streaming service goes bust (I would personally buy games and just register them without buying the console). Also, they are thinking about allowing people to register games purchased from other retailers to stream. Gamestop's streaming service will require a PowerUp rewards membership (I'm assuming a paid one).

Honestly, I like Gamestop's strategy the best because they still support local gaming and physical media (which of course being a huge money maker for them), but it also embraces cloud gaming. My biggest question for them is the cost of deploying tons of consoles with select games in them (and I guess eventualy servers). I know they are using tech developed by Spawn Labs (http://gizmodo.com/5519107/spawn-labs-hd+720-review-a-slingbox-for-xbox), which they acquired with Impulse.

I just wonder how feasible it is for them. I mean they have tons of consoles in a datacentre, but these console weren't meant to run 24/7 unless they have been modified to do so. I guess the advantage would be that consoles are a lot cheaper than servers so if one dies, you can easily replace one. Saved game and integration with Xbox Live and PSN will prove to be an issue.

They had revealed that they were streaming Little Big Planet 2 and Halo Reach at their Gamestop Investor's meeting and that they are going to be starting the beta service with Gamestop employees.

For reference: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GameStop-Streaming-Service-GameStop-OnLive-Spawn-Labs-Launch-Price,12506.html


Victor Godinez writing for the Dallas Morning News said that the games can be played via any internet-connected, large-screened device with a 720p resolution. The service connects the user’s device to an individual Xbox 360 or PS3 in Spawn Labs’ data center in Austin, Texas. Godinez says he also saw a real-time demo of Halo: Reach activated through a web browser on a PC.

To ensure streaming doesn’t cannibalize hard-copy sales, GameStop will initially only allow streaming access to games that Power Up Rewards customers have already purchased. DMN also reports that there will probably be a subscription fee in place for customers who wish to stream titles. In the future, it’s possible GameStop will allow users to register and stream titles they’ve purchased from other retailers and there’s also potential for a ‘try before you buy’ option for customers shopping online.


However, I still don't like what Gamestop did. They should have returned the shipment back instead of opening it.

[Grifman]

Whoa, just got this nice email for the Evil Empire that is Gamestop:



Funny thing, my coupon was still in the case - it has not yet been removed :)

Nice, will use this for SOTS2 :)

Hah, not only did they email me but the store manager just called me personally to apologize and make sure I come in to get my gift card! Whatever you may think of Gamestop, they're certainly on top of this.

[roguefrog]

Damn, I want that deal. What did you do?

[Telefrog]

That's not an apology. There's no acknowledgement of own fault or wrong-doing in there. Quite on the contrary, they're deflecting the blame and shifting, rolling it, over to Square Enix.
That's like saying "I'm sorry that you choose to interpret what I said as something offensive and got hurt from it." which is completely different from saying "sorry for saying that stuff and hurting you".
Or a more simplified version: "I'm sorry if you got hurt from what I said || I'm sorry that what I said hurt you" instead of "I'm sorry that I hurt you by saying this"

It's more of an apology than the one people were touting from Square. Gamestop's actually says "sorry" to customers and offers monetary compensation. Square's statement was that they support Gamestop in whatever they do, but ended with the snarky advice to continue shopping there if you don't want a coupon offer.

Honestly, I have no idea where people got the idea that Square apologized.

[thehillissilent]

It's more of an apology than the one people were touting from Square. Gamestop's actually says "sorry" to customers and offers monetary compensation. Square's statement was that they support Gamestop in whatever they do, but ended with the snarky advice to continue shopping there if you don't want a coupon offer.

Honestly, I have no idea where people got the idea that Square apologized.

Yeah, that's how I viewed it. Square carefully worded that statement. LOL! Still Gamestop shouldn't have opened the packages in the first place.

[Dan_Theman]

Squeenix didn't apologize. They admitted fault and acknowledged that Gamestop had the right to do what they did. And then they eloquently gave Gamestop the middle finger. Gamestop gave an "I'm sorry you feel that way" quasi-apology to customers and tried to buy back your love with little trinkets. You'll be happy and think that Gamestop will never do it again ... until they do, you threaten to leave, and they buy you back again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya ;)

Has anyone you've been mad at said "I'm sorry you feel that way" before? How did that strike you when it happened?

[Nesrie]

Squeenix didn't apologize. They admitted fault and acknowledged that Gamestop had the right to do what they did. And then they eloquently gave Gamestop the middle finger. Gamestop gave an "I'm sorry you feel that way" quasi-apology to customers and tried to buy back your love with little trinkets. You'll be happy and think that Gamestop will never do it again ... until they do, you threaten to leave, and they buy you back again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya ;)

Has anyone you've been mad at said "I'm sorry you feel that way" before? How did that strike you when it happened?

As human.

[Dan_Theman]

As human.
You're apparently a better person than me ;)

[Dave Weinstein]

Note that this means Gamestop is taking a loss on every copy they sold.

I'm comfortable in saying that Gamestop has determined that the decision to remove the coupons was a screwup.

[Telefrog]

As many of us pointed out, regardless of the legal and contractual right, it was a HUGE blunder for PR.

[sluggo]

I think GameStop's response to this was pretty solid, and might even end up as a plus for them in the end.

Obviously, anyone who feels they were cheated will be placated by the $50, which is probably more than GameStop had to offer. And the apology was what it needed to be: "we think we have a legitimate dispute with the publisher, but it was a mistake to involve the customer."

And then there's the question of how people get this email that allows them to pick up this $50 gift card. If this sends people scrambling to get on GameStop's mailing list to get their swag, they might consider the whole thing a net win.

Still, if you're buying your PC games at GameStop, something's gone horribly wrong. :)

[Sarkus]

I think GameStop's response to this was pretty solid, and might even end up as a plus for them in the end.

Obviously, anyone who feels they were cheated will be placated by the $50, which is probably more than GameStop had to offer. And the apology was what it needed to be: "we think we have a legitimate dispute with the publisher, but it was a mistake to involve the customer."

And then there's the question of how people get this email that allows them to pick up this $50 gift card. If this sends people scrambling to get on GameStop's mailing list to get their swag, they might consider the whole thing a net win.

Still, if you're buying your PC games at GameStop, something's gone horribly wrong. :)

From what I gather, they are only offering this to people who preordered the game with them. At least I assume thats how they are deciding to do it. Though I haven't bought anything from them for years I'm still on their emailing list because of a past GI sub and yet I haven't seen a thing. It's not a universal offer.

[Foxstab]

Squeenix didn't apologize. They admitted fault and acknowledged that Gamestop had the right to do what they did. And then they eloquently gave Gamestop the middle finger.
Alright.

First thing first. I've carefully re-read the Square-Enix announcement and indeed there was no apologizing there. They admitted no fault. Merely stated that GameStop was not made aware of the coupon inclusion. And that GameStop Shop is GameStop's business and they can do whatever they want in there - which is more of stating the obvious than anything, really.

This is an admittance of negligence to inform your business partner of the contents of the goods you're supplying them, at best. That's actually a good way to avoid a lawsuit.
"Hey, it was a misunderstanding, we'll fix this, we'll work it out, lets talk!" Any suit following such a statement is going to have the judge throw it immediately to rapid arbitration and get a summary judgement sentenced.
So, yes, SE have covered their precious hiney quite well.

Secondly, I'm sure that GameStop executives chuckled at that stingy remark and made a personal note to get back and even out with them later. Probably by withholding delivering their share of the owed publisher fees for as long as legally possible and any other number of ways to make their relationship painful for SE. Hit them where it hurts the most, as the saying goes.


Gamestop gave an "I'm sorry you feel that way" quasi-apology to customers and tried to buy back your love with little trinkets. You'll be happy and think that Gamestop will never do it again ... until they do, you threaten to leave, and they buy you back again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya ;)
Yes, they'll do it again.
Although, honestly, I'm quite surprised. This is probably the first time (that I've heard of) GameStop executives felt the situation is dire sufficiently to necessitates albeit of groveling in front of the customers and compensating them. Usually they'll just remain stubborn selfish stuckups and say "fuck everyone, we're the ones who set the rules for you to follow".



Has anyone you've been mad at said "I'm sorry you feel that way" before? How did that strike you when it happened?
Again, this is not an apology. And it stroke me as the person not at all being sorry. Rather wished I would be duped by his feigned care-gambit so as to defuse the situation and restore him to a position where he's not in a disadvantage.

IMHO Doctor Larry Sanger probably explained it best in a live-journal entry about that wikipedia editor big-shot that scammed the entire place up back then. So I'll quote him as my definition for what does constitute something as an apology and when it is not:


This is a non-apology. If anyone ever tells you, “I am sorry if you were hurt by my decisions,” it isn’t usually an apology: it is usually a declaration that he is saddened that you feel as you do. It’s often more condescending than apologetic. The point is that you can feel “sorry” about how someone feels without admitting that you have done anything wrong. Indeed, nothing Essjay has written evinces the slightest hint that he believes he did something wrong. He did not say: “I’m sorry I lied. I know that lying is wrong.” Not: “I’m sorry that I misled a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for The New Yorker in an hours-long interview. That was amazingly wrong.” Not: “I’m sorry that I used my lies to gain positions of authority among you; I realize that this shows moral bankruptcy. I know I’ve let you down. I’m leaving now.” Instead, in what is supposed to be an apology–a second try at an apology, mind you–he declares that he’s disappointed “if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I’m not sorry that I protected myself.” And he concludes:


I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you’ll probably find me there.

Essjay has not apologized: one cannot apologize without actually admitting wrongdoing, which he clearly has not done.

Sorry for the mini-wall of text. The last bottom line is the punch line. But I thought a broader context of what is a deceptive feigned apology was required.

[Dan_Theman]

Well put, Foxstab.