Gamestop giving customers a $50 gift card, other perks for Human Revolution flub [Joy

[DP ServBot]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2011/08/deusex3concept530giftcard.jpg (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/)
GameStop is offering a "$50 GameStop gift card and a Buy 2 Get 1 Free pre-owned purchase" offer to those who bought the PC version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution (http://www.joystiq.com/game/deus-ex-human-revolution) from the mega retailer. After what the company pulled over the past few days, including the coupons (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/24/gamestop-intentionally-removing-deus-ex-onlive-coupons-from-reta/) from PC boxes of Deus Ex: Human Revolution and eventually the entire game (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/24/gamestop-pulls-deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-versions-from-shelve/) itself, we hope it's not pulling our leg now, too.

GameStop associates also just received this email, so please practice a bit of augmented patience, as they catch up with the speed of the internet and await procedures from corporate. Anyone who ordered the PC version of Human Revolution through GameStop simply needs to bring in the email and their store receipt or order confirmation for their consolation prizes.Continue reading Gamestop giving customers a $50 gift card, other perks for Human Revolution flub (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/)

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif (http://www.joystiq.com)Gamestop giving customers a $50 gift card, other perks for Human Revolution flub (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/) originally appeared on Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com) on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds (http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/).




Permalink (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/) | Email this (http://www.joystiq.com/forward/20028001/) | Comments (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/#comments)

More... (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/gamestop-deus-ex-apology/)

[buzz_n64]

Ha! The news broke big and they're scrambling to rectify their blunder. Sorry, too late. Thought you would get away with it, and still hope that no one sues, but I sincerely hope someone does. They opened up new product, sold it as new, then stole product within the packaging, and then tried to sell their own service by trying to monopolize the market! No no no... You must pay for this Gamestop! You will pay!

[LaughingMAN.S9]

hahahaha!

[Dobie]

They needed to do something, it was a dick move. I liked this comic, summed things up well...

http://www.virtualshackles.com/243

[Robocop2]

They needed to do something, it was a dick move. I liked this comic, summed things up well...

http://www.virtualshackles.com/243

I think that has become my new favorite web comic

[RyanMurf]

Ha! The news broke big and they're scrambling to rectify their blunder. Sorry, too late. Thought you would get away with it, and still hope that no one sues, but I sincerely hope someone does. They opened up new product, sold it as new, then stole product within the packaging, and then tried to sell their own service by trying to monopolize the market! No no no... You must pay for this Gamestop! You will pay!

Gamestop will no get sued. They cannot get sued. The policy has been reviewed and approved of a long time ago about gutting games to advertise the game. As long as the game disc has not been used it is still considered new. There is always the option depending on who you get as a sales rep to give a "shopworn" discount of 10%. This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement. Once gamestop gets the product it is up to gamestop to decide how they wish to sell it. The only thing that "GAMESTOP" "ADVERTISED" about this game WAS the GAME and that is just what the customers received. As far as why gamestop is offering such a great come back deal is not to save themselves from getting sued......again.....they cannot get sued for this. They are making this offer because they truly do not want to loose any customers over such a stupid situation. Gamestop over the past 3 years has been ALL about customer service. They are just trying to keep you as a customer.

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

[MachineGex]

Aren't sealed games worth more than opened games? I would tend to think you can make the arguement that they are de-valueing the game by opening it and removing items. It now isn't complete by some peoples definition and is worth less than a sealed game.

Seriouly, a game isn't new if you open it. It definately is worth less in the long run.

[The 1 2 P]

If it's true thats a pretty good compromise considering the game itself goes for $50(Pc version).

[Nate Nanjo]

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

Eh, but Gamestop was still promoting a competitor against Impulse in Steam.

Thinking about it though, is that Gamestop still got a $50 purchase out of the game. With or without the OnLive code being in there. It was free, but I guess Gamestop thought that someone would buy a game twice just to play it on Impulse?

Oh, and I find both of them to be in the wrong.

Wow, this whole digital thing is going to become messy isn't it?

[Gameguy]

Getting a $50 gift card is a pretty good deal. I kind of expected them to just give a coupon for an extra $10 trade in credit or something crappy like that.

[skaar]

Gamestop will no get sued. They cannot get sued. The policy has been reviewed and approved of a long time ago about gutting games to advertise the game. As long as the game disc has not been used it is still considered new. There is always the option depending on who you get as a sales rep to give a "shopworn" discount of 10%. This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement. Once gamestop gets the product it is up to gamestop to decide how they wish to sell it. The only thing that "GAMESTOP" "ADVERTISED" about this game WAS the GAME and that is just what the customers received. As far as why gamestop is offering such a great come back deal is not to save themselves from getting sued......again.....they cannot get sued for this. They are making this offer because they truly do not want to loose any customers over such a stupid situation. Gamestop over the past 3 years has been ALL about customer service. They are just trying to keep you as a customer.

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

This is tremendously misinformed and makes gross assumptions.

[heybtbm]

Gamestop will no get sued. They cannot get sued. The policy has been reviewed and approved of a long time ago about gutting games to advertise the game. As long as the game disc has not been used it is still considered new. There is always the option depending on who you get as a sales rep to give a "shopworn" discount of 10%. This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement. Once gamestop gets the product it is up to gamestop to decide how they wish to sell it. The only thing that "GAMESTOP" "ADVERTISED" about this game WAS the GAME and that is just what the customers received. As far as why gamestop is offering such a great come back deal is not to save themselves from getting sued......again.....they cannot get sued for this. They are making this offer because they truly do not want to loose any customers over such a stupid situation. Gamestop over the past 3 years has been ALL about customer service. They are just trying to keep you as a customer.

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7785/facepalmtj.jpg

[Berserker]

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

The main issue isn't GameStop and Square's dealings with each other, but rather GameStop's dealings with the customer. I think there's also a secondary issue, which is GameStop's attempt to use its clout to blatantly crush a much smaller less-established competitor, OnLive.

What this guy is talking about is the last issue, which IMO matters the least, is the hardest to determine by outside speculation, and regardless of that I still think he's wrong. But GameStop and Square are both giants with dedicated and capable legal teams, which is a luxury I'm guessing that individual players and a startup still trying to get its foot in the door don't have.

It's nice that GameStop did something to try and make amends with the players, but unfortunately it wasn't the right thing, which would be to simply give people what they'd have had they bought a new copy of this game anywhere else, or the money to purchase it.

[Leo_A]

It's nice that GameStop did something to try and make amends with the players, but unfortunately it wasn't the right thing, which would be to simply give people what they'd have had they bought a new copy of this game anywhere else, or the money to purchase it.

It's going to be the "right thing" for most of their buyers.

The vast majority probably weren't even going to notice the OnLive code, let alone actually enter it in and use it. And now they get $50 to buy another game for something they probably weren't even aware of until it started to make the rounds online.

All for something the vast majority of them didn't care about in the first place (The uproar over this was because of what they did and the precedent GameStop was setting, not because there were legions of buyers of this game from GameStop that were upset that OnLive code wasn't in the box when they went to redeem it).

It's going to appear to be a pretty good deal to most of the affected customers, I suspect.

[duffmanth]

Between their over priced used games, the disgusting condition of their used and "new" display copies of games, their shitty trade in credits, and now this fuck up, Gamestop always makes me glad I never shop there.

[FxMercenary]

I knew this would happen, I bought 20 copies for PC at gamestop because I saw something like this happening.

I now have $1,000.00 in gamestop gift cards.

I cannot use them however, because they no longer carry Super Nintendo games.

I am disappoint.

[sisko]

So in the end, you will get your $50 Game Stop gift card (which doesn't cost them $50, by the way). You shop there, and they get more business.

No OnLive coupon is reissued....so they still stole a customer from them....

This is fair how?

I would imagine there will still be some legal fallout between Square, OnLive, and Game Stop, and rightfully so.

[goatdan]

Gamestop will no get sued. They cannot get sued. The policy has been reviewed and approved of a long time ago about gutting games to advertise the game. As long as the game disc has not been used it is still considered new.

This has nothing to do with the argument of if it is fair for them to remove part of the product and discard it without the customer's knowledge though.


There is always the option depending on who you get as a sales rep to give a "shopworn" discount of 10%. This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement. Once gamestop gets the product it is up to gamestop to decide how they wish to sell it. The only thing that "GAMESTOP" "ADVERTISED" about this game WAS the GAME and that is just what the customers received.

By your argument, if Gamestop advertises Uncharted 3, and when you get there you get an unlabeled disc in a paper sleeve that someone wrote Uncharted 3 on with a sharpie, as long as the game works and has not been played, it is fine for them to do that because they didn't advertise the packaging?

Your defense of Gamestop here is so easily picked apart. If you go to buy a car, can they remove the gas cap if it isn't specifically advertised that the car will contain one to sell you a different type of gas cap? What about the steering wheel?

I don't know in what world people think that it is cool for someone to open up a product -- any product -- rifle through it and remove anything that they aren't advertising on it.


As far as why gamestop is offering such a great come back deal is not to save themselves from getting sued......again.....they cannot get sued for this. They are making this offer because they truly do not want to loose any customers over such a stupid situation.

So, in your opinion poor Gamestop is getting screwed because they got bad press over a wholly and easily defensible and understandable position? Then why do so many people see the issue with what they did? Couldn't Gamestop just explain to them that the box didn't say it would have the coupon, so they can take out whatever the box doesn't say that it contains?

Hell, why even sell the box? Then you can remove whatever you please!

By the way, I don't think that Gamestop will loose any customers over this. Losing customers is another story though.


Gamestop over the past 3 years has been ALL about customer service. They are just trying to keep you as a customer.

I'm glad that you've been so customer-service orientated then, but I haven't seen it with the employees around here.


I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

As has been said a million times already, the easy correct answer was that if GameStop had an issue with this, they could simply have pulled the games and demanded new copies without the codes. Why doesn't GameStop also sue Valve otherwise for promoting Steam? You can stretch that much further, why doesn't GameStop sue Nintendo because you have the Nintendo points in some games like GameStop now does with their rewards system? They could sue Microsoft for having a web site for the Xbox 360. They could sue any game that has a magazine testimonial on it that doesn't come from Game Informer.

You can stretch that really far, and the fact is that if GameStop had an issue with it, they should have pulled the game. As a company, they have the right to NOT sell a product, but it isn't like they sit down with each individual company and say, "Okay now, you want to sell Final Fantasy at our stores? Hmmmm... well, that's going to cost you!" They work out deals with distributors of the content to carry it. If they want a special version -- say, a "Gamestop Exclusive" version, or -- god forbid -- a version missing a coupon, it is up to them to ask for it without that.


You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

I apologize that I just spent the time trying to explain what the actual law is like then, seeing as how you are so much more knowledgeable on the law than anyone here could be.

[GameNinja]

I knew this would happen, I bought 20 copies for PC at gamestop because I saw something like this happening.

I now have $1,000.00 in gamestop gift cards.

I cannot use them however, because they no longer carry Super Nintendo games.

I am disappoint.

Please oh please tell me this is true!

[Leo_A]

So in the end, you will get your $50 Game Stop gift card (which doesn't cost them $50, by the way). You shop there, and they get more business.

No OnLive coupon is reissued....so they still stole a customer from them....

This is fair how?

The consumer gets $50 worth of merchandise for free.

How is this unfair?

[sisko]

The consumer gets $50 worth of merchandise for free.

How is this unfair?

The consumer didn't get shafted [in the end].
Additionally a $50 giftcard does not equal $50 in merchandise...not from GameStop's perspective. At most, they lose what they purchased the game for, which is considerably less than $50 (especially if it was used). Additionally, the average person who goes in the store will likely spend MORE than $50. GameStop is using this compensation to further boost their bottom line.
I've worked retail managment long enough to know how the machine works....there is some sleezy business going on here.

OnLive/SquareEnix did, and OnLive/Square isn't being compensated.

I would wager a fairly significant chunk of money and negotiations went on between OnLive and Square to put those coupons in the game. Then an unaffiliated and unauthorized third party went in and removed those coupons? I'd be pretty upset if I were them.

[Leo_A]

The consumer didn't get shafted [in the end].
Additionally a $50 giftcard does not equal $50 in merchandise...not from GameStop's perspective.

Why does that matter?

GameStop wasn't out to punish itself. They were out to appease their customers that are affected by this.

[Cryomancer]

All the things they are giving you in exchange for fucking you over here are things that only work in their store. They opened people's games, took their shit, and to make up for it are saying "buy some used games from us because that makes us even more money". the 50 dollars? a new game is 60. a used one there is like, 54. And you can't use it anywhere else. That's still shady as fuck.

[Leo_A]

All the things they are giving you in exchange for fucking you over here are things that only work in their store. They opened people's games, took their shit, and to make up for it are saying "buy some used games from us because that makes us even more money". the 50 dollars? a new game is 60. a used one there is like, 54. And you can't use it anywhere else. That's still shady as fuck.

For the consumers that weren't as overly dramatic, I imagine most of the affected ones were smiling when they read the news, no matter how you want to spin it.

And at the end of the day, all GameStop cared about was appeasing them. I bet the vast majority felt like this was a more than fair deal.

[calthaer]

Between their over priced used games, the disgusting condition of their used and "new" display copies of games, their shitty trade in credits, and now this fuck up, Gamestop always makes me glad I never shop there.

Agreed. This changes nothing; I still won't shop there.

[sisko]

Why does that matter?

GameStop wasn't out to punish itself. They were out to appease their customers that are affected by this.

I don't think that you are getting my point. There were two relationships that were damaged.

This isn't about the relationship between GameStop and the Consumer (, yes I acknowledge that this was handled, although GameStop is coming out ahead on the whole deal). This is bigger than that.

This is about the partnership between Square, Onlive, and [potential] Onlive customers. GameStop sabatoged this partnership and had no legal grounds to do so, and GameStop did nothing to repair this partnership.

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.

[Hep038]

I am always amazed how many lawyers are members of digital press. We are lucky to have so many people giving out free legal advice.

[Sabz5150]

This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement.

But selling me a previously opened game as unopened however, is.

[smoreyjinza]

I'm sure if nobody found out about this then they wouldn't be offering anything. They made a dumb move and nothing can correct it at this point. I won't be shopping there.
__________________
I think kre-o (http://www.squidoo.com/Kre-o-Transformers-3-Toys) are going to be a big hit.

[Leo_A]

I don't think that you are getting my point. There were two relationships that were damaged.

This isn't about the relationship between GameStop and the Consumer (, yes I acknowledge that this was handled, although GameStop is coming out ahead on the whole deal). This is bigger than that.

This is about the partnership between Square, Onlive, and [potential] Onlive customers. GameStop sabatoged this partnership and had no legal grounds to do so, and GameStop did nothing to repair this partnership.

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.

Who says they had no legal grounds to do so?

I'll believe what they did was illegal when I see the class action lawsuit or Square and/or OnLive going after GameStop over this.

[kai123]

Here is a little story about a local Gamestop. I am in the military and we have a Gamestop in our Base Exchange. I was walking through one day and noticed a sign in the middle of the BX that said "Military members get 10% off used games!" I had never seen the sign before and went inside to ask about it. I was promptly told that they were forced to put it up by corporate and it doesn't stack with the power up card. They said they didn't want the sign up because it hurt their numbers for Power up cards. So instead of me getting a card I could have just used this the whole time.... I love how it was never mentioned to me or any of my buddies the whole time we have been going there. Sorry needed to rant about that for a minute.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Gamestop... What the hell is that? LOL

*switch tabs to finish adding to cart on Amazon*

[JSoup]

I am always amazed how many lawyers are members of digital press. We are lucky to have so many people giving out free legal advice.

Don't you know? Every other person on the internet has a law degree from the Armchair University of Law with special certifications in Google Research.

[OldSchoolGamer]

That is cool and all but just a suggestion to Game Stop from me to avoid things like this in future:


STOP DOING STUPID SHIT! @_@

[skaar]

If anything, OnLive will be the one filing a complaint with the government over this one.

This could get ugly.

5 years, Gamestop will be gone anyway.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Or they'll take a play from the mega-corp playbook and buy Onlive mid-process.

[kupomogli]

I am always amazed how many lawyers are members of digital press. We are lucky to have so many people giving out free legal advice.

I actually am a lawyer.... when I play the Phoenix Wright games.

[Porksta]

i actually am a lawyer.... When i play the phoenix wright games.

objection!

Edit: Wow, I wrote that in all caps and the forum edited it to all lowercase. Weird.
Oh, and I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[skaar]

Or they'll take a play from the mega-corp playbook and buy Onlive mid-process.

Gamestop doesn't have the cash to do it. They're bleeding too heavily.

[Icarus Moonsight]

They do have assets. Or at least, they do now. LOL

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I am always amazed how many lawyers are members of digital press...

We have at least one employed/practicing lawyer on our podcast.

DP legal team represent!

[skaar]

Who says they had no legal grounds to do so?

I'll believe what they did was illegal when I see the class action lawsuit or Square and/or OnLive going after GameStop over this.

Fundamental lack of legal understanding from the fundamentalist.

Sisko: I really didn't want to bother getting into it, but props for trying to get through.

[pseudonym]

I am always amazed how many lawyers are members of digital press. We are lucky to have so many people giving out free legal advice.

Well said. ROFL

[kafa111]

does this mean the sealed value will go way up in price?

[calthaer]

Fundamental lack of legal understanding from the fundamentalist.

Wow...resorting to personal attacks. I'm not agreeing with him or his point, but this right here makes me say:

In before lock.

[Edmond Dantes]

Can somebody fill me in on what exactly happened here? I've never heard of this issue before and it's all very confusing for me.

[skaar]

Wow...resorting to personal attacks. I'm not agreeing with him or his point, but this right here makes me say:

In before lock.

I've been waiting for it for awhile :)

Wasn't meant as an attack per se, more a bad joke ;)

Apologies to Leo if offense taken.

[Leo_A]

This is about the partnership between Square, Onlive, and [potential] Onlive customers. GameStop sabatoged this partnership and had no legal grounds to do so, and GameStop did nothing to repair this partnership.
Who says they had no legal grounds to do so?

I'll believe what they did was illegal when I see the class action lawsuit or Square and/or OnLive going after GameStop over this.
Fundamental lack of legal understanding from the fundamentalist.

Sisko: I really didn't want to bother getting into it, but props for trying to get through.

Even though you didn't mean anything by it, enlighten me on what law or laws were broken by GameStop when they exercised poor judgement here and started this pointless mess that never had a chance of doing anything but hurting their reputation.

I'm a business major, have my MBA, and have an undergraduate minor in law with 4 law classes taken. So I have a basic understanding of the American legal system, especially where it relates to corporations or HR practices. And it sure isn't clear to me like it must be to you that we have a viable lawsuit here, although I'm no lawyer.

A lawsuit needs more grounds than a great dislike for a corporation and having one of their poor decisions leave a sour taste in your mouth.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. All that is required is the right people get sufficiently red-assed and the sharks smell blood in the water.

[skaar]

Even though you didn't mean anything by it, enlighten me on what law or laws were broken by GameStop when they exercised poor judgement here and started this pointless mess that never had a chance of doing anything but hurting their reputation.

I'm a business major, have my MBA, and have an undergraduate minor in law with 4 law classes taken. So I have a basic understanding of the American legal system, especially where it relates to corporations or HR practices. And it sure isn't clear to me like it must be to you that we have a viable lawsuit here, although I'm no lawyer.

A lawsuit needs more grounds than a great dislike for a corporation and having one of their poor decisions leave a sour taste in your mouth.

A few things, were I so inclined to push to make a legal issue. I am very familiar with the distribution process at many levels, as this is where I make my living. As such, I'm REALLY not going to get too deep into this.... but here's the top level thoughts I'd have as grounds for a suit or two if they were feeling lawyerific.

1) Selling damaged goods as new. Tampering with goods and failing to advise the customers that they had done so. Had the media not jumped down their necks, customers might never have known about the voucher in the box. I haven't seen the packaging so I can't tell you if it's indicated anywhere on it, but regardless... still an issue. This is a little more than opening a box and gutting it - this is actually removing contents deemed part of the value of the final product. REGARDLESS of the "well it was for a free game anyway" aspect - someone was getting paid to have those in the boxes, and they got screwed.

2) Anticompetitive behaviour - Gamestop abused their position as a dominant distributor of product to remove real goods from packages that promoted a competitor's product. This would be an anti-trust complaint from Onlive if they chose.

Gamestop would have been within their right to refuse to sell the goods if they didn't agree with what they were selling for whatever reason. I'm sure there's something in their pre-order agreement allowing them to do so. It was the fact that they removed part of it and sold it ANYWAY WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE that I have moral objection to.

I'm not saying this would bankrupt anyone or cause massive issues, as the cost of the legal proceedings would nullify any benefit in doing so - I'm just saying... there's grounds if they wanted.

And again, I'm not lawyer. This is all my opinion. But if I was a party involved - I'd be talking to my lawyers pronto.

Besides, US Law is so fucked up they'd just sue 'em in Texas and win anyway. :D

[exit]

Can somebody fill me in on what exactly happened here? I've never heard of this issue before and it's all very confusing for me.

In a nutshell.

Gamestop took On-Live coupon out of the PC version of Dues Ex, people instantly get pissed and run for their pitchforks and torches. Gamestop offers a $50 giftcard to those who actually bought the game there, everyone else stays pissed because it's Gamestop.

[skaar]

In a nutshell.

Gamestop took On-Live coupon out of the PC version of Dues Ex, people instantly get pissed and run for their pitchforks and torches. Gamestop offers a $50 giftcard to those who actually bought the game there, everyone else stays pissed because it's Gamestop.

None of my annoyance with this stems from it being Gamestop.

The willingness people have to ignore and tolerate a company doing something like this TO them annoys me far more.

[old man]

I suspect GS will follow in the footsteps of Blockbuster Video eventually. Especially if digital distribution takes off.

[kupomogli]

Like everyone else, or most everyone else, I don't know anything about what can and can't be done, however I do think that Gamestop is in the wrong.

While I'm not interested in Onlive, I'd only assume that they paid Square Enix quite a bit to offer the Onlive voucher along with the release of the game physical copy of the game. So basically, like has already been mentioned, advertising. You open up most video games and sometimes they'll have advertising for other games, while Onlive is advertising their service.

Again, assuming that Onlive has paid quite a bit of money for this as advertising, any and all Gamestop sales for Deus Ex did nothing for Onlive and who knows how much potential business they lost because of it, meaning that the advertising that they've already paid may as well have been thrown right out the window. In that same move, Gamestop keeps business from most customers that bought from them who know nothing of the Onlive voucher they should have received at no extra charge. Not only that, but those same people who don't know about the voucher, if they don't find out about it, then they also lose out on the $50 gift card.

So while it may or may not be illegal what Gamestop did, it's pretty fucked up all the same.

[Leo_A]

I'm pretty sure a retailer can divide up a product, if they so wish. That's why manufacturers often put a "Do Not Resale" marking on their product to serve as a warning to retailers that if they decide to split up something like a console bundle (You'll often see that marking on a bundled game), they risk their ability to continue distributing that manufacturer's products. Retailers would never consider such a thing if it was in violation of law. Yet it's been common enough over the years that the warning has become almost ubiquitous, so it doesn't strike as likely to be illegal.

I'm not aware of there being a law that says they can't do that. And even if there was, I'm sure the issue would be a complex one that included many factors like if this OnLive code was advertised on the packaging, which I believe it wasn't. Unless there was something like an agreement between GameStop and the game publisher that they were violating (Some sort of tying agreement where GameStop had contractually agreed to sell both the physical release of this game and the OnLive digital copy as a single package, but didn't in the end), I can't really think of a law that they'd of violated.

And antitrust legislation is extensive and very complicated. There is plenty of room for a corporation to manuever in without running afoul of antitrust or consumer protection laws. Not desiring to promote a competitor through a product you're carrying doesn't immediately strike me as being illegal unless they were violating a contractual agreement that bound them to maintain that OnLive code as part of the package.

Anyways, I was never out to prove what they did was legal or illegal. All I posted was that I'd believe they did something that might be considered illegal when there is at least a shred of evidence to suggest it beyond several armchair lawyers sounding off like it was a fact that they broke a law. I figured I'd remind people that the vast majority of us, at least, don't have the knowledge base to decide the legality of this and that any conclusions they're seeing about the legality of this are probably groundless.

But I guess from the response I recieved that some of you are quite sure of yourselves, despite no legal background that you've admitted to, that they did something illegal here without anything like a specific statute or case history to even back your conclusion up. I'll withhold my judgement since I don't think I'm in a position to conclude the legality of this move one way or another.

Like I said, I'll believe it when the lawsuits start rolling in. Not sure why that was so objectionable to say.

[goatdan]

I'm pretty sure a retailer can divide up a product, if they so wish. That's why manufacturers often put a "Do Not Resale" marking on their product to serve as a warning to retailers that if they decide to split up something like a console bundle (You'll often see that marking on a bundled game), they risk their ability to continue distributing that manufacturer's products. Retailers would never consider such a thing if it was in violation of law. Yet it's been common enough over the years that the warning has become almost ubiquitous, so it doesn't strike as likely to be illegal.

What retailers do you know that are doing this? *Used* product is a different beast all together, but for new product I can't say I've ever walked into a Target and seen them stripping out copies of Wii Sports to sell separately than Wii consoles. What you get into with the Not for Resale games (and this is games specifically, food -- like little candy bars -- have different rules) is that the packaging or promotion reflects what the consumer should expect to receive. If you buy a Wii from Target that says, "includes Wii Sports", you have every right to expect Wii Sports from it.


I'm not aware of there being a law that says they can't do that. And even if there was, I'm sure the issue would be a complex one that included many factors like if this OnLive code was advertised on the packaging, which I believe it wasn't. Unless there was something like an agreement between GameStop and the game publisher that they were violating (Some sort of tying agreement where GameStop had contractually agreed to sell both the physical release of this game and the OnLive digital copy as a single package, but didn't in the end), I can't really think of a law that they'd of violated.

Okay, there is actually two different laws you can look at...

The first is the FTC Act, found here: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/FTC_Act_IncorporatingUS_SAFE_WEB_Act.pdf

You can read through that if you want, but the important part is that it basically says that companies shall not engage in unfair or deceptive business practices. While this exact situation hasn't been tested before that I know of, opening a product and removing a part of that product that has value (as these do, check eBay closed auctions) from a product is something that I think the courts could pretty easily rule against the policy of stripping the coupon out. Even if it was not advertised, the simple fact that some people got the coupon while others did not makes it shady at best, and deceptive at worst.

If your buddy buys the game and he gets the coupon and can sell it, recouping say $20 of his cost, but then you buy the game from the same store a few hours later after Gamestop tells employees to remove the coupon, do you not have a valid complaint? You were not compensated with anything for the removal, nor told of it. If that was part of you wanting the game, I would say that would count as deception.

The other law that you can look at removes the consumer from the equation, but is tortious interference. This brief overview of this law (which you can read about on Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) is that it occurs when one party purposely harms another company's contractual or business relationships. Now, you might argue that Gamestop was going to be damaged by the actions of Square / Onlive by giving out these coupons, but *it was still Gamestop's choice to sell the games or to stop selling them and request a couponless version of the game*. Instead, they said to pull the coupons.

If GameStop had asked for a couponless game, it would be up to Square and Onlive to decide how that impacted their relationship and if they would be willing to do it. Perhaps the Onlive contract is important enough that the answer would have been no. Then GameStop could have decided to stop selling the game, or to stock it as-is. Or, perhaps they would decide that GameStop sales were more important -- and then again, it's up to Square and Onlive to debate that back and forth and come to an agreement.

But, it's rather clear that by GameStop deciding that this was the action they would be taking without any regard to other contractual or business arrangements that had been made, that they would be found guilty in this. Add to this that GameStop already sold many copies of Portal 2 for the PS3 which had the free Steam version inside it, and Square / Onlive could pretty easily argue that they were targeted unfairly by GameStop.

This is really pretty clear in the law.


And antitrust legislation is extensive and very complicated. There is plenty of room for a corporation to manuever in without running afoul of antitrust or consumer protection laws. Not desiring to promote a competitor through a product you're carrying doesn't immediately strike me as being illegal unless they were violating a contractual agreement that bound them to maintain that OnLive code as part of the package.

I told you before, and I'm a guy who has many times purchased things from wholesale companies and sold them (part of the reason I know a bunch about this stuff) that you don't make individual agreements with each person you sell items for. It isn't like Home Depot goes out and writes up a contract for every company that makes a screw that they sell.

What you get is simply an order form -- just like, say, Amazon, but usually not as well put together -- that you can pick what you want from. Let's say GameStop gets 10,000 copies of this game. That's it.

Companies may withhold product from a retailer which they have some sort of issue with (as Nintendo, for instance, was well known for threatening during the NES heyday) but that's pretty rare. Beyond that, because the company making the product is usually also the one promoting it and advertising it, the retailer wants to work with them and keep them happy. Also, price drops and whatnot that are manufacturer directed ("lowered MSRP") are usually accompanied with a refund for the product still on hand to not screw the stores.


Anyways, I was never out to prove what they did was legal or illegal. All I posted was that I'd believe they did something that might be considered illegal when there is at least a shred of evidence to suggest it beyond several armchair lawyers sounding off like it was a fact that they broke a law. I figured I'd remind people that the vast majority of us, at least, don't have the knowledge base to decide the legality of this and that any conclusions they're seeing about the legality of this are probably groundless.

I hope that the above puts me slightly above the armchair lawyer category that you accuse me of. Thanks to the GOAT Store, I actually have had to research exactly what we can and cannot do legally, and GameStop at the very least stepped into a VERY HIGHLY questionable area of the law.


But I guess from the response I recieved that some of you are quite sure of yourselves, despite no legal background that you've admitted to, that they did something illegal here without anything like a specific statute or case history to even back your conclusion up. I'll withhold my judgement since I don't think I'm in a position to conclude the legality of this move one way or another.

I'm at a keyboard. I could be the king of all lawyers or a shmuck just making things up. Read the arguments and decide from that, but don't complain that people online didn't back up their words by explaining their backgrounds. It's the internet.


Like I said, I'll believe it when the lawsuits start rolling in. Not sure why that was so objectionable to say.

I don't think that anyone replied to you in an overly objectionable way. I do think that you were a little confrontational with the last couple posts, both by rattling off your schooling (which again, there is no way for you to prove that and even if you did take those classes, corporate law like this usually isn't a hot topic in beginning law -- it's more specialized) and by your stating that no one had cited specific statutes or case histories without providing anything yourself.

I took the bait and replied here with what hopefully someone at least finds interesting (because otherwise, I just typed way the HECK too much for no reason!), and I hope that you or someone out there find it at the least interesting

[Cryomancer]

I'm not sure why people are still arguing about if this is legal or not really. Even if it was totally legal, it's still a complete dick move and just because it's legal shouldn't make it OK and something to just instantly forgive and ignore.

[skaar]

goatdan, just wanted to let you know that I read your entire post and I thank you for taking the time to type it ;)

[maxlords]

Bah....they're not doing this in Canada :( Only in the States....go figure.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

what retailers do you know that are doing this? *used* product is a different beast all together, but for new product i can't say i've ever walked into a target and seen them stripping out copies of wii sports to sell separately than wii consoles. What you get into with the not for resale games (and this is games specifically, food -- like little candy bars -- have different rules) is that the packaging or promotion reflects what the consumer should expect to receive. If you buy a wii from target that says, "includes wii sports", you have every right to expect wii sports from it.



Okay, there is actually two different laws you can look at...

The first is the ftc act, found here: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/ftc_act_incorporatingus_safe_web_act.pdf

you can read through that if you want, but the important part is that it basically says that companies shall not engage in unfair or deceptive business practices. While this exact situation hasn't been tested before that i know of, opening a product and removing a part of that product that has value (as these do, check ebay closed auctions) from a product is something that i think the courts could pretty easily rule against the policy of stripping the coupon out. Even if it was not advertised, the simple fact that some people got the coupon while others did not makes it shady at best, and deceptive at worst.

If your buddy buys the game and he gets the coupon and can sell it, recouping say $20 of his cost, but then you buy the game from the same store a few hours later after gamestop tells employees to remove the coupon, do you not have a valid complaint? You were not compensated with anything for the removal, nor told of it. If that was part of you wanting the game, i would say that would count as deception.

The other law that you can look at removes the consumer from the equation, but is tortious interference. This brief overview of this law (which you can read about on wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tortious_interference ) is that it occurs when one party purposely harms another company's contractual or business relationships. Now, you might argue that gamestop was going to be damaged by the actions of square / onlive by giving out these coupons, but *it was still gamestop's choice to sell the games or to stop selling them and request a couponless version of the game*. Instead, they said to pull the coupons.

If gamestop had asked for a couponless game, it would be up to square and onlive to decide how that impacted their relationship and if they would be willing to do it. Perhaps the onlive contract is important enough that the answer would have been no. Then gamestop could have decided to stop selling the game, or to stock it as-is. Or, perhaps they would decide that gamestop sales were more important -- and then again, it's up to square and onlive to debate that back and forth and come to an agreement.

But, it's rather clear that by gamestop deciding that this was the action they would be taking without any regard to other contractual or business arrangements that had been made, that they would be found guilty in this. Add to this that gamestop already sold many copies of portal 2 for the ps3 which had the free steam version inside it, and square / onlive could pretty easily argue that they were targeted unfairly by gamestop.

This is really pretty clear in the law.



I told you before, and i'm a guy who has many times purchased things from wholesale companies and sold them (part of the reason i know a bunch about this stuff) that you don't make individual agreements with each person you sell items for. It isn't like home depot goes out and writes up a contract for every company that makes a screw that they sell.

What you get is simply an order form -- just like, say, amazon, but usually not as well put together -- that you can pick what you want from. Let's say gamestop gets 10,000 copies of this game. That's it.

Companies may withhold product from a retailer which they have some sort of issue with (as nintendo, for instance, was well known for threatening during the nes heyday) but that's pretty rare. Beyond that, because the company making the product is usually also the one promoting it and advertising it, the retailer wants to work with them and keep them happy. Also, price drops and whatnot that are manufacturer directed ("lowered msrp") are usually accompanied with a refund for the product still on hand to not screw the stores.



I hope that the above puts me slightly above the armchair lawyer category that you accuse me of. Thanks to the goat store, i actually have had to research exactly what we can and cannot do legally, and gamestop at the very least stepped into a very highly questionable area of the law.



I'm at a keyboard. I could be the king of all lawyers or a shmuck just making things up. Read the arguments and decide from that, but don't complain that people online didn't back up their words by explaining their backgrounds. It's the internet.



I don't think that anyone replied to you in an overly objectionable way. I do think that you were a little confrontational with the last couple posts, both by rattling off your schooling (which again, there is no way for you to prove that and even if you did take those classes, corporate law like this usually isn't a hot topic in beginning law -- it's more specialized) and by your stating that no one had cited specific statutes or case histories without providing anything yourself.

I took the bait and replied here with what hopefully someone at least finds interesting (because otherwise, i just typed way the heck too much for no reason!), and i hope that you or someone out there find it at the least interesting

word son!

[Leo_A]

As I recall (And a quick glance at your link seem to show), the Federal Trade Commission Act primarily deals with instances of false advertising to protect the consumer from it and antitrust matters to prevent unfair competition that would be detrimental to the consumer. Unless GameStop advertised in something like their own circular that this product they were carrying included a code for the OnLive digital version of the title or it was shown as part of the contents on the box, I'm not sure I see the grounds for false advertising.

As for antitrust matters, if I remember right, this act is primarily concerned on how an anticompetitive act has affected the consumer. Just remembering what was taught in my Law 1 class, the most critical piece to show for grounds is to demonstrate that the consumer was deceived by this decision. Were consumers purchasing this with the expectation that this code was included? Did GameStop or the packaging say it was included? If so, then I suppose I see some possible grounds for deception on GameStop's part.

But it's my impression that the vast majority of consumers purchasing this were completely unaware it was supposed to be included and was missing until internet reports spread about it. I'm not sure you can prove deception when the vast majority buying it didn't realize it was even supposed to be included at the time of sale.


What retailers do you know that are doing this? *Used* product is a different beast all together, but for new product I can't say I've ever walked into a Target and seen them stripping out copies of Wii Sports to sell separately than Wii consoles.

I don't have your background running an online videogame retailer, but I assume some must have over the years, or they wouldn't have those markings if there wasn't a need for them (Seems like a logical leap to make, I think). And if it was illegal to split up a package, I think it's a fair leap to make that the markings would be unnecessary and superfluous. Those are all just assumptions on my part from someone that has never been a part of this business from a publishing or retail side of it, so I could easily be incorrect.

They also place them on things like preorder bonuses, which I know for a fact have been sold by retailers on occasion over the years when they were supposed to be reserved as freebies for those that preorder a specific title.


I don't think that anyone replied to you in an overly objectionable way.

I didn't say anyone did. I said I'm surprised anyone objected to stating that "I'll believe what they did was illegal when I see the class action lawsuit or Square and/or OnLive going after GameStop over this". That's what skaar was objecting to.

Playing it safe by stating that after lawsuits started to be discussed and we had a few people post about how certain they were that laws were broke, didn't strike me as out of line.


I do think that you were a little confrontational with the last couple posts, both by rattling off your schooling (which again, there is no way for you to prove that and even if you did take those classes, corporate law like this usually isn't a hot topic in beginning law -- it's more specialized)

I'd say just the last couple paragraphs of my last post were anything remotely confrontational.

I'm not sure exactly why I wrote it that way, though, so I apologize (I don't see anything in skaar's last reply to me that would've warranted me taking that tone, so I'm not sure why I did).

As for some background, considering I recieved this as a reply when I posted my skepticism about this being illegal, I don't think it was completely out of line to state that I do have some basic background in this area.


Fundamental lack of legal understanding from the fundamentalist.

Sisko: I really didn't want to bother getting into it, but props for trying to get through.


and by your stating that no one had cited specific statutes or case histories without providing anything yourself.

I was actually never out to prove anything, one way or another. I just don't think any of us are in a position to really be sure if there are legal grounds or aren't for a lawsuit to be taken up over this idiotic move by GameStop.

That's all I was out to communicate for the several people that posted as if they knew for certainty that it was a fact that they broke the law. Basically playing devil's advocate here since I don't really think any of us likely has the background to post anything about the legal status of this move as if it was a certainty.

Anyways, interesting reply and I'm glad you wrote it. But I think I'll stick with playing the waiting game here to see if anything comes from this.

Edit - Missed this the first time around and I'm heading out of the door just now.

"The other law that you can look at removes the consumer from the equation, but is tortious interference. This brief overview of this law (which you can read about on Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) is that it occurs when one party purposely harms another company's contractual or business relationships."

Without familarizing myself with it, but playing devil's advocate again, I'd question if GameStop was actually doing this to "purposely harm another company's contractual or business relationships", or was doing it solely to protect their own competitive position when it enters the digital streaming marketplace in the future.

I assume there's the usual gray area in the law there that could completely change how this is applicable depending on the reason why GameStop did this (To protect themselves, or to purposely damage OnLive's relationship with Square Enix to hurt the company as GameStop prepares to enter the competition). Unless you could prove this was done "purposely" to intentionally damage that relationship, I'd say there's still plenty of room for skepticism here to doubt that a law has been broken.

[mpat15]

Gamestop will no get sued. They cannot get sued. The policy has been reviewed and approved of a long time ago about gutting games to advertise the game. As long as the game disc has not been used it is still considered new. There is always the option depending on who you get as a sales rep to give a "shopworn" discount of 10%. This game never had any advertising for the coupon so it is not false advertisement. Once gamestop gets the product it is up to gamestop to decide how they wish to sell it. The only thing that "GAMESTOP" "ADVERTISED" about this game WAS the GAME and that is just what the customers received. As far as why gamestop is offering such a great come back deal is not to save themselves from getting sued......again.....they cannot get sued for this. They are making this offer because they truly do not want to loose any customers over such a stupid situation. Gamestop over the past 3 years has been ALL about customer service. They are just trying to keep you as a customer.

I found this post on another forum. Raised a great point-"They aren't going to get sued. If anything Gamestop might be able to sue Square.

You can't promote a competitor's business using their rival without the rival's knowledge. Contracts are subject to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. What Square did does not satisfy either of those.

Gamestop is completely within its rights to do what they are doing and Square is in the wrong.

You guys don't have enough knowledge of the law or unbiased logic to realize that Square is the one in the wrong and the ones to blame, not Gamestop."

Do a favor for all the law students on the board who will be looking for jobs this spring (cough, cough). Please do not act like you have knowledge of the law, when you yourself obviously have no knowledge of the law. One thing I hate is when people do that. I can tell you more then 30 reasons gamestop could lose a lawsuit to just about anyone who files under this circumstance. So much of what you said is histerically incorrect.

[goatdan]

Another long one...


As I recall (And a quick glance at your link seem to show), the Federal Trade Commission Act primarily deals with instances of false advertising to protect the consumer from it and antitrust matters to prevent unfair competition that would be detrimental to the consumer. Unless GameStop advertised in something like their own circular that they this product they were carrying included a code for the OnLive digital version of the title or it was shown as part of the contents on the box, I'm not sure I see the grounds for false advertising.

No, but I'm not claiming this was false advertising. Being deceptive is another thing altogether, and if *some* of the games went out with the code (that again, has a value that can be proven pretty easily), and then some did not, you could definitely say that was deceptive.

If you have people that are potentially basing part of their purchase of a product on the belief that the box will contain a certain amount of value, and then that value is altered by the retailer changing it without notifying people, it's kind of a reverse false advertising. To put this another way, if every Wii had the exact same box, but just happened to come with four controllers in the box, it would give consumers a certain expectation that four controllers will come in the box. If the product is suddenly changed and does not note the differences, consumers have a beef based on what the assumed product is / was.

As soon as GameStop let one game walk out with the coupon in it, that is the problem that the FTC Act would have with that business practice.


As for antitrust matters, if I remember right, this act is primarily concerned on how an anticompetitive act has affected the consumer. Just remembering what was taught in my Law 1 class, the most critical piece to show for grounds is was the consumer was deceived by this decision. Were consumers purchasing this with the expectation that this code was included? Did GameStop or the packaging say it was included? If so, then I suppose I see some possible grounds for deception on GameStop's part.

But it's my impression that the vast majority of consumers purchasing this were unaware it was even missing until internet reports spread about it. I'm not sure you can prove deception when the vast majority buying it didn't realize it was even supposed to be included at the time of sale.

Again, all you need to do is have one person who was buying it with that expectation who did not receive it, and it's a case. And, whether it is honest or not, if you found out after you purchased something that you were duped out of a part of it that was worth $20, would you not feel as if you had been deceived? And maybe be willing to say that the coupon code was in fact part of the reason you purchased the game?

Also, this has nothing to do with anti-trust.


I don't have your background running an online videogame retailer, but I assume some must have over the years, or they wouldn't have those markings if there wasn't a need for them (Seems like a logical leap to make, I think). And if it was illegal to split up a package, I think it's a fair leap to make that the markings would be unnecessary and superfluous. Those are all just assumptions on my part from someone that has never been a part of this business from a publishing or retail side of it, so I could easily be incorrect.

They also place them on things like preorder bonuses, which I know for a fact have been sold by retailers on occasion over the years when they were supposed to be reserved as freebies for those that preorder a specific title.

The argument for the markings may actually be more benign than that -- They showed up about the same time that stores started using UPC codes. I *believe* that the idea is that if you were buying, say, a Genesis and it included Sonic the Hedgehog, and for whatever reason the game was removed from the box it would not automatically ring up at the register. Same deal if it got separated and the store was doing inventory -- no UPC, no automatic tracking.

The store that I can think of that I've seen pre-order stuff being sold at is, surprise surprise, GameStop, which creates their own version of the UPC codes for used and other merchandise. Pre-order stuff is kind of a different animal, as if they send you 10 items but only 5 people pick up the pre-order, what do you do with the other 5? The store already purchased the games, but there is no longer an expectation by consumers to receive it. So, you have product which more or less doesn't have a proper distribution method.

For items like Wii Sports from a Wii bundle, it doesn't really happen because:

Nintendo is promoting the fact that a Wii bundle includes Wii Sports. If GameStop [or whomever] removes it, then it does become false advertising.

Because the Onlive code was not mentioned as far as I can find on the packaging or even online means that false advertising probably isn't at issue here.


I didn't say anyone did. I said I'm surprised anyone objected to stating that "I'll believe what they did was illegal when I see the class action lawsuit or Square and/or OnLive going after GameStop over this". That's what skaar was objecting to.

Playing it safe by stating that after lawsuits started to be discussed and we had a few people post about how certain they were that laws were broke, didn't strike me as out of line.

Oh, okay - that wasn't how I read that in your reply.


I'd say just the last couple paragraphs of my last post were anything remotely confrontational.

I'm not sure exactly why I wrote it that way, though, so I apologize (I don't see anything in skaar's last reply to me that would've warranted me taking that tone, so I'm not sure why I did).

As for some background, considering I recieved this as a reply when I posted my skepticism about this being illegal, I don't think it was completely out of line to state that I do have some basic background in this area.

Like I said -- at the end of the day, the background stuff is just nearly impossible to actually follow up on. "Back in the day", people used to write longer posts (like these ones ;) ) and really explain their positions. As the internet has grown, people's attention spans have generally shrunk and it leaves short little replies instead. I do agree that no one had stated concrete evidence before, but making posts like these take time! ;)


I was actually never out to prove anything, one way or another. I just don't think any of us are in a position to really be sure if there are legal grounds or aren't for a lawsuit to be taken up over this idiotic move by GameStop.

That's all I was out to communicate for the several people that posted as if they knew for certainty that it was a fact that they broke the law. Basically playing devil's advocate here since I don't really think any of us likely has the background to post anything about the legal status of this move as if it was a certainty.

Anyways, interesting reply and I'm glad you wrote it. But I think I'll stick with playing the waiting game here to see if anything comes from this.

Well, it's like I said in the last post -- the potential contention points that anyone could have against GameStop are pretty darn solid based on those two laws. That doesn't mean that it's a definite -- if I were to go up against GameStop, I'm sure that I would lose -- but a good lawyer has a pretty solid case on their hands. And, that is a HUGE reason that they are trying to appease the customer.

Any potential Onlive or Square versus GameStop lawsuit really couldn't be retracted at this point, however if GameStop can point to consumers that their offer for the gift card and coupon was more than fair (as the value is equal to or higher than what the consumer lost by them removing the coupon) so it would be much more difficult for that argument to be lost. And, the thing about an Onlive / Square thing relies at least somewhat on if Square is willing to damage their relationship with GameStop over this potential deal.

Essentially, by doing what they did, there is a big chance that we'll never see this proven one way or another.


Edit - Missed this the first time around and I'm heading out of the door just now.

"The other law that you can look at removes the consumer from the equation, but is tortious interference. This brief overview of this law (which you can read about on Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) is that it occurs when one party purposely harms another company's contractual or business relationships."

Without familarizing myself with it, but playing devil's advocate again, I'd question if GameStop was actually doing this to "purposely harm another company's contractual or business relationships", or was doing it solely to protect their own, future, competitive position when it enters the digital streaming marketplace.

I assume there's the usual gray area in the law there that could completely change how this is applicable. Unless you could prove this was done "purposely", I'd say there's still plenty of room for skepticism here to doubt that a law has been broken.

Here, this is an exact quote from that article. It's Wikipedia, so I don't entirely trust it, but it's a pretty decent explanation I think. Anyway (brackets added by me):

"The classic example of this tort occurs when one party [GameStop] induces another party [Square] to breach a contract with a third party [OnLive], in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract."

Just by the fact that the box contained this coupon, it would be pretty easy to believe that GameStop had to assume that Onlive / Square had a contract and it didn't just magically appear there. The question here is would GameStop have the privilege to remove the coupon from a product they were selling. As for whether or not it was done purposely, the fact that the email stating that the coupons should be removed is pretty solid proof that it was in fact done purposely, and when that is combined with the fact that just it being in the box means that you assume that there is some agreement somewhere for it to be there, and you've got a pretty solid case.

The question again is that of privilege. Does the fact that GameStop has the product give them the privilege to open it and sell it as they please. For this, perhaps oddly, the case over GameStop selling open items as new could come back to bite them. Their argument was that the contents of the item they were selling were just as new as when those games were sealed, and therefore they had the right to open them and display them in such a way. A court could pretty easily point to that decision and say that the argument was that new items were new because all of the contents were kept in new condition, without any part of them being thrown away. That could cause a fundamental change in if the product is determined to be new -- would the product be new if an employee took the code home and used it but the coupon remained in it? Pretty obviously no, so based on their own win, it might be extremely difficult for GameStop to argue that the removal of part of the product still constitutes a new product.

All right, that's it for tonight's random version of "the laws I sort of understand." Now, it's time to go put some time in at the MGC site :)

[Leo_A]

Thanks for the reply, I think you raised some interesting points.

I'd try playing devil's advocate again, but I'm tired of writing long post at the moment and I greatly dislike the company, so I'm pulling for you to be right anyways.

Legality aside, this was a stupid decision on their part and I hope it continues to negatively affect them.

[goatdan]

Thanks for the reply, I think you raised some interesting points.

I'd try playing devil's advocate again, but I'm tired of writing long post at the moment and I greatly dislike the company, so I'm pulling for you to be right anyways.

Legality aside, this was a stupid decision on their part and I hope it continues to negatively affect them.

Sounds good ;) Truthfully, I have a million things that I *should* be doing right now, so I'm going to go work on doing one of those things now myself!

[j_factor]

What I still don't get is, if Gamestop's so concerned about selling anything that contains "advertising" for a competitor or in any way benefits them, why do they carry Steamworks PC games at all? Isn't Steam much more of a competitor than OnLive is? By Gamestop's own logic, they should have removed the Steam CD keys.

[Leo_A]

What I still don't get is, if Gamestop's so concerned about selling anything that contains "advertising" for a competitor or in any way benefits them, why do they carry Steamworks PC games at all? Isn't Steam much more of a competitor than OnLive is? By Gamestop's own logic, they should have removed the Steam CD keys.

OnLive is a cloud gaming platform where games are ran remotely on a company server and streamed home to your PC. That's the marketplace GameStop is entering.

I guess they don't view traditional digital distribution as direct competition like they do with OnLive.

[j_factor]

OnLive is a cloud gaming platform where games are ran remotely on a company server and streamed home to your PC. That's the marketplace GameStop is entering.

I guess they don't view traditional digital distribution as direct competition like they do with OnLive.

But GameStop hasn't begun offering cloud gaming yet, whereas they already offer digital distribution.

[Leo_A]

But GameStop hasn't begun offering cloud gaming yet, whereas they already offer digital distribution.

If they already offer digital distribution, then I'm not sure.

Perhaps they feel like Steam is just too popular to ignore or attempt to discourage (Unlike OnLive), or have some sort of contractual agreement in place with Valve that predates their entry into the digital distribution arena that they're honoring.

Edit - Are you sure they have a full fledged digital distribution system going? Looking at their download site, it states the following:

"For a console, your code will be on the confirmation page you see after purchase, as well as instructions for installation. For a PC, you receive an email with the code and a link to download the content to your PC."

It sounds like what they're selling are just download codes that you redeem elsewhere, such as on Steam, to get your content.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Antitrust is the main body of competition laws, it's also vague enough to apply to nearly any circumstance. I'd say FTC getting involved is about as likely as the SEC defending investors from bank manipulation, which is about equal in chance that a hellbound snowball has.

[j_factor]

Edit - Are you sure they have a full fledged digital distribution system going? Looking at their download site, it states the following:

"For a console, your code will be on the confirmation page you see after purchase, as well as instructions for installation. For a PC, you receive an email with the code and a link to download the content to your PC."

It sounds like what they're selling are just download codes that you redeem elsewhere, such as on Steam, to get your content.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. I don't see that message anywhere on the site, but right on the front page is a link to install their downloader program. And it's PC only. I can't be bothered to try their service, but it certainly seems quite similar to Steam.

[Leo_A]

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. I don't see that message anywhere on the site, but right on the front page is a link to install their downloader program. And it's PC only. I can't be bothered to try their service, but it certainly seems quite similar to Steam.

I see nothing about a downloader program? And this link from March makes it sounds like their purchase of Spawn Labs, with its plans for a similar service to OnLive, marks GameStop's first steps into digital distribution on its own.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/31/retailer-gamestop-buys-its-way-into-digital-distribution-of-games/

As for where I found that, going to their download page...

http://www.gamestop.com/downloads

And click on "about downloads". It brings you to a page where that information is listed under "Full Games".

http://www.gamestop.com/stores/gs_download_about.aspx

"FULL GAMES are digital versions of a complete game. They have all the same features – they're just downloaded directly to your console or computer, instead of being stored on a disc. For a console, your code will be on the confirmation page you see after purchase, as well as instructions for installation. For a PC, you receive an email with the code and a link to download the content to your PC."

I can't find anything about GameStop having a Steamesque program of their own?

[Leo_A]

I finally found stuff about it, it's called Impulse.

http://www.gamestop.com/gs/landing/impulse/

It certainly appears to be something like Steam. So I don't know why they're not treating Steam similarly to how they're apparantly going to treat OnLive. I guess they must think Steam is just too popular to cut themselves out of a small slice of the pie, so they willingly carry those products despite being in competition with it.

Only thing I can think of.

[j_factor]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize there was anything about downloads at Gamestop.com. I was looking at the Impulse site (http://impulsedriven.com/). Gamestop bought Impulse a while back (it's been around for years). It just struck me as odd because their purchase of Impulse is heavily implied to be the catalyst for this little stunt they pulled, and yet, Impulse is just like Steam and not at all like OnLive for the time being. Maybe they believe that OnLive is new and small enough that it can simply be crushed, or maybe they believe that streaming is going to be more important than regular digital distribution in the long run, or something else. There's still a bit of a disconnect for me because none of the articles or statements from the relevant parties explain this.