<\/span>@sciential<\/strong> said:<\/p><\/span>@Jab1235<\/strong> said:<\/p>It's just another example of someone lawyering up to reap the benefits of a trivial situation. Boo Hoo he spent $55 on a game and didn't get his code, why should we pay for the court costs of him arguing that he thinks he's entitled to downloadable content for a game. It's not something we should be bringing to courts, it's something we should have common sense about.<\/p>As much as I dislike Gamestop and most of their practices I hope they crush this guy.<\/p><\/blockquote>He didn't fall and pretend to be hurt so he could take money from a bar or convenience store owner. He sued Gamestop over a practice that - even if it was manufactured in his case - surely rips off at least some of its customers who genuinely fail to realize that the used copy is missing content worth more than the savings over a new copy.<\/p>Gamestop could be forthright if they wanted to, but we all know that they make more money on used copies. A sticker that says \"Does Not Include $10 Multi-Player Access\" on used copies of Mass Effect 3 because Gamestop is afraid of another lawsuit is a good thing. You might already know better, but some mother buying a birthday present from a Gamestop clerk who is pushed to encourage her to buy the used copy might not.<\/p><\/blockquote>I agree with you that something does need to change but is it really necessary to bring this up in high level courts? I'm also unclear on if the individual is going to make any money or get any special benefits off of this case? Really if the guy is only doing this to get gamestop to change their business practices then that's great but if he's doing this so he can make some easy money then it's stupid.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>CRAzYKiLL3R93<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>390<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 2<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By CRAzYKiLL3R93<\/a><\/div><\/div>Even though we're going to have to start paying sales tax on Amazon purchases in September in California (a state law passed last year), I'll still buy my games on Amazon over Gamestop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>sickVisionz<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1307<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>39<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 4<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By sickVisionz<\/a><\/div><\/div>More power to the people and I'm glad the shenanigans are over.<\/p>Collins purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins<\/a> for $54.99...<\/blockquote>I immediately said, \"come on dude,\" when I saw this. The industry as a whole needs to do a better job of getting names and faces out there rather than corporate entities so that people understand that saving $5 to buy a high quality game from a high quality developer but not giving anything back isn't worth it.<\/p>I wonder how many people buy used and then stare at it on their shelf like...<\/p>Why didn't this game get a sequel?<\/li>Why don't they make more game like this?<\/li>Why did this developer get closed?<\/li><\/ul>and other stuff.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>kkotd<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>364<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>36<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By kkotd<\/a><\/div><\/div>Nobody knows how to read, do they? The article clearly states that the guy bought this on March of 2010, DAO had only come out in Nov of 2009. The game was under a year old at that time and was priced at $55. This was around the same time that EA was doing similar things with Mass Effect 2 and just before EA started using 'online pass' for it's sports games. The problem right now is that Gamestop could argue that Online Pass shouldn't be included because it's not 'additional free downloadable content' but rather the ability to use an online function, essentially using the argument that they aren't sued for people who buy online games and can't play online because they never notified anyone of the fees for Xbox Live. Not to mention, some of the boxes even state that online play requires an online pass.<\/p>I believe they need the PR though right now as they prepare for what essentially is the start of a transition state for them. They have to be worried about the coming consoles and what it means for their business model on used games. They've also gotten a lot of attention and general flak (most of it appropriate) because of UK retailer Game going into bankruptcy and then being bailed out. Both of them treated the industry the same, both pushed used games with careless abandon and both more or less tried to rip customers off with their 'used prices' and 'trade in deals' which essentially was, you can save $5 on any used game and we'll pay you $10 for a game we then sell for $55. I believe that if this settlement goes well, and the interest is shown (after a masquerade of them hyping people on whether to do it or not) they'll use it as a promotion rather than legal settlement, $10 in store credit, $5 cash, sign a paper that you won't sue us and we'll throw in an addition 5% trade in value!<\/p>And also, what's stopping them from changing their customer agreement stating that they are not responsible for 'addition DLC', 'codes given for DLC' and any 'non-Gamestop promotions that may or may not involve DLC being included with a copy of the game'?<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>StingingVelvet<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>596<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 6<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By StingingVelvet<\/a><\/div><\/div>I prefer to buy new so that I support development, but I would still fight tooth and nail to keep used games viable. Why? Mostly for preservation. If the nest round of consoles go Steam-like on a closed system, who knows how many games could eventually become completely unobtainable someday. That's a much more dangerous idea to me than used games.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>BreakfastKing<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>127<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>106<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By BreakfastKing<\/a><\/div><\/div>Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
Even though we're going to have to start paying sales tax on Amazon purchases in September in California (a state law passed last year), I'll still buy my games on Amazon over Gamestop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>sickVisionz<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1307<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>39<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 4<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By sickVisionz<\/a><\/div><\/div>More power to the people and I'm glad the shenanigans are over.<\/p>Collins purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins<\/a> for $54.99...<\/blockquote>I immediately said, \"come on dude,\" when I saw this. The industry as a whole needs to do a better job of getting names and faces out there rather than corporate entities so that people understand that saving $5 to buy a high quality game from a high quality developer but not giving anything back isn't worth it.<\/p>I wonder how many people buy used and then stare at it on their shelf like...<\/p>Why didn't this game get a sequel?<\/li>Why don't they make more game like this?<\/li>Why did this developer get closed?<\/li><\/ul>and other stuff.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>kkotd<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>364<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>36<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By kkotd<\/a><\/div><\/div>Nobody knows how to read, do they? The article clearly states that the guy bought this on March of 2010, DAO had only come out in Nov of 2009. The game was under a year old at that time and was priced at $55. This was around the same time that EA was doing similar things with Mass Effect 2 and just before EA started using 'online pass' for it's sports games. The problem right now is that Gamestop could argue that Online Pass shouldn't be included because it's not 'additional free downloadable content' but rather the ability to use an online function, essentially using the argument that they aren't sued for people who buy online games and can't play online because they never notified anyone of the fees for Xbox Live. Not to mention, some of the boxes even state that online play requires an online pass.<\/p>I believe they need the PR though right now as they prepare for what essentially is the start of a transition state for them. They have to be worried about the coming consoles and what it means for their business model on used games. They've also gotten a lot of attention and general flak (most of it appropriate) because of UK retailer Game going into bankruptcy and then being bailed out. Both of them treated the industry the same, both pushed used games with careless abandon and both more or less tried to rip customers off with their 'used prices' and 'trade in deals' which essentially was, you can save $5 on any used game and we'll pay you $10 for a game we then sell for $55. I believe that if this settlement goes well, and the interest is shown (after a masquerade of them hyping people on whether to do it or not) they'll use it as a promotion rather than legal settlement, $10 in store credit, $5 cash, sign a paper that you won't sue us and we'll throw in an addition 5% trade in value!<\/p>And also, what's stopping them from changing their customer agreement stating that they are not responsible for 'addition DLC', 'codes given for DLC' and any 'non-Gamestop promotions that may or may not involve DLC being included with a copy of the game'?<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>StingingVelvet<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>596<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 6<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By StingingVelvet<\/a><\/div><\/div>I prefer to buy new so that I support development, but I would still fight tooth and nail to keep used games viable. Why? Mostly for preservation. If the nest round of consoles go Steam-like on a closed system, who knows how many games could eventually become completely unobtainable someday. That's a much more dangerous idea to me than used games.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>BreakfastKing<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>127<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>106<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By BreakfastKing<\/a><\/div><\/div>Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
More power to the people and I'm glad the shenanigans are over.<\/p>Collins purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins<\/a> for $54.99...<\/blockquote>I immediately said, \"come on dude,\" when I saw this. The industry as a whole needs to do a better job of getting names and faces out there rather than corporate entities so that people understand that saving $5 to buy a high quality game from a high quality developer but not giving anything back isn't worth it.<\/p>I wonder how many people buy used and then stare at it on their shelf like...<\/p>Why didn't this game get a sequel?<\/li>Why don't they make more game like this?<\/li>Why did this developer get closed?<\/li><\/ul>and other stuff.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>kkotd<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>364<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>36<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By kkotd<\/a><\/div><\/div>Nobody knows how to read, do they? The article clearly states that the guy bought this on March of 2010, DAO had only come out in Nov of 2009. The game was under a year old at that time and was priced at $55. This was around the same time that EA was doing similar things with Mass Effect 2 and just before EA started using 'online pass' for it's sports games. The problem right now is that Gamestop could argue that Online Pass shouldn't be included because it's not 'additional free downloadable content' but rather the ability to use an online function, essentially using the argument that they aren't sued for people who buy online games and can't play online because they never notified anyone of the fees for Xbox Live. Not to mention, some of the boxes even state that online play requires an online pass.<\/p>I believe they need the PR though right now as they prepare for what essentially is the start of a transition state for them. They have to be worried about the coming consoles and what it means for their business model on used games. They've also gotten a lot of attention and general flak (most of it appropriate) because of UK retailer Game going into bankruptcy and then being bailed out. Both of them treated the industry the same, both pushed used games with careless abandon and both more or less tried to rip customers off with their 'used prices' and 'trade in deals' which essentially was, you can save $5 on any used game and we'll pay you $10 for a game we then sell for $55. I believe that if this settlement goes well, and the interest is shown (after a masquerade of them hyping people on whether to do it or not) they'll use it as a promotion rather than legal settlement, $10 in store credit, $5 cash, sign a paper that you won't sue us and we'll throw in an addition 5% trade in value!<\/p>And also, what's stopping them from changing their customer agreement stating that they are not responsible for 'addition DLC', 'codes given for DLC' and any 'non-Gamestop promotions that may or may not involve DLC being included with a copy of the game'?<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>StingingVelvet<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>596<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 6<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By StingingVelvet<\/a><\/div><\/div>I prefer to buy new so that I support development, but I would still fight tooth and nail to keep used games viable. Why? Mostly for preservation. If the nest round of consoles go Steam-like on a closed system, who knows how many games could eventually become completely unobtainable someday. That's a much more dangerous idea to me than used games.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>BreakfastKing<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>127<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>106<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By BreakfastKing<\/a><\/div><\/div>Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
Nobody knows how to read, do they? The article clearly states that the guy bought this on March of 2010, DAO had only come out in Nov of 2009. The game was under a year old at that time and was priced at $55. This was around the same time that EA was doing similar things with Mass Effect 2 and just before EA started using 'online pass' for it's sports games. The problem right now is that Gamestop could argue that Online Pass shouldn't be included because it's not 'additional free downloadable content' but rather the ability to use an online function, essentially using the argument that they aren't sued for people who buy online games and can't play online because they never notified anyone of the fees for Xbox Live. Not to mention, some of the boxes even state that online play requires an online pass.<\/p>I believe they need the PR though right now as they prepare for what essentially is the start of a transition state for them. They have to be worried about the coming consoles and what it means for their business model on used games. They've also gotten a lot of attention and general flak (most of it appropriate) because of UK retailer Game going into bankruptcy and then being bailed out. Both of them treated the industry the same, both pushed used games with careless abandon and both more or less tried to rip customers off with their 'used prices' and 'trade in deals' which essentially was, you can save $5 on any used game and we'll pay you $10 for a game we then sell for $55. I believe that if this settlement goes well, and the interest is shown (after a masquerade of them hyping people on whether to do it or not) they'll use it as a promotion rather than legal settlement, $10 in store credit, $5 cash, sign a paper that you won't sue us and we'll throw in an addition 5% trade in value!<\/p>And also, what's stopping them from changing their customer agreement stating that they are not responsible for 'addition DLC', 'codes given for DLC' and any 'non-Gamestop promotions that may or may not involve DLC being included with a copy of the game'?<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>StingingVelvet<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>596<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 6<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By StingingVelvet<\/a><\/div><\/div>I prefer to buy new so that I support development, but I would still fight tooth and nail to keep used games viable. Why? Mostly for preservation. If the nest round of consoles go Steam-like on a closed system, who knows how many games could eventually become completely unobtainable someday. That's a much more dangerous idea to me than used games.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>BreakfastKing<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>127<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>106<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By BreakfastKing<\/a><\/div><\/div>Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
I prefer to buy new so that I support development, but I would still fight tooth and nail to keep used games viable. Why? Mostly for preservation. If the nest round of consoles go Steam-like on a closed system, who knows how many games could eventually become completely unobtainable someday. That's a much more dangerous idea to me than used games.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>BreakfastKing<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>127<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>106<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By BreakfastKing<\/a><\/div><\/div>Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
Gamestop has already adjusted its pricing structures to reflect DLC that is included in a new game, in many cases. While the typical used price of a new release is 54.99, a new release with, say, an online pass generally runs 47.99.<\/p>In the case of games with actual DLC, the prices generally follow a similar pattern. For the brief duration that used copies of Batman: Arkham City were sans Catwoman, it too was 48 bucks. Now that you can get a Catwoman code with a used copy too, it's back at 55. The price may have gone done since then, as the game has been out a few months now, but you get my point.<\/p>All of the Gamestops around me are pretty good at reminding folks if there's any big difference between a new and a used game. I understand other areas of the country (world) have had some serious issues with Gamestop, but I just don't see it here.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>shishkebab09<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>154<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>132<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By shishkebab09<\/a><\/div><\/div>I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
I cannot stand--CANNOT STAND--people who can't learn a lesson and leave it at that. So you spilled hot coffee on your crotch. Do you really want everyone in America to have to be reminded like babies EVERY TIME they buy a hot coffee that it's hot?<\/p>GameStop didn't \"trick\" anyone into anything, and they've long since 2009 adjusted their pre-owned prices to reflect whether the games have content missing from the new version. It was EA that started pulling this online pass shit, not GameStop.<\/p><\/article>11 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>QuistisTrepe<\/a>
152 Comments<\/h4>