Eh seems dumb to me.

@damnable_fiend said:

@Hailinel said:

@damnable_fiend said:

@Hailinel said:

@damnable_fiend said:

@Hailinel said:

@mandude said:

@Hailinel said:

@Brodehouse said:

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

Fuck no. I'll take physical copies over digital any day.

Don't you know that material possessions harms the soul?

'Tis better to own what's mine than to leave fate to the cloud.

you must have infinite shelving space, then

I never implied that. I just think the concept of a digital-only future is beyond stupid and nothing but detrimental.

Fair enough. I guess in terms of consoles it makes sense to want to own physical copies of games, because they will eventually take down online capabilities for old consoles. Although they might just pull a Sony and decide to fuck you over and force you to pay extra to play your old games.

I've never paid Sony a dime for a PS2 Classic. I still have an actual PS2 hooked up to my TV.

The ps2 is pretty reliable, so ok. But the current generation of consoles are much less reliable. Do you think that they'll still be working 5 years from now? I'm not so certain :(

Tell that to all the people who had terminal DRE issues with their consoles. ...and that's how I came to buy an Xbox 360 and never even consider a PS3.

@unstoptheday said:

They make it seem like GS is trying to hide the fact you don't get the DLC when you buy it. Games with a online pass are almost always marked down more to offset the price of the code, and most codes can be sold at GS as well. I know everyone like to hate GS but I've been there over five years and I like to think I try to do whats best for my customers and not screw them out of their money.

Well, that's nice that happens at your store.

Makes sense to me. If you're going to steal money from developers the least you can do is inform people of the consequences.

@Hailinel: I don't see how all digital is at all detrimental. Steam has massive sales all the time and you save a ton of money. Plus 70% or more of what you pay goes to the developers, the highest turnover in the entire industry. Plus with steam giving such amazing service and easy access it gives people a reason to not pirate games and is seen as the sole saviour of the PC market.

And even if for some weird reason Steam ceases to exist, Valve has said they'll unlock all games. So aside from the antiquated need to hold something in you hands, digital distribution is in no way stupid or detrimental.

@Castermhief117 said:

It seems to me that the responsibility should fall on the publisher/developer with a small disclaimer on the back of the product that there is a one time use code needed to have a full experience.

The publisher isn't the one reselling it without all of the original content/keys. So in this case you can't fault them.

I won't cry tears for Game Stop. It is a simple fix, post signs and inform customers at point of sale. This is not hard, nor is it all that expensive. GameStop produces special signage every week for their stores, a few extra signs and a few memos to managers, district managers and regional managers is not hard either. In fact, GameStop writes memos ALL THE TIME to those folks to tell them HOW TO more money at their store If they can send a weekly message to "sell more THIS" each week, they can send a weekly message to keep informing customers of DLC issues. They should just do that at all stores -until such stores become extinct like so many Blue-footed Boobies.

@Hef: Wait until Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo start really digging into the digital distribution business with console games and how "great" their sales will be. For a preview, I recommend looking at how much it costs to digitally buy Blood on The Sand on the Xbox 360.

@Choffy said:

@Brodehouse While that'd be great, we're still a ways off. Without high-speed Internet available everywhere, and places with high-speed still lacking in the US, I think we're at least 2 generations away.

I'm not so sure. Maybe the generation after the one that's about to happen (If that's not what you already meant by 2 generations from now.) but I could also see it happening this upcoming generation. High-speed isn't really lacking as much as you think, especially with gamers who throw down the most money for games.

@Hef said:

Makes sense to me. If you're going to steal money from developers the least you can do is inform people of the consequences.

@Hailinel: I don't see how all digital is at all detrimental. Steam has massive sales all the time and you save a ton of money. Plus 70% or more of what you pay goes to the developers, the highest turnover in the entire industry. Plus with steam giving such amazing service and easy access it gives people a reason to not pirate games and is seen as the sole saviour of the PC market.

And even if for some weird reason Steam ceases to exist, Valve has said they'll unlock all games. So aside from the antiquated need to hold something in you hands, digital distribution is in no way stupid or detrimental.

Saying and doing are two different things, in order to "unlock" all your games they have to ok that with every single one of the developers. Perhaps they will do that with valve games. But i doubt Ubisoft will want anyone of their games Unlocked Drm Free, Or what about Capcom, Doubt it. EA, probably not.

Reality is another thing.

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

@YukoAsho said:

@Brodehouse said:

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

No. Better to have these headaches than to have publishers able to take games away whenever they like.

As I understand it, and has been my experience so far, a publisher can force Steam to stop selling new games, but Steam will always support the games that you've already bought, even if they're no longer available for purchase. Even GoG is pretty good about this.

Of course, if you're talking about Steam-like setups owned by a publisher a la Origin, then yeah... I can see that being a problem.

And in 20 years when Valve might have been run into the ground? What happens to my games?

This is Karma for Gamestop's shitty business practices. Remember the PC Deus EX debacle? Or the fact that they try to sell opened games used by employees and try to pass them off as new? Game stop sucks, i hoped those assholes get slammed with more legal trouble

Ha, that's fantastic if it happens. Of course, it also informs people buying new copies that the resale value is potentially being undermined. You've gotta wonder whether these smart ideas the industry keeps coming up with might actually be making new games seem less appealing rather than more appealing.

@Video_Game_King said:

@patrickklepek said:

In essence, if you’re Batman: Arkham City used,

You know I am.

I wish I was...

Good.

This is good news, I guess. I don't see why this should be Gamestop's responsibility though.

buy games new, problem solved.

...and game publishers should have to warn consumers that their code can only be redeemed once.

There's always so many misinformed comments regarding used sales when a story like this is posted. While good for a laugh, it's still slightly depressing.

This is a good decision to put the burden on Gamestop to let consumers know that they may have to spend more money in order to access content that would have been provided free of charge had the game been purchased new. While people who read sites like this know all about online passes, many consumers have no idea about this stuff. You think your parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents know what DLC means? Mine sure as hell don't and they bought me a ton of video games when I was growing up (this was before used games became big business so Funcoland was a new, weird place, EB and Gamestop weren't big until just before I started buying games for myself and the only places you saw used games were flea markets and computer shows). If nothing else, this decision should put all sellers of used games on notice that they should make consumers aware of online passes and other DLC that would be included when the game is purchased new.

To those who think this should be the developer/publisher's responsibility: The onus shouldn't be on the developer/publisher to let the consumer know that they may be buying an incomplete game if they purchase it used. When they seal the box containing the game, box art and manual, they are selling a new product. As such, they are providing accurate information to the consumer when they list things on the box that are free if you purchase the game new.

With that said, I think it would be intelligent marketing for a publisher to prominently indicate on the box that certain content is only available for free when the game is purchased new. It make a lot of less well-informed consumers think twice about whether it's worth it to pay $5 less to get a used copy of the game when they'll have to pay $10 down the road if they want to unlock certain content that would otherwise be free. The publisher should list the content on the box as a bonus that you are getting this stuff for free when you buy the game new and even put the dollar amount it's going to charge for DLC/online pass so its right there in the consumer's face that this stuff will cost them an additional $10 if they buy the game used. This would benefit consumers because then Gamestop would need to lower its prices on used games in order to convince the consumer to buy used copies. (Being realistic: the end result, of course, would be Gamestop replacing the box art or putting stickers on the box to cover up the information.)

@bchampnd: TL;DR

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I wasn't clear when I stated that my experience so far is that Steam will continue to support games that are no longer for available for purchase, that Steam has to exist for this to work. Thank you for pointing that out. Because, clearly, I was implying that Steam was incapable of potential financial failure in the future, and that Steam would last until the year 1,000,000,000 AD when only Twinkies, cockroaches, and Steam will exist.

If only... ONLY Steam would release an official statement that if their services were ever discontinued, that that they would send out a simple patch to make Steam work in offline mode permanently. Something, y'know, official that has to be reposted ad infinitum, because any mention of Steam's service conjures the nightmare scenario where Valve's successful business model completely fails and the whole thing has to be brought down in a single day without any warning to it's users.

But, with my permission, continue to stockpile those old NES cartridges and PS2 CDs. It's not like any of those have a limited lifespan, either.

That's completely... fair and understandable. Other states should implement that.

Being a GameStop manager, I personally have never not told a customer about the online pass or extra content. I can understand this completely though. With used game sales being a big part of the video game community, it sucks when you buy a game, and then find out that you need an online pass or something else to access content that is packaged in a new game. Curious to see when this will become a nation wide deal...or when it will hit here in Texas.

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

@YukoAsho said:

@Brodehouse said:

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

No. Better to have these headaches than to have publishers able to take games away whenever they like.

As I understand it, and has been my experience so far, a publisher can force Steam to stop selling new games, but Steam will always support the games that you've already bought, even if they're no longer available for purchase. Even GoG is pretty good about this.

Of course, if you're talking about Steam-like setups owned by a publisher a la Origin, then yeah... I can see that being a problem.

And in 20 years when Valve might have been run into the ground? What happens to my games?

@tmek said:

@Castermhief117 said:

It seems to me that the responsibility should fall on the publisher/developer with a small disclaimer on the back of the product that there is a one time use code needed to have a full experience.

The publisher isn't the one reselling it without all of the original content/keys. So in this case you can't fault them.

You're totally right. It's not the developer's fault that retailers are reselling their games and making them lose profit - but this situation could be easily solved if there was a consumer disclaimer on the back of game boxes.

I'm sure it's not fair to the publishers who would have to lose box art real-estate, but at the same time it's the easiest way to both protect consumers and the developers. Furthermore, how are people going to regulate online retailers? It's hard enough already regulating them and its unfair business practice to regulate one company but not others.

Didn't they jump on at&t; anti class action bandwagon, or did o misunderstand how that works? Also what happens after the 2 years, can they just be scumbags again after?

Ideally, we wouldn't have to pass a law just to get GameStop to inform consumers of what they're buying, (or more importantly, what they aren't) yet here we are.

@YukoAsho said:

@Brodehouse said:

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

No. Better to have these headaches than to have publishers able to take games away whenever they like.

I'm all for total digital and don't buy disc copies of pc games, but I have to agree that consoles should still have the option of disc based games, especially considering PS and MS weird pricing that for the most part put Downloadable retail games at a higher price than the same disc based game.

Consoles seem to make their new generations of hardware incompatible with past generations for good reason (keeping system prices below inflation). People who will want to go back and play those older games only have to worry about publishers releasing broken games that need patches to work properly in order to be future xbla/psn shutdown proof.

But as far as the pc goes, I just consider my hard drive as one big disc to hold all my games. Once steam is gone, I can still play my steam games, and can still currently play games through steam that steam doesn't sell on their service anymore. Although I may have to worry if one day after steam shuts down, I need to transfer my stuff onto a new pc. Hopefully I'm not screwed in that case.

@Castermhief117 said:

@tmek said:

The publisher isn't the one reselling it without all of the original content/keys. So in this case you can't fault them.

You're totally right. It's not the developer's fault that retailers are reselling their games and making them lose profit - but this situation could be easily solved if there was a consumer disclaimer on the back of game boxes.

And what happens when a customer sells a game that doesn't have the original box? That responsibility would then fall on GameStop. Your argument just collapsed on itself.

Regardless, I think it's good. Customers should be given as much information as possible to allow a smart purchasing decision. I'm all for online codes. I am not for deceiving paying customers no matter where they choose to buy.

I think that is a good thing and GameStop should have always been doing that.

How does this become Gamestop's responsibility in the slightest?

Good.

@Mamba219 said:

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

@YukoAsho said:

@Brodehouse said:

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

No. Better to have these headaches than to have publishers able to take games away whenever they like.

As I understand it, and has been my experience so far, a publisher can force Steam to stop selling new games, but Steam will always support the games that you've already bought, even if they're no longer available for purchase. Even GoG is pretty good about this.

Of course, if you're talking about Steam-like setups owned by a publisher a la Origin, then yeah... I can see that being a problem.

And in 20 years when Valve might have been run into the ground? What happens to my games?

Well at least you will possibly have some shelf space..right? right?

@TheMartino: It is their responsibility to represent the product as what it is. Normally Gamestop represents a used game as being the same thing as a new game only slightly used and cheaper. To push used games as aggressively as they do they should present the game as it actually is.

Good. They already make a ton of money from reselling used games. Their mark ups are ridiculous. The least they can do is label the used game correctly. I hope that this law is implemented throughout the USA.

@Castermhief117 said:

@tmek said:

@Castermhief117 said:

It seems to me that the responsibility should fall on the publisher/developer with a small disclaimer on the back of the product that there is a one time use code needed to have a full experience.

The publisher isn't the one reselling it without all of the original content/keys. So in this case you can't fault them.

You're totally right. It's not the developer's fault that retailers are reselling their games and making them lose profit - but this situation could be easily solved if there was a consumer disclaimer on the back of game boxes.

I'm sure it's not fair to the publishers who would have to lose box art real-estate, but at the same time it's the easiest way to both protect consumers and the developers. Furthermore, how are people going to regulate online retailers? It's hard enough already regulating them and its unfair business practice to regulate one company but not others.

That would be a valid argument if they didn't already do that. Forza has something like "Free BMW m5 Code" on the back of the box clearly telling you it is a CODE!

@TheMartino:

They're advertising their products as coming with a certain feature without specifically outlining the conditions necessary to get that feature?

@TheMartino said:

How does this become Gamestop's responsibility in the slightest?

Yeah, that's my thought exactly, they don't control the marketing for a game, except occasionally an ad for the real big releases, and even then I bet they don't have much control over them. This should fall on the publisher, not the retailer.

And since when has that not been advertised?

This is how it is in Australia - or at least in the stores I've been into.

On one hand, this may make the retailer stop selling used games, which I feel is probably the real reasoning behind this, but on the other hand, it's Gamestop... so I'm finding it really hard to give a damn.

Being a GameStop manager, I personally have never not told a customer about the online pass or extra content. I can understand this completely though. With used game sales being a big part of the video game community, it sucks when you buy a game, and then find out that you need an online pass or something else to access content that is packaged in a new game. Curious to see when this will become a nation wide deal...or when it will hit here in Texas.

This is pretty cool, now if only we could figure out a way to not screw over people who buy games new while missing out on tons of pre-order content.

I agree. I used to build houses. Does that mean I should get pissed at anyone that buys a used house because that is a lost opportunity for me to build a house? No, that would be insane. Unless I got to burn down the old houses to make way for the new... burn baby, burn.

Of course GameStop employees won't tell customers how video game publishers are trying to undercut their business model. Some people think that they are saving money buying used but they end paying more. Don't forget to preorder or pick up the strategy guide. I like how if these kind of stories end on Game Informer website, they always put that full disclosure at the end of the article as if the readers don't know that already.

I'm curious if this decision will be the beginning of legislation similar to lemon laws for used video game sales. Consumers should make an effort to research what they are buying not always hope the retailer will be holding their hand to be their personal shopper.

This is GLORIOUS news. While I'm not convinced Gamestop should be the only one taking the "blame" for these shameful tactics regarding used games, it's still a great start in terms of bringing back some honesty to how games are sold.

Frankly it's just nice to see the consumers winning one for a change.

@Castermhief117 said:

@tmek said:

@Castermhief117 said:

It seems to me that the responsibility should fall on the publisher/developer with a small disclaimer on the back of the product that there is a one time use code needed to have a full experience.

The publisher isn't the one reselling it without all of the original content/keys. So in this case you can't fault them.

You're totally right. It's not the developer's fault that retailers are reselling their games and making them lose profit - but this situation could be easily solved if there was a consumer disclaimer on the back of game boxes.

I'm sure it's not fair to the publishers who would have to lose box art real-estate, but at the same time it's the easiest way to both protect consumers and the developers. Furthermore, how are people going to regulate online retailers? It's hard enough already regulating them and its unfair business practice to regulate one company but not others.

I don't get this idea of used games losing profit. Chances are, people who buy games used games would not buy them new at full price either. Plus, SOMEONE already bought that game new. It's not like that person has the game anymore, their "place" online is simply filled by someone else, not the original buyer AND the used buyer (in regards to online pass stuff).

Can we just go full digital Steam style already? Forgo all this nonsense.

@Uberdubie said:

Frankly it's just nice to see the consumers winning one for a change.

I fail to see how this is a win for the consumer. Though ultimately meaningless this is just another step in villainizing and phasing out the used games market.

Videogame consumers seem to be the only market on earth that considers having to pay more a victory.

@Uberdubie said:

This is GLORIOUS news. While I'm not convinced Gamestop should be the only one taking the "blame" for these shameful tactics regarding used games, it's still a great start in terms of bringing back some honesty to how games are sold.

Frankly it's just nice to see the consumers winning one for a change.

The consumer didn't win anything. A bunch of signs will go up in one state, signs that people will probably ignore, a handful of people will get coupons worth just about squat, and a lawyer made millions in fees. It's a scam not a triumph.