Gamestop Sued: Used Games not have retail-only DLC
If you keep up with this sort of thing, you might say “Duh!” If you don’t, you might say, “Why don’t they rip off the sticker?
After the jump, here’s the roundup of points of view for these two thoughts:
Industry Gamers article detailing the lawsuit, Gamestop sued for having $15 free DLC; (but it’s only for a first-retail purchase)….
Class Action Lawsuits in the news…
Destructoid site
Ars Technica site.
Some of the more “rantier” articles… GamersSyndrome (For me the best part was Google “adwords” plastering a Gamestop ad directly in the post)
Game Stooge, well written… always enjoy the site
The semi-official links to a pdf scan of the lawsuit:
From IGN , and from Courthouse News.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
My comments: I side initially with those who say this is no small deal. After all, $15 times all the sales of a game, at every Gamestop store, adds up. Now the proof is yet to be made: and Gamestop can legitimately point out, “Who is to say $15 of DLC is worth $15? There’s no resale value, no comparison value… and who’s to say that the product wouldn’t have been sold anyway.” I characterize this more of a Federal Trade Commission case, a retail accusation of fraud case… rather than a pure game case. I’ve yet to see a legal analysis along that line, even though the complaint does circle that very well.
Image: “http://www.flickr.com/photos/myklroventine/3210068573/”> a rel=”cc:attributionURL”
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
It seems an odd point. All value is essentially arbitrary. Is a glass of coke worth a dollar?
The common sense answer seems to be that it is if someone pays for it.
Clearly there are customers who are willing to spend the $15 so it is worth it to many people.
I think the customer genuinely got a bad deal if he wants the full game. Paying $55 rather than $60 is a good deal if you are getting the same software but is a very bad deal if you are getting a substantively worse experience. (I’m surprised by how close the second hand price is to the retail price, generally here in the UK second hand games, even new ones are a lot cheaper).
Unless there is clear evidence he knew that the DLC would not be available I think the court should support him. The denial of DLC to second hand purchasers is clearly part of a larger battle between original publishers and second hand retailers with the customer caught in the middle. That’s not fair on customers.
He may however be suing the wrong company. It’s not Game Stop who are denying him the DLC. It would be almost free for Bioware to supply the DLC to second hand customers but they chose to deny this service to legitimate owners of the software. Is there precedent for software companies denying updates such as patches and bug fixes to a section of their customer base?
jaymoffitt Reply:
April 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 am
Yes, I agree it is an odd point, but to me the value is a tough issue in this case. I will allow you, though, courts are in business to determine value, even “intangible” value. Without a resale market, and without a prior history of the DLC’s “worth”, value becomes problematic. But lawyers and judges make these leaps of faith everyday when it comes to divorce (real property, clothing, cars)… but of course with a much larger history to “pick” a value of something.
The reasoning for suing Gamestop would be they had “control” over the box…. they could have removed(or obscured) the tag. What gets the publisher off of liability is press releases, clear markings on the box “DLC inside” that also has an asterisk, referring in fine print to “with full retail purchase.” Also, the plaintiffs will attempt to prove with facts that Gamestop makes ALL the money with a used purchase, and only MOST of the money if selling new.
I’m in agreement with your overall point that is a very, VERY troublesome point for Gamestop. Class action (when applicable) is a very good tool because it allows for a consolidation of causes and a grouping of efforts by multiple consumers to enable top-notch legal investigation, discovery techniques, and a very real threat of a large recovery. The disadvantage is the silly lawsuits that make the news that disintegrate because a court finds no real or actionable harm (and of course make lawyers have a bad name in many circles).