I know the title is off, but it's all I could come up with.

Recently, I learned of a lawsuit in California against GameStop over their sale of used games requiring online codes in order to play. These games include the code in the box when new and codes are offered for sale to those who do purchase used. The lawsuit is over the fact that GameStop is selling these used games that they have paid for and reselling them for maybe $5-10 below the price of a new copy while the code costs an extra $10-15. The developers never see a penny from the sale of used games hence the requirement for online pass purchase. That's understandable, but people are unhappy that they are essentially paying more for a used copy of a game with high demand. It has been my experience that GameStop buys the used copies for maybe 40-50% of the new price. It's more fair than what I've seen at other places. They also inform you at purchase that the game will require an online pass and offer to sell you a code at checkout. Many times these used copies will come in and appear to be untouched, but won't play. If a new copy is returned for malfunction, they have to refund the purchase. The profit they make from used games is anywhere from $5 to maybe $40 per game. In return, they can offer special deals, pay the employees for midnight release parties, provide food and drink for the bigger releases, and offer free content and upgrades with pre-orders.

My opinion: go ahead and put a label on the used copies telling the customers that it is going to need the pass which will cost more. If they really do want the game instead of just passing fancy, it's not going to deter them unless they have a tight budget. Don't use it as an excuse to blame them for a game you didn't really want to buy in the first place.

I've always been somewhat irked at this sort of behavior. The only time I'll ever buy used is if I'm getting at least twenty or thirty dollars off of retail price, and most codes of this nature are only five to ten dollars. If I have to buy the code, I'm still getting the game I want for fifteen to twenty off of retail price so I'm still coming out ahead.

Funding video game development is an insanely expensive ordeal. Used games might not be as big a deal as people would have you believe, but it still takes away at least some of the profitability in making video games. It's only natural to want to come up with additional ways of earning a little money.

DLC, online multiplayer access, the avatar gear. It's cheaper to produce and they get to see profit that they miss in the used game sales. I'm wondering if they're going to go after Best Buy next or maybe pawn shops and second hand retainers.

giggles, your numbers for the prices have got to be way off. If GameStop discounts less than the cost of the license (the game code), customers would never buy used because altogether they can get the new product cheaper.

(More, after having read an article about the lawsuit)

Okay, so the lawsuit was filed by consumers who purchased used copies of games from GameStop. GameStop had the used games in the same section of their displays as new games, and those displays advertised "Free Downloadable Content." So basically, they told their customers that the downloadable content was free, but it wasn't.

GameStop settled the suit by offering $15 to every affected customer and agreeing to re-label their displays to make it clear that the DLC is only free when you buy new.

So...what's controversial about that? GameStop was doing something both illegal and douche-y, like they often do, and they got called out on it. Good for the California plaintiffs!

In general, our legal system tends to get things right. Of course, sometimes when it messes up, it does so spectacularly, but overall it's pretty just.

On this topic, the only reason anyone views used games as a bad thing is if they've bought into the lie of software as a service. If it comes in a box on a disk, it's not a service, it's a good. Used goods can be resold. Car manufacturers don't complain about used car sales, book publishers don't complain about used book stores, movie studies don't complain about video rentals. Game Stop is a douchebag company whom I refuse to do business with, but they aren't douchebags because they deal in used games.

They attack the entire company for something in a few stores. Our stores here and every one I've been to has games sorted by platform and then divided into new and used. The new and used are directly next to each other, but complaining about something that is both common sense and only advertised in the new rack is not exactly what I would consider smart. It sounds to me like whining about not reading a full advertisement or not really thinking about what you're getting. As I said, they tell you AT THE COUNTER what you're getting yourself into. You can decide then whether you wish to continue or not. I admit that it may not seem like common sense to everyone, but Free DLC ads always require reading up on what that DLC is to me and has always applied to new and never used. Whether it's access to online play or a map pack or new gear, people just hear "FREE" and immediately think "Oh! It must come with every copy then!"

No, I don't really defend GameStop being corporate a*holes. It goes beyond that. I'm tired of people having expectations and using lawyers to get revenge when their expectations aren't met or they were being an idiot and refuse to admit fault.

Also, my numbers were based on my experience. Games depreciate based on demand. Mass Effect 1 is more expensive used than a new copy of Mass Effect 2 because of the demand for it. A game that has just been released will have a used price maybe $5-10 below new price if it's selling well. A game that has been out for a year can have the same difference if it's still in high demand. Should demand plummet, the price will drop accordingly. Not all used copies get purchased and depreciate on the shelf.

I know there was more to your post than this sentence, but I'm going to respond only to this.

Abso-f&$*ing-lutely! A corporation is responsible for the actions of each and every single one of its agents. The agents may also be responsible, but ultimately, it's the person who puts the agents to work who needs to pony up the cash when the agent's wrongdoing injures somebody.

So yes, hold the entire company responsible for something in a few stores. Because if GameStop didn't want to be responsible for them, it shouldn't have put its name on their signs.

Oh, and it's also important to understand what a settlement is. GameStop agreed to do these things. It thought it would be less expensive than fighting the case in court. There's nothing wrong with that; it's the company's decision.

Unfortunately, Grillick, I think the Supreme Court recently ruled that you can't sue the whole corporation for the actions of a few agents, at least when discrimination is concerned. There was this case where a bunch of women filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart for sex discrimination, and they lost the case because they couldn't prove that there was a pervasive company wide policy or culture of sex discrimination. Mostly because Walmart covered its arse by having an official document saying "There Shalt Be No Sex Discrimination". Thereby setting a de-facto standard of "Your employees can discriminate against other employees as long as it isn't written down".