It goes like this. I took my perfect copy of Medal of Honor Allied Assault Deluxe Edition into EB to trade it in. I asked how much I could get for it. The manager said $4. $4?! "You can kiss my ass," I said, as I left the store. I was pissed, but they have the right to conduct business any way they please. What can I say, I'm a Republican, I favor laissez-faire policy. Anyway, that's all it takes. If you don't like their business, don't give them any. I don't like it, so I'll keep my games, and they can suck a fat one.
how is selling used games legal?
- Thread starter Mishimaryu
- Start date
snotnose_colossal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
in japan is it illegal to buy used cars
edtinney-
I understand that it is your right to not sell back your games, however as a consumer why must we be subjected to unfair business practices on the "buying" end of a deal.
If I choose to by Game A used from a store, and they are charging 10 bucks for it, then my ten dollar Game A had better be no different than another person's ten dollar Game A. This is where the problems arise. Some Game A's are in great shape, others are shite, still others don't have a case or instructions, yet they all have the same shaq-fuin retail price.
Even if I wanted to take the time to sort through the fifteen used copies of Unreal Tournament they have in their little drawer, it shouldn't be my responsibility. I am the one giving them the money.
When they will sell you a disc only copy of a game at the same exact price as a pristine copy of the same game, something is not right. The consumer is not getting a fair shake.
That's why I don't have a major problem with people who might swipe an instruction booklet or a case here or there. These people are simply following the precedent set by the store. When consumers feel they are being ripped off, often times they will take whatever digs they can toget back at those who are doing the ripping off...
I understand that it is your right to not sell back your games, however as a consumer why must we be subjected to unfair business practices on the "buying" end of a deal.
If I choose to by Game A used from a store, and they are charging 10 bucks for it, then my ten dollar Game A had better be no different than another person's ten dollar Game A. This is where the problems arise. Some Game A's are in great shape, others are shite, still others don't have a case or instructions, yet they all have the same shaq-fuin retail price.
Even if I wanted to take the time to sort through the fifteen used copies of Unreal Tournament they have in their little drawer, it shouldn't be my responsibility. I am the one giving them the money.
When they will sell you a disc only copy of a game at the same exact price as a pristine copy of the same game, something is not right. The consumer is not getting a fair shake.
That's why I don't have a major problem with people who might swipe an instruction booklet or a case here or there. These people are simply following the precedent set by the store. When consumers feel they are being ripped off, often times they will take whatever digs they can toget back at those who are doing the ripping off...
This is not the most stupid thing I've heard - but only because I'm online a lot.
Consider fruit.
You pay a certain price per pound. If you're lucky, the fruit in the store is perfectly ripe, and you can choose as much as you need. The next person may get fruit that's a little too ripe or not yet ripe enough, and pay the same price.
Each transaction is separate. The customer agrees to buy the selected merchandise at the chosen price. The fact that the quality may be different is irrelevant.
Same thing with a person buying something in a 2-for-1 sale, and another person buying the same thing a day later or at a non-participating location.
Or consider airplane tickets. Conventional wisdom says no two passengers on a flight pay the same airfare.
Capitalism does not require that transactions be perceived as fair by YOU, just that both sides agree to them.
Consider fruit.
You pay a certain price per pound. If you're lucky, the fruit in the store is perfectly ripe, and you can choose as much as you need. The next person may get fruit that's a little too ripe or not yet ripe enough, and pay the same price.
Each transaction is separate. The customer agrees to buy the selected merchandise at the chosen price. The fact that the quality may be different is irrelevant.
Same thing with a person buying something in a 2-for-1 sale, and another person buying the same thing a day later or at a non-participating location.
Or consider airplane tickets. Conventional wisdom says no two passengers on a flight pay the same airfare.
Capitalism does not require that transactions be perceived as fair by YOU, just that both sides agree to them.
jerryenzyme
CAG Veteran
I don't see why everyone is complaining about the games with no cases/instructions. We sell them for the same amount because we give the same amount regardless. EB (at least they used to) gives up to 70% less and sell it for the same price, Gamestop does not. It's not like we're hoarding cases and instructions, that's simply how we receive them. Just ASK whether or not it has instructions or a case, is it that hard?
This does not apply to Gamestop.com, however. Because it sucks.
This does not apply to Gamestop.com, however. Because it sucks.
[quote name='Mishimaryu']Btw EB games and gamestop workers take the game home try it out then return it and shrink wrap and sell them as new. Now thats just dirty.
[/quote]
well, lets put it this way, both ebgames and gamestop have been sued in the past for selling used games as new. so thats that. If you want a new game, make sure it is factory sealed(or go to a store that ONLY sells new games and you are set.
[/quote]
well, lets put it this way, both ebgames and gamestop have been sued in the past for selling used games as new. so thats that. If you want a new game, make sure it is factory sealed(or go to a store that ONLY sells new games and you are set.
eldad 9-
Given your example...I cannot help but begin my response with the following.
Your comparison of fruit to videogames is like...well...comparing apples and oranges.
To skewer your argument as you attempted to do mine, the summation of your argument:
"Capitalism does not require that transactions be perceived as fair by YOU, just that both sides agree to them. "
So a fair transaction by your definition would take place when a man sells a senior citizen a new water heater for her home when she doesn't need one because she agrees to it. No ethics or morals involved? Or perhaps the cab driver who brings someone on a runaround tour of the city to rack up the fare...just because two people agree does not make a transaction fair...
As for the rest of your argument, apples and oranges and papaya and coconut are fruits and are grown by nature. There is an inherent risk when buying items that are grown. Manufactured items are not subject to these same rules. If I go to Old Navy to buy Brand A jeans in Chicago, these jeans had better be the same quality as the Brand A jeans someone buys in Tallahasee.
We are not talking about fruit, we are talking about items that are man made and subject to quality control.
And your argument about airline tickets makes no sense. I am not necessarily talking about price (though that may be a factor) but rather quality of item purchased. If someone buys a seat for $100.00 through priceline and someone else buys a seat through the airline for twice that, I expect both seats to be equal. They should both be treated equally. If either one had a spring sticking out of their seat and was denied meal service...well they should just sit there and take it? That seems to be what you're implying.
I'm a big fan of capitalism...but I am also a fan of fair business practices. Consumers are taken advantage of ALL the time. Why must we reveal personal information to save at the grocery stores with their membership cards? Why is it that companies focus on making profits for shareholders rather than reinvesting their money and making a cheaper, better product for the consumer. Money, money, money.
So by the same token if a consumer decides he's had enough and swipes a syphon filter instruction book...well what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Given your example...I cannot help but begin my response with the following.
Your comparison of fruit to videogames is like...well...comparing apples and oranges.
To skewer your argument as you attempted to do mine, the summation of your argument:
"Capitalism does not require that transactions be perceived as fair by YOU, just that both sides agree to them. "
So a fair transaction by your definition would take place when a man sells a senior citizen a new water heater for her home when she doesn't need one because she agrees to it. No ethics or morals involved? Or perhaps the cab driver who brings someone on a runaround tour of the city to rack up the fare...just because two people agree does not make a transaction fair...
As for the rest of your argument, apples and oranges and papaya and coconut are fruits and are grown by nature. There is an inherent risk when buying items that are grown. Manufactured items are not subject to these same rules. If I go to Old Navy to buy Brand A jeans in Chicago, these jeans had better be the same quality as the Brand A jeans someone buys in Tallahasee.
We are not talking about fruit, we are talking about items that are man made and subject to quality control.
And your argument about airline tickets makes no sense. I am not necessarily talking about price (though that may be a factor) but rather quality of item purchased. If someone buys a seat for $100.00 through priceline and someone else buys a seat through the airline for twice that, I expect both seats to be equal. They should both be treated equally. If either one had a spring sticking out of their seat and was denied meal service...well they should just sit there and take it? That seems to be what you're implying.
I'm a big fan of capitalism...but I am also a fan of fair business practices. Consumers are taken advantage of ALL the time. Why must we reveal personal information to save at the grocery stores with their membership cards? Why is it that companies focus on making profits for shareholders rather than reinvesting their money and making a cheaper, better product for the consumer. Money, money, money.
So by the same token if a consumer decides he's had enough and swipes a syphon filter instruction book...well what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
bread's done