BUYER BEWARE: Gamestop changes return policy (1 Viewer)

[Andy Anderson]

As long as the game plays properly and I have all the contents it makes no difference to me. It's not like I'm buying underwear.

You don't buy underwear? Duuuude.


Dean, your "Like New" or "Return Club" stickers and point-accrual scheme is a really freakin' great idea. That would be a great way to keep everyone (honest and) happy.

Andy

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Do you realize how many products are returned to stores every day and resold as new because someone did not like something?

And these stores mark those products as such, and if they don't they are deceiving the customer.
You have great ideas for the store, but that is not the situation you get when you walk into a Gamestop. It never has been. If that was the way they did it, that would be a great service to customers. But the point is, they don't, and they act pissed off when you call them on it. I've been to three different Gamestops in this town and several others in several other cities, and not one has priced their products equal to Best Buy/Wal-Mart. Their customer service is just as bad as Best Buy's, but you get the privilege of paying more for it. Their website prices are in line with other retailers, but not in-store. Games are consistently marked up at Gamestop, and if you've not seen it then count yourself lucky.
I apologize for the Ummm, but it seemed kind of obvious to me why someone would care if a product had been opened.

 

[Brian Kleinke]

My brother is an assistant manager for gamestop....

He's not happy but it's because of the lawsuit that is happening... and that's because of some dumb gamestop employees who rebranded something used as new.

The reason to goto a gamestop is not for the prices, but the selection... they have a LOT more games then Best Buy and also recieve PC games sooner.

 

[Chris Duran]

What I don't understand is why can't EB, and Gamespot as big of a retailers as these companies are demand a empty game case with cover for them to display instead of opening every copy of the game and placing them in away for security? Wouldn't that make more sense? Not that all EB's and Gamespot's do this mind you, but the ones I've been to have all done this.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

You will have to pay for the rental in ADDITION to the purchase.
Games are frequently out of stock
Some games such as mature are not stocked by many stores.
Games take a much longer time to arrive on the rental shelves in some cases.

That's fine, and I like your idea, but the thing is, you can't sell something as new if it isn't.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Edit: It isn't worth it.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Well, you could write them a letter, tell them you won't go to their stores anymore because of some practice they do, and then get games somewhere else.

If it bothers you that they open the games before they sell them, then stop buying from them.

 

[Scott Ware]

I think a viable alternative is going to have to be this, The stores need to have more machines up and running and a demo for newer games so you can try right there in the store before you buy so you can see the kind of game it is and if you will like it.

I think the best alternaive is for people to simply get informed. People buy crappy games based on hype and licenses and don't pay attention to reviews. "Enter the Matrix" sold very well but got mediocre reviews. If people would start paying attention to what they're buying, then the need for such a return policy would be reduced dramatically.

I like your demo idea, though. It'd be nice if the stores would be able to produce their own demos containing the most popular games so that people can try them out in the store.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

How many people here are able to watch a movie for free before they buy it? Sure, there are commercials, but to be honest, you could probably find the equivalent amount of promotional material for games online (including screenshots, videos, official sites, previews, reviews, interviews, designer diaries, and other information). So, if you think you might not like a game when you buy it, shouldn't you do some research first? Being able to take a game home for a few days and see if you like it for free (the way their return policy used to work) is, IMO, extremely unfair. Why should you get to see if you like something for an extended amount of time without paying anything? You have a lot of information, and possibly even some in-store demos, so why should you absolutely need this extra ability?

And then when that ability is given to you, why should you complain if a perfectly fine working copy of the game that was already opened is sold to you for full price? Paying $50 for an opened game (only $5 more than an official "used" copy) in exchange for an extremely lenient return policy should be something that people should be cheering for instead of getting pissed at. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Jason Merrick]

Now without the policy I guess I will do less blind puchases which will result in LESS game purchases. With myself and 2 kids I generally buy 2-5 games per month.

I'm in a similar boat, but add 3 more kids to that equation! I ignored sale prices at other stores and paid more for games at Gamestop because of their return policy. Oh well, the party's over! :frowning:

 

[Kyle McKnight]

I work for GameStop. Just wanted to get that out up-front. Whatever I say can't be taken as an "official" answer, or as coming from GameStop.

We were sued in two states, OK and CA I believe, for selling returned software as new. We used to take back open games, as long as everything was present, and as long as there wasn't any fingerprints or scrathes on a disc. This was stated on the return policy signs posted in stores. As long as a game came back within 7 days, pristine condition, we would either offer you a full refund, or let you exchange the title. We kept track locallly of return customers, and if we noticed that an individual was abusing our policy, we would cut them off. We were not taking games that had been traded in and selling them as new. All of our display copies for console games have been opened, and "gutted". Our liberal return policy is a reason many customers shopped with GameStop. GameStop didn't want a customer getting stuck with a game that they didn't like, or that wasn't right for the person they purchased it for, so they had an open-software return policy.

AFAIK, the outcome of the lawsuit was that GameStop would change its return policy, post about the lawsuit in stores for 1-3 months, and provide a participant of the lawsuit a 5% discount on a single software purchase.

 

[Scott Ware]

I think I've pretty much said my peace on the issue. I would like to point out one choice segment from Kyle's post:

As long as a game came back within 7 days, pristine condition, we would either offer you a full refund, or let you exchange the title. We kept track locallly of return customers, and if we noticed that an individual was abusing our policy, we would cut them off. We were not taking games that had been traded in and selling them as new.

I think this is the problem with Gamestop's return policy. Pristine or not, if it has been opened and played, it's not new. Therefore, the returned game should not be resold as such.

Not that I'm picking on you Kyle, but what is the difference between used software and returned software? Both have been played before, both could theoretically be in pristine condition, and yet, one gets sold for a higher amount than the other.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

what is the difference between used software and returned software? Both have been played before, both could theoretically be in pristine condition, and yet, one gets sold for a higher amount than the other

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to respond. After these lawsuits, there is no such thing as "returned, but sold at full price" software. You don't have to worry about buying "returned" software anymore. The tradeoff? You can't have the same return policy as before. Does that seem like a fair tradeoff?

 

[Kyle McKnight]

I agree that we were selling software that people had played, that they returned, as a new game. While we never directly stated that, our return policy could be misleading in that it didn't state we re-sold the opened games that people returned to us, abiding by the conditions of the return policy. In a previous post it sounded like someone said we were taking games that had been traded in, and just wrapping them up and selling them as new, which wasn't the case.

But yes, as a final, if a new game was sold, came back within 7 days (perfect condition) because it wasn't right for the customer, or because the computer game wouldn't work with their hardware, we would accept a return on it and re-sell it without directly noting it as being opened.

 

[Chris Duran]

I know for a fact that the Gamestop near my house was wrapping games. They had a shrink wrap machine in the back office of the store. Since I used to work in a manufacturing capacity I could tell the difference when I would get a game that was re-wrapped. Current game wrapping is done using a glue sealing non-heat (I don't believe they use heat but I may be wrong) technique. The lesser shrink wrap method uses a heated tunnel (Or manual heat gun) and heated wires. You can tell by a melted edge where the case ends. And it is a softer plastic.

Another easy way to tell if the game has been re-wrapped is to look on the top of the game if it's a PS2 or PS game, it should have a sticker with the Sony logo and the name of the game along with a barcode, same with XBOX except it doesn't have the game title but it's on the side on the right hand side. Nintendo doesn't do this for some reason so you can't really tell unless you know how they wrap them. Look for those things when you buy if it doesn' have the stickers then it's probably been re-wrapped.

 

[Steve Y]

If a "perfect working copy" of a game (with instructions and box) can reasonably be sold for a new price, then why shouldn't all "play-like-new" games be sold for a new price? Why have a discounted price at all for used, working games that come with a box and instructions?

I would agree with Dean and others that this is often a psychological issue. (I'm leaving out, for now, the instances in which these "new" games are in fact scratched and/or defective) You see, nutty headcase collectors (such as myself) want a game that is shipped into our hands with no other customer's home as its first resting place. We want them all lined up in pretty rows. We want no scratches, no faded or ripped covers. We want to be the first! Nutty, like I said.

Sure, many items are sold "used-for-new". But to some of us, electronic media is different... smaller, more easily damaged... some scratches are difficult to see and not all gamestore employees can spot them regularly. The little smudges and scratches are thus amplified for the game collector. And honestly, even when a game works fine, it's irritating on moral grounds. It may not be out-and-out dishonesty, but some would call willful ommision just as bad.

I understand used games are not exactly an opened bag of cookies, but nor are they "rough-buy" items like a shoe or a pair of pants or a rake. I'm sure there are many better (or worse) examples... but why do you suppose DVDs are sold used, even the ones that play a film perfectly? Someone out there understands that new to some is more than just "functionally new". (the lawyers in this case understood that fact, obviously)

I think a lot of people are agreeing with this decision, not because they "want a return policy that gives them less options", but because they've been burned or had generally sketchy/bad experiences in these stores and are sick of the "ommisions" and the upselling pressure (which I realize are from the front office and not the fault of the clerks necessarily) not to mention the snotty, condescending attitudes you get from some of the clerks, none of which reside on the HTF - (you are all polite, thoughtful people, and we thank you for enduring the hordes of irritating JSP customers demanding ridiculous things from you every day and the front office on the other side demanding profit, profit, profit!)

People want new game to mean "game never previously purchased". It seems valid. A new CD or stereo or TV has never, in our mind, been simply a "working, playing" CD or TV that someone else has owned. Even perfect-working DVD players are given a discount at the big chains (that's a whole other can of worms I won't open at the moment - Fry's Electronics, for example, openly sells refurbished or pre-owned game hardware as brand-new - but again, that is an open practice, however reprehensible - and they have a similarly lax return policy to cover their a**es)

Now that we've established the difference between a used DVD and a used coat hanger, why not treat new as new? I don't see the problem. If a customer takes it home -- I don't care if he places it in a silver limousine and slips it with latex gloves into his gold-plated PS2 -- it is then USED. Price it accordingly.

I make consistantly informed game purchases, and if I make a bad choice, I sell the game. It's a hazard of the game industry, like going to see a bad movie and chalking it up to "another horrible movie I saw on Friday night" (and with movie prices on the rise, the price difference between the two examples will soon be negligable!) ... but there will always be people who go to the manager after the movie is over and demand a refund. But for whatever reason that irritates me. Make your bed, sleep in it!

We should all be reading more reviews (like those on the HTF!) and making more informed purchases. I bristle at the idea that I am buying a previously-purchased disc at a new price (even in my head) to subsidise another gamer's "free-rental" strategy.

~steve

 

[Michael Pakula]

Chris,

They could also just request a scan and just put it in a empty case too.


-Mike

 

[Kyle McKnight]

I wasn't denying that GameStop rewraps returned games. They did as long as the game met the conditions of the return policy. What I'm saying is that GameStop wouldn't take a game as a trade-in, and sell that game as new.

Steve Y wrote:
If a "perfect working copy" of a game (with instructions and box) can reasonably be sold for a new price, then why shouldn't all "play-like-new" games be sold for a new price? Why have a discounted price at all for used, working games that come with a box and instructions?

Heh, have you seen some of the used game prices for newer games? $44.99. Also, a lot of titles that sell new for $19.99 go for only $17.99 used.

 

[Jason Merrick]

Not sure if this has anything to do with the Gamestop lawsuit, but I went in to Fry's this weekend and found most of the opened/returned merchandise on the shelves had a new type of "previously opened" sticker and with a discounted price marked.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Heh, have you seen some of the used game prices for newer games? $44.99. Also, a lot of titles that sell new for $19.99 go for only $17.99 used.

I've personally never understood why anyone would buy a used game for $17.99 when you can buy it new for $19.99. Is two dollars really worth it?