Gutting games is a most shameful practice (and deserves all the scorn it gets), but since only ebgamestop does it (shows you what other places think of it), I avoid it pretty easily, and they simply miss out on my significant (for an individual) amount of business. Also as a person in a position of influence of many friends, nobody else I know shops there either.
You do realize that, no matter how self-important you might be, you are nothing compared to the ammount of business that GameStop does.
I don't care? They don't affect me in any way save for the rare exclusive special edition.
No, that's fine.
I was just pointing out that the loss of your business doesn't have any noticable effect on them.
I understood that when I went through several back and forth emails with corporate about the policy. They would never say it outright, but I left it open that the only conclusion left was they they didnt feel the amount of business lost to policies like gutting (amoung other things) was significant enough to care about. They wouldnt deny that's the case so I took it as the truth.
It was clear they didnt care about customers like me, so understandably I dont care about businesses of theirs. It works out just fine as far as I'm concerned. Deep down I WISH ebgamestop could be "the gamers store" but in the interests of maximizing profits it's just not going to happen anytime soon.
What interest should they have OTHER THAN maximizing profits?
That's where I've been having a huge disconnect with you this entire thread. Ypu've been acting as though there is some kind of nobler cause that they should be seeking.
Meanwhile, you are definitely concerned with minimizing costs, no?
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
Yeah, let's make a comparison to a gray-market service like ebay. Are you kidding?
If you are offered a gutted game, follow this flowchart -
Edit: Haha! Top page
Ah, in Evander's mind there can't be a discount since it is sitll "new"
Then move the to box of "don't buy"
There is no box for "bitch on forum"
That's why your diagram fails.
That box that says "Don't Buy It" should also include something about complaining about fucking stupid their store is and how you won't shop there again. To the manager obviously.
No. If you don't like how a store operates, they are under no obligation to change their practises just to suit you. Sure, you can give them feedback on what might make you more likely to shop there in future (and you are more likely to get a good response not useing language like fucking stupid). If they decide that it might be more profitable to change to suit you, then great stuff for you, if not they won't.
They have to balance net market perceived value with costs, and currently the best way for them to do that iis to sometimes gut games.
Their under no obligation to change their practices. And neither am I. My practice is to to buy it and then ream someone out for trying to pull this shit on me.
Okay, pray tell what exactly did they "pull" on you. Did they somehow distract you out of the fact that they had to reach into a drawer, pull out a sleeve, take the game out of the sleeve, open the game box, and then put the game in the box? Were you so mesmerized with their charm that you failed to see that the game had no sort of shrinkwrap? Were they such smooth talkers that somewhow they convinced you to buy the game anyhow?
Because unless all those things happen, you really don't have much of a right to bitch.
?? They tried to sell me an unsealed product as new. I won't buy that shit. And there damn well gonna know I won't buy that shit. If you don't say anything, how do you expect them to know what your complaint is?
Are you affronted by the idea that I'd actually have the gall to complain about a store policy I don't like? Seriously?
You yourself said you bought it though. But the point stands even if you hadn't bought it. They're not 'deceiving' you because they aren't trying to hide that it's not shrinkwrapped. More to it, in not only their eyes, but the companies eyes the product is still new.
And really, there needs to be some definition to this whole argument. Are people arguing about products that get taken out and played with? Cause yeah, that I do agree should be labeled used. But if it goes from the box to the sleeve and back to the box when it sells, that to me still falls under new. You might not like it, and you might not want to buy it, but that doesnt' make the definition any less true.
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
A game is used to me when I sell it to a customer, it leaves the store, and I have no idea what's happening to it.
It's cause you dont have a return policy on the game drez. But if you brought it to my store and explained your little conundrum i'd be glad to help you.
If you are offered a gutted game, follow this flowchart -
Edit: Haha! Top page
Ah, in Evander's mind there can't be a discount since it is sitll "new"
Then move the to box of "don't buy"
There is no box for "bitch on forum"
That's why your diagram fails.
That box that says "Don't Buy It" should also include something about complaining about fucking stupid their store is and how you won't shop there again. To the manager obviously.
No. If you don't like how a store operates, they are under no obligation to change their practises just to suit you. Sure, you can give them feedback on what might make you more likely to shop there in future (and you are more likely to get a good response not useing language like fucking stupid). If they decide that it might be more profitable to change to suit you, then great stuff for you, if not they won't.
They have to balance net market perceived value with costs, and currently the best way for them to do that iis to sometimes gut games.
Their under no obligation to change their practices. And neither am I. My practice is to to buy it and then ream someone out for trying to pull this shit on me.
Okay, pray tell what exactly did they "pull" on you. Did they somehow distract you out of the fact that they had to reach into a drawer, pull out a sleeve, take the game out of the sleeve, open the game box, and then put the game in the box? Were you so mesmerized with their charm that you failed to see that the game had no sort of shrinkwrap? Were they such smooth talkers that somewhow they convinced you to buy the game anyhow?
Because unless all those things happen, you really don't have much of a right to bitch.
?? They tried to sell me an unsealed product as new. I won't buy that shit. And there damn well gonna know I won't buy that shit. If you don't say anything, how do you expect them to know what your complaint is?
Are you affronted by the idea that I'd actually have the gall to complain about a store policy I don't like? Seriously?
You yourself said you bought it though. But the point stands even if you hadn't bought it. They're not 'deceiving' you because they aren't trying to hide that it's not shrinkwrapped. More to it, in not only their eyes, but the companies eyes the product is still new.
And really, there needs to be some definition to this whole argument. Are people arguing about products that get taken out and played with? Cause yeah, that I do agree should be labeled used. But if it goes from the box to the sleeve and back to the box when it sells, that to me still falls under new. You might not like it, and you might not want to buy it, but that doesnt' make the definition any less true.
There's suppose to be a NOT there. This would explain the confusion.
(ie - I WOULDN'T buy it and would complain before I left so they fucking well knew why I wouldn't)
No their not. I've known people that worked at EB/GS.. and have said that they sometimes sell used games as "new". This may not be what the head of the company approves, but at the "ground level" this shit happens all the time.
By gutting the games, there’s really no way to determine if its "new" or "used". Gutted games could easily be used games that look new and sold as new. Specially games that just came out. If someone beats a game like Uncharted and returns it to the store for "in store credit" so they can get another game... GS is probably going to turn around and sell that "used" copy of Uncharted as "new", if there are no scratches and such. There’s no way for the next person to be able to tell... That’s why shrink-wrapping helps people know it’s new. There’s no fingerprints under the wrap, there’s no hairs, everything is "new". Since its been produced and shipped, you are the first person to "use" it.
How many of you would like to go buy some Milk that’s been gutted? Its been poured out of its original container, stored outside its original container, and poured back into a different container with no seal to break. You have no idea what that milk has gone through before you buy it.
Ok, if a game that's been opened, emptied and possibly played qualifies as "New", what in the fuck qualifies as "Used"?
I don't understand how anybody could possibly consider a gutted game as "new."
The psychology behind it completely flummoxes me. Phonehand might as well be saying "two plus two equals five." A product that's been opened and possibly used by an employee is not new. It's the exact opposite of new. Calling it "new" contradicts every reasonable definition of the word "new."
I don't even understand how this is an interesting topic of discussion. Gamestop sells used product and calls it "new." That's all. End of story.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
If you don't agree with the practice of gutting games don't buy from them. It's simple really, its a business and they are there to make money, if enough people refuse to buy gutted games to the point that it would be more profitable for them to discontinue doing so then they would. Until that happens they will continue to do so because gutting games is most likely a more profitable option for them. They aren't do this to be dicks or to fuck you over they are doing it because they see it as a sound business practice for their company.
We can argue whether gutting is a sound business practice forever but short of obtaining legitimate valid statisical evidence none of us can prove it to be true either way. Due to this company's profits though you can pretty much assume what sort of verdict a statistical sample would return. As far as offering discounts because of gutting, while from a consumer standpoint it might make sense from EB's standpoint it doesn't. The market demand is willing to pay a certain price for a product regardless of it being gutted or not. Yes they lose some sales because of that as this thread points out but not enough to make it more profitable to discount gutted product.
As far as the legality of of new versus used in regards to gutting as long as there is no damage to the product it is still new. You are not paying for the cellophane so it does not invalidate it as being a new product, especially considering that the product hasn't actually been used. The issue of employees trying the games out at home is a little more murky. In that particular case an argument for the game being used is a lot more valid but most likely would not constitute it becoming a used product in a legal sense. Legal license to the software which is in fact what you are really paying for has never been transfered to a consumer, because it hasn't been transfered the license has not technically been used previously. Manufactures instead of consumers would be more likely to have a chance to win a legal argument as while I am not 100% sure on it EB may be engaging in a practice that violates the TOS. That would of course assume that they have no agreements in place with manufacturers to allow them to engage in this practice. NOTE: I did not include game rental yet, because revenue has been received then the product is no longer new, it would become used.
Morality and Ethical issues that come up? None, this is a corporation. Company X gives out a fuckload of money to charity, its not because it was a morale or ethical decision, its because they can reasonably argue it is financially beneficial now or in the future for them to have done so. Morality and Ethics legally do not exist for corporations. Everything is profit motivated. Yes, I am aware there are business ethics classes, I have taken one before, the existence of these classes are somewhat complex to explain, I can tell you it has nothing to do with promoting ethics in business regardless of what a professor or textbook tells you.
A game is used to me when I sell it to a customer, it leaves the store, and I have no idea what's happening to it.
So it's not used if, say, you gut Pokemon Gravelstone, play for 10 minutes, save the game, and then sell it? The customer buys the last copy, goes home, sees the save, but you would argue with him that the game is "brand new"?
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
No their not. I've known people that worked at EB/GS.. and have said that they sometimes sell used games as "new". This may not be what the head of the company approves, but at the "ground level" this shit happens all the time.
By gutting the games, there’s really no way to determine if its "new" or "used". Gutted games could easily be used games that look new and sold as new. Specially games that just came out. If someone beats a game like Uncharted and returns it to the store for "in store credit" so they can get another game... GS is probably going to turn around and sell that "used" copy of Uncharted as "new", if there are no scratches and such. There’s no way for the next person to be able to tell... That’s why shrink-wrapping helps people know it’s new. There’s no fingerprints under the wrap, there’s no hairs, everything is "new". Since its been produced and shipped, you are the first person to "use" it.
How many of you would like to go buy some Milk that’s been gutted? Its been poured out of its original container, stored outside its original container, and poured back into a different container with no seal to break. You have no idea what that milk has gone through before you buy it.
Yes, it happens I'm sure. You can't blame the company for corrupt employees though. It happens in every business. You're second point is just flat out incorrect. Trade-ins are always sold as used. Always. "Use' is also subjective. Use being what? The game hasn't been played. Merely taken out of the plastic.
A game is used to me when I sell it to a customer, it leaves the store, and I have no idea what's happening to it.
So it's not used if, say, you gut Pokemon Gravelstone, play for 10 minutes, save the game, and then sell it? The customer buys the last copy, goes home, sees the save, but you would argue with him that the game is "brand new"?
Did you miss, a page or so back, when I said that it was against company policy to check out new games that save directly to them?
As far as the legality of of new versus used as long as there is no damage to the product it is still new. You are not paying for the cellophane so it does not invalidate it as being a new product, especially considering that the product hasn't actually been used.
And this statement comes from where? Your heart of hearts?
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
That's called theft prevention, dipshit.
You are really daft. Maybe more than Evander.
No, see. It's common knowledge. Not accepting a return without a receipt is theft prevention. That's what it is. You can't justify you being right here. That's the exact reason.
A game is used to me when I sell it to a customer, it leaves the store, and I have no idea what's happening to it.
So it's not used if, say, you gut Pokemon Gravelstone, play for 10 minutes, save the game, and then sell it? The customer buys the last copy, goes home, sees the save, but you would argue with him that the game is "brand new"?
Did you miss, a page or so back, when I said that it was against company policy to check out new games that save directly to them?
No, I read it. There's no difference between games that you can save directly to and games that you cannot. Played = used. I really DO think it's insane to argue otherwise. The fact that optical disc media cannot be directly written to does not change the fact that it's being played. I mean, look up the definition of "used" in the verb sense not the adjective sense. To play a disc is to use it. Hence the game is used. Christ all fucking mother of Satan mighty I don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise which is why I'm calling the lot of you insane, as in not sane, as in the fucking opposite of sane, because to argue that any product an employee takes home and tries out isn't used is insane.
The game hasn't been played. Merely taken out of the plastic.
Many GS/EBs allow employees to take games home and play them.
And once a store has adopted a policy of gutting games it is impossible for me as a consumer to discern which games have been taken home by an employee and which have not.
This burned me once, when I purchased a copy of City of Heroes from an EB Games, brought it home, and discovered that the key code had already been used. And then EB refused to let me return it, because I had broken the little scotch tape seal they placed over the cardboard tab right there at the counter while I watched them.
I had to bitch the manager out to let me return the game.
Ergo, I now do what Rathe suggests. I refuse to buy gutted games as "new." I will be happy to pay a "used" price in some cases. The game is no longer new unless the store can guarantee to me that an employee hasn't taken it home and spooged on it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Try telling ebay bidders (or any kind of public/marketplace) that and getting your ass handed to you when the winners file complaints and ebay and/or paypal find in favor of them.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
That's called theft prevention, dipshit.
You are really daft. Maybe more than Evander.
No, see. It's common knowledge. Not accepting a return without a receipt is theft prevention. That's what it is. You can't justify you being right here. That's the exact reason.
Oh I get the point of your post now. It's irrelevant and you apparently didn't thoroughly read my post. Yep, you're definitely as bad as Evander. Maybe worse.
The game hasn't been played. Merely taken out of the plastic.
Many GS/EBs allow employees to take games home and play them.
And once a store has adopted a policy of gutting games it is impossible for me as a consumer to discern which games have been taken home by an employee and which have not.
This burned me once, when I purchased a copy of City of Heroes from an EB Games, brought it home, and discovered that the key code had already been used. And then EB refused to let me return it, because I had broken the little scotch tape seal they placed over the cardboard tab right there at the counter while I watched them.
I had to bitch the manager out to let me return the game.
Ergo, I now do what Rathe suggests. I refuse to buy gutted games as "new." I will be happy to pay a "used" price in some cases. The game is no longer new unless the store can guarantee to me that an employee hasn't taken it home and spooged on it.
Guys everyone knows that the EB employees only take those new games home in order to beta test them for us. They don't want us to find bugs in the software, so they take it home and then test it out and then report back so that the store can stop selling it if it's defective. MORALLY IT'S RIGHT.
Centipeed on
0
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
A game is used to me when I sell it to a customer, it leaves the store, and I have no idea what's happening to it.
So it's not used if, say, you gut Pokemon Gravelstone, play for 10 minutes, save the game, and then sell it? The customer buys the last copy, goes home, sees the save, but you would argue with him that the game is "brand new"?
Did you miss, a page or so back, when I said that it was against company policy to check out new games that save directly to them?
But how is playing a game that saves directly to them any different than playing a game that requires an external save thingie?
The only reason that is policy is that you could get caught doing it.
Posts
Ok, if a game that's been opened, emptied and possibly played qualifies as "New", what in the fuck qualifies as "Used"?
They are not new and never will be, Phonehand. Sorry.
You have no grasp of reality, do you?
What interest should they have OTHER THAN maximizing profits?
That's where I've been having a huge disconnect with you this entire thread. Ypu've been acting as though there is some kind of nobler cause that they should be seeking.
Meanwhile, you are definitely concerned with minimizing costs, no?
Yeah, let's make a comparison to a gray-market service like ebay. Are you kidding?
a game which has been purchased back from an end user.
Do you try clothes on before you buy them?
Shouldn't you demand to pay a discounted price at that point, as the clothes are used?
You yourself said you bought it though. But the point stands even if you hadn't bought it. They're not 'deceiving' you because they aren't trying to hide that it's not shrinkwrapped. More to it, in not only their eyes, but the companies eyes the product is still new.
And really, there needs to be some definition to this whole argument. Are people arguing about products that get taken out and played with? Cause yeah, that I do agree should be labeled used. But if it goes from the box to the sleeve and back to the box when it sells, that to me still falls under new. You might not like it, and you might not want to buy it, but that doesnt' make the definition any less true.
I do. It's where you are wrong.
So a fucking game that is rented to an employee isn't new? What the fuck is the difference between a played PS2 game and a new one?
So a game could be taken home by an employee and played endlessly but unless it was sold and then resold back to the company, it's still brand new?
That's a narrow definition.
The Sixth Annual Triwizard Drinking Tournament Part 1 |
Pokecrawl Episode 4: The Power Of One!
Portalflip
Pokemon X: Atlus | 3539-8807-3813
Yup. Apparently up until the point where someone pays money to play the game, it's still new.
That's a good point.
Try selling an opened game as "new" on any auction site. If you are sued, the plaintiff will assuredly win.
Try returning an opened game as "new" without receipt. Many stores will allow you to returned unopened software as new without receipt, usually as an exchange for their current listed new price for the game. On the other hand, almost every store (including Gamestop, ironically) will only allow you to trade in opened games without the receipt, regardless of the quality of the disc or if it looks untouched. I find that telling. If I bought a gutted game, walked out of the store, and tried returning it without the receipt at ANOTHER GAMESTOP IN THE SAME MALL, I guarantee you I would not get a refund as if it were a new game.
Opened games are no longer new. Arguing otherwise is any number of things, from stupid to insane and ending at flat-out wrong.
It's cause you dont have a return policy on the game drez. But if you brought it to my store and explained your little conundrum i'd be glad to help you.
There's suppose to be a NOT there. This would explain the confusion.
(ie - I WOULDN'T buy it and would complain before I left so they fucking well knew why I wouldn't)
No their not. I've known people that worked at EB/GS.. and have said that they sometimes sell used games as "new". This may not be what the head of the company approves, but at the "ground level" this shit happens all the time.
By gutting the games, there’s really no way to determine if its "new" or "used". Gutted games could easily be used games that look new and sold as new. Specially games that just came out. If someone beats a game like Uncharted and returns it to the store for "in store credit" so they can get another game... GS is probably going to turn around and sell that "used" copy of Uncharted as "new", if there are no scratches and such. There’s no way for the next person to be able to tell... That’s why shrink-wrapping helps people know it’s new. There’s no fingerprints under the wrap, there’s no hairs, everything is "new". Since its been produced and shipped, you are the first person to "use" it.
How many of you would like to go buy some Milk that’s been gutted? Its been poured out of its original container, stored outside its original container, and poured back into a different container with no seal to break. You have no idea what that milk has gone through before you buy it.
I don't understand how anybody could possibly consider a gutted game as "new."
The psychology behind it completely flummoxes me. Phonehand might as well be saying "two plus two equals five." A product that's been opened and possibly used by an employee is not new. It's the exact opposite of new. Calling it "new" contradicts every reasonable definition of the word "new."
I don't even understand how this is an interesting topic of discussion. Gamestop sells used product and calls it "new." That's all. End of story.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We can argue whether gutting is a sound business practice forever but short of obtaining legitimate valid statisical evidence none of us can prove it to be true either way. Due to this company's profits though you can pretty much assume what sort of verdict a statistical sample would return. As far as offering discounts because of gutting, while from a consumer standpoint it might make sense from EB's standpoint it doesn't. The market demand is willing to pay a certain price for a product regardless of it being gutted or not. Yes they lose some sales because of that as this thread points out but not enough to make it more profitable to discount gutted product.
As far as the legality of of new versus used in regards to gutting as long as there is no damage to the product it is still new. You are not paying for the cellophane so it does not invalidate it as being a new product, especially considering that the product hasn't actually been used. The issue of employees trying the games out at home is a little more murky. In that particular case an argument for the game being used is a lot more valid but most likely would not constitute it becoming a used product in a legal sense. Legal license to the software which is in fact what you are really paying for has never been transfered to a consumer, because it hasn't been transfered the license has not technically been used previously. Manufactures instead of consumers would be more likely to have a chance to win a legal argument as while I am not 100% sure on it EB may be engaging in a practice that violates the TOS. That would of course assume that they have no agreements in place with manufacturers to allow them to engage in this practice. NOTE: I did not include game rental yet, because revenue has been received then the product is no longer new, it would become used.
Morality and Ethical issues that come up? None, this is a corporation. Company X gives out a fuckload of money to charity, its not because it was a morale or ethical decision, its because they can reasonably argue it is financially beneficial now or in the future for them to have done so. Morality and Ethics legally do not exist for corporations. Everything is profit motivated. Yes, I am aware there are business ethics classes, I have taken one before, the existence of these classes are somewhat complex to explain, I can tell you it has nothing to do with promoting ethics in business regardless of what a professor or textbook tells you.
So it's not used if, say, you gut Pokemon Gravelstone, play for 10 minutes, save the game, and then sell it? The customer buys the last copy, goes home, sees the save, but you would argue with him that the game is "brand new"?
Holy shit, different products have different standards! Someone call the New York Times!!!
DS games are off limits.
You are really daft. Maybe more than Evander.
How is it illegal?
It's just the York Times now, sorry.
Did you miss, a page or so back, when I said that it was against company policy to check out new games that save directly to them?
/thread.
And this statement comes from where? Your heart of hearts?
Yessir.
You can even take it home, play it, decide you fucking hate it, and bring it back and tell me otherwise.
Don't tell anyone though, it's my own bit of compensation on the matter. Shh
No, I read it. There's no difference between games that you can save directly to and games that you cannot. Played = used. I really DO think it's insane to argue otherwise. The fact that optical disc media cannot be directly written to does not change the fact that it's being played. I mean, look up the definition of "used" in the verb sense not the adjective sense. To play a disc is to use it. Hence the game is used. Christ all fucking mother of Satan mighty I don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise which is why I'm calling the lot of you insane, as in not sane, as in the fucking opposite of sane, because to argue that any product an employee takes home and tries out isn't used is insane.
Many GS/EBs allow employees to take games home and play them.
And once a store has adopted a policy of gutting games it is impossible for me as a consumer to discern which games have been taken home by an employee and which have not.
This burned me once, when I purchased a copy of City of Heroes from an EB Games, brought it home, and discovered that the key code had already been used. And then EB refused to let me return it, because I had broken the little scotch tape seal they placed over the cardboard tab right there at the counter while I watched them.
I had to bitch the manager out to let me return the game.
Ergo, I now do what Rathe suggests. I refuse to buy gutted games as "new." I will be happy to pay a "used" price in some cases. The game is no longer new unless the store can guarantee to me that an employee hasn't taken it home and spooged on it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We at least put some kind of seal on the case to prevent this
Oh I get the point of your post now. It's irrelevant and you apparently didn't thoroughly read my post. Yep, you're definitely as bad as Evander. Maybe worse.
But how is playing a game that saves directly to them any different than playing a game that requires an external save thingie?
The only reason that is policy is that you could get caught doing it.
Satans..... hints.....