Wherein Bethesda acts like a$$holes

[Punisher]

So in this case, I would think that Gamestop would have the same issue since they open every one of their games before selling them.

With distributor/manufacturer permission.

i find it hard to believe that Gamestop went to Bethesda (or anyone) and said "hey. We are going to open every new game we receive and sell it opened, but call it new"..

It's the only way they'll sell it. They aren't going to have actual CD's in boxes because of theft. It's certainly in any contract they agree to with distributors. My son used to work there so I'm sure of this. That wouldn't even be an issue in a contract discussion, the manufacters/distributors know that in store theft is a problem.

Except, the theft thing is complete bull since they are gutting EVERY copy of the new games they get. Even the ones sitting in the back stockroom. So, if they get 10 copies of Halo, they open all 10 of them up. I've tried getting sealed ones and they have told me they are all opened. How do I know they didnt just sell me a pre-owned game?

[Punisher]

So you'd rather see consumers get scammed by 'new' products that aren't new. Difference of opinion here.

Also really this is an Ebay problem more than it is a Bethesda problem, because as GG says the labeling doesn't directly stop scamming. But what it does do is let the consumer know that this game is not sold through manufacturer distribution channels and I think that's a good thing.

Again, difference of opinion.

So, what is the big difference? If its re-shrink wrapped, but it works, who cares? If it's re-shrink wrapped and doesnt work, you return it. Its easier to return a new, non-working game than a used, as is game. Gamestop sells their used games for $5 less than full retail, so selling me the same game for anything less than that i still make out regardless of what you sell it as.

From Bethesda's point of view, the scammers cause them customer support issues, otherwise known as money and they don't want that. Now whether or not this will actually help their customer support issues is another question altogether, it may not make any difference, but they paid lawyers to find out so I assume they think it will help.

This sounds like a party line. If I have a problem with one of their games, I will have the same problem whether I bought it new in the box from a retailer, "new" from Ebay, "fake new" from ebay and used.
When I call/write to support, they have no idea where or how I got it.
Now, If I truly get scammed from someone on Ebay..IE they send me an empty box, I'm going back to Ebay for my resolution. Same thing if its not a SCAM and it really was new and just wouldn't work (IE: scratched or something)
Having this policy of theirs changes absolutely nothing.

[Daehawk]

I thought the Gamestop were forced to stop selling opened games as new .

[GreenGoo]

What makes you think that?

I have no idea, personally, just wondering where your thought comes from.

[Punisher]

the few I've visited in the past couple of months were still opening them.

[Daehawk]

I thought I read it back when it was still Electronics Boutique. This would have been at least 10 years ago. They were opening them and people were starting to file lawsuits about them being sold at full price even though they had been opened. Some employees were using the cd keys. Back in those days employees would do that...open and play a game. But before the cd key was a big deal it wasn't a big deal because there was not an always on internet in the 90s much and a key check constantly. But then in the 2000s it became a big problem and I could swear they got sued over it. I once bought a 'new' game from them and got home and opened it to find they didn't repack the cd in it. had to go all the way back 30 miles to get the damn cd.

[morlac]

the few I've visited in the past couple of months were still opening them.

One near me does not and has not for awhile...shrug. dispaly ones are gutted but not new stock in back.

[Daehawk]

Last time I was in Gamestop...maybe 2015....they didn't even have any PC boxes...closed or open. They had some cards hanging on holders that showed the game art and name and price. you paid and got a digital code. I started seeing those and said why bother. I can get them cheaper online. I dont consider Gamestop in the PC business any longer.

[morlac]

They are not nor have been in the PC business for at least 5 years. It's strictly consoles and mostly used at that. Also, they sell "Nerd" merchandise now. I bought a ton as gifts last Christmas and got some amazing deals. I also got a great deal on a new Xbox a couple months ago so they are not completely useless yet.

[Punisher]

Last time I was in Gamestop...maybe 2015....they didn't even have any PC boxes...closed or open. They had some cards hanging on holders that showed the game art and name and price. you paid and got a digital code. I started seeing those and said why bother. I can get them cheaper online. I dont consider Gamestop in the PC business any longer.

For the record, i was referring to console games. I havent bought a PC game from them in well over a decade I think..

[Blackhawk]

One near me does not and has not for awhile...shrug. dispaly ones are gutted but not new stock in back.

That, I believe, is the 'default' policy.

The caveat is that employees are allowed to take new disks home and play them to 'educate' themselves about the games, so the pre-opened new games may very well have spent days in someone's dusty console.

Also, they sell "Nerd" merchandise now.

That's because they bought ThinkGeek a year or two ago. They themselves realize that physical media game stores have a timer attached these days, and they're trying to diversify. They don't want to be the next Blockbuster. I expect in a few years that Gamestop will be a nerd store/board game/video/[current trend]/clothing store that has a wall of video games.

[Lorini]

They still occasionally sell PC Collector's editions. If anyone feels as if Gamestop should not be able to sell games as new and are in the US, contact your state Attorney General and complain.

[Rumpy]

There have been a lot of scammy Amazon Marketplace sellers and it seems to be on the rise. My guess is, Bethesda felt that this seller in particular had a history (which it might very well have) and that it didn't feel particularly good about their products being associated with them.

[Jeff V]

So you won't be able to sell the game as new anymore, at least not their games.

Not true. They didn't establish precedent or set policy for retailers. All they did was threaten somebody with some legalese that may or may not actually be true (they don't have to be correct with their legalese - that's what judges are for - but it sure is good at intimidating people.)

Bethesda does not get to define the law however they see fit just because it benefits them.

Well I guess if you want to fight them in court over the use of 'new' you could, but I think because of the ability to re-shrinkwrap games, you would lose. They can prove that people who sell reshrinkwrapped games cost them money and they don't want to spend that. I just don't think this is some huge deal, consumers should know when a game didn't come directly from a distributor and this is a way of knowing that.

As mentioned, there's way too much scamming as it is; why not protect people buying something they think is new by stopping sellers from re-selling games described as new when they don't come from a distributor?

We will have to disagree on this one Blackhawk, I hope more manufacturer's apply this standard.

The burden of proof would be on them to prove a material difference between a new but unowned product vs. a new but unopened product. Me thinks they would lose in embarrassing fashion.

[Blackhawk]

I think they would, too. They're citing a case that was completely different (which involved filing off serial numbers and substituting a different warranty for the manufacturer's) as their justification for this.

And the judge doesn't care if they're losing money. That's not what this set of laws is about. It's about whether the pre-defined conditions (and by predefined, I'm talking about a century and a half ago) are satisfied to allow them to interfere with the sale. If they're satisfied, Bethesda wins and other companies can then use that decision to block other types of sales. If they're not satisfied, Bethesda loses and other companies will be prevented from interfering with sales for the kinds of reasons they're using.

[Daehawk]

Hope they lose.

[Blackhawk]

Hope they lose.

Hope someone stands up to their bluff.

[Lorini]

When would it be worth the money to take them to court though? The difference between selling a game as new and Like new is not that much, at most like $10? Maybe an attorney will do it for free? I think that's the best you could hope for.

[GreenGoo]

Winning the lawsuit would probably mean the cost is zero for the consumer. Until then though, you need to be able to front the money.

The worst part of your argument is that corporations can threaten people with baseless lawsuits and win because justice is more expensive than most of us can afford.

That's not a good thing.

[Lorini]

We simply don't agree. We don't even know if it's baseless. It has to go to court to see if it is in fact baseless. We may or may not believe that it's baseless but we don't know. So again a disagreement.

As far as justice not being affordable that's something that is an issue way past this one.

[GreenGoo]

There are people that don't agree that Drumpf is a lying sack of shit too, that doesn't mean both sides have the same probability of being correct.

edit: Let me rephrase. Opinions aren't valid simply for existing. Just because disagreements exist doesn't make the topic controversial. Just because "we can't know" doesn't make every other possibility equally probable. Opinions shouldn't exist in a vacuum, and there are decades worth of evidence supporting some of the opinions in this thread, and...believing the motivations put forth by a corporate lawyer on the other. One opinion makes logical sense when viewed critically based on evidence. Another is based on...the belief that a corporation is acting in good faith, and the ability to ignore common sense analysis of the legal precedent that corporation is attacking?

Honestly Lorini, you are entitled to your opinion, and may turn out that Blackhawk et al are not exactly correct on every facet being discussed, but the chances that you are correct on even the basic premise of your opinion, in my opinion of course, is exactly zero.

[Lorini]

There are people that don't agree that Drumpf is a lying sack of shit too, that doesn't mean both sides have the same probability of being correct.

Whatever. If you think this argument is the same as Trump or that somehow I'm arguing like Trump, then I don't know what to tell you, in fact I'd certainly recommend that you never read anything I write ever again.

[GreenGoo]

There are people that don't agree that Drumpf is a lying sack of shit too, that doesn't mean both sides have the same probability of being correct.

Whatever. If you think this argument is the same as Trump or that somehow I'm arguing like Trump, then I don't know what to tell you, in fact I'd certainly recommend that you never read anything I write ever again.

Agreed. I'd prefer not to read anything you write about believing corporations are acting in good faith simply because corporations are telling you they are acting in good faith, while ignoring a preponderance of precedent to the contrary.

When a corporation attacks consumer rights, the default stance for any consumer should be one of severe skepticism, not blind faith that it is for the "greater good". That's...an unreasonable default stance, imo of course.

[GreenGoo]

There have been a lot of scammy Amazon Marketplace sellers and it seems to be on the rise. My guess is, Bethesda felt that this seller in particular had a history (which it might very well have) and that it didn't feel particularly good about their products being associated with them.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we should change long held consumer law precedence because Bethesda feels like there is a bad actor on Amazon Marketplace, reducing the rights of legitimate consumers, does it?

I mean...does that seem reasonable to you?

Edit: and that's *if* every single part of Bethesda's public comments are their true motivations. What do think the probability of that is?

[Blackhawk]

may turn out that Blackhawk et al are not exactly correct on every facet being discussed

That's pretty much a guarantee. I'm not on target. I believe that I am, however, pointed in the right general direction.

[Lorini]

Again, whatever. The corporation is saying there is a lack of transparency but hey since the corporation says it then it's automatically wrong. Got it. I happen to agree that there should be more transparency in buying an selling on these sites but hey I'm wrong because Bethesda thinks so too. I don't think that way. Yes I disagree with a lot of corporate shit that goes on but in this specific case I think the more a buyer knows the better.

So sue me

[GreenGoo]

It's not automatically wrong, it's automatically suspect BECAUSE they want to reduce your rights while telling you it's for your own good.

And you accept that at face value. That's... disconcerting.

There is a huge gap between what you want (more transparency) and how they are going about it (restricting consumer rights).

Even if I agreed that scammers are a problem on Amazon, changing legal precedent (essentially creating new law in this case) is a disproportionate response.

Not all problems need an expansion of laws.

And that's if I believed they were acting in good faith, which I do not.

So even if I were 100% on your side of this equation, I still disagree about the proposed solution.

[Rumpy]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we should change long held consumer law precedence because Bethesda feels like there is a bad actor on Amazon Marketplace, reducing the rights of legitimate consumers, does it?

I mean...does that seem reasonable to you?

Edit: and that's *if* every single part of Bethesda's public comments are their true motivations. What do think the probability of that is?

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's very probable that we don't have the entire information that they themselves have that is making them act this way. It could be that it's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation where they've had many bad actors in the past. That is not entirely inconceivable seeing as Amazon has a very lax track record when it comes to marketplace sellers. This could be Bethesda firing off a warning shot, not just at the marketplace seller, but the entire system as well.

[GreenGoo]

The question was whether you think it's reasonable. Bethesda clearly thinks it's reasonable cover for their actions. Do you? I'm hearing "maybe", is that right?

Asked another way, do you think they would accomplish their goals by forcing sellers to change their text from "new, never opened" to "like new, never opened"?

Do we need new law affecting every industry, because criminals are already breaking current laws on the books? Can Bethesda be trusted to act in consumers interests without overreach?

We've already watched consumer rights erosion in other industries covering IP law.

If I asked you if the RIAA should be trusted to act in consumers best interests, re-writing laws through new expansive interpretations of current law based on the fact they say they are trustworthy, what would you say?

[GreenGoo]

And holy shit, can I just point out the absurdity that we are discussing whether Bethesda is doing us a favour by reducing consumer rights that are in place to provide the consumer with a modicum of protection from corporations, of which Bethesda is one?

I realize this is the darkest timeline, but come on people. These laws are there to protect YOU. And you're ok with reducing them because one of the very organizations the laws are designed to defend against simply says it's in your own best interests if you have less protection?

What kind of fucking bizarro world has this become?

Next cops are going to be suing members of the public in order to obtain less stringent defendant rights and they are going to sell it to the general public as beneficial to everyone because it will make the cops' job easier and get more criminals off the streets. Are people really buying that logic?

Does that sound reasonable to you? More important, are you willing to sacrifice everyone's rights in order to reduce (how? I have no idea) some scammers on Amazon?

This whole conversation has me wtf'ing in a big way.

Let me say it one more time. Bethesda wants to reduce consumer protections (designed to protect you from, as one example, Bethesda) in order to protect you from criminals.

But yeah, no, I'm sure Bethesda is acting in good faith. You know how I know? They told me they were.

[GreenGoo]

Finally, if your goal is less scammers on Amazon, reducing consumer rights is not the only (or even one way, as far as I can tell) way to solve that problem.

[Zarathud]

It's interesting how you doubt not only the corporation's intent but also Lorini's good faith. The strong and disconcerting bias is your own.

Even if I agreed that scammers are a problem on Amazon, changing legal precedent (essentially creating new law in this case) is a disproportionate response.

Not all problems need an expansion of laws.

Again, more bias and misunderstanding of the legal system. A court case may end up creating precedent defining the balance between resale right and transparency. The reseller is in a business and disputes over business practices are common, especially for those engaging in shady practices.

No one in the lawsuit automatically deserves sympathy. Or the bile.

[stessier]

No one in the lawsuit automatically deserves... the bile.

The lawyers...always the lawyers.

[Blackhawk]

In an era when 'normal' people have been getting stomped and abused repeatedly by corporations, people are going to go on the defensive when corporations start trying to mess with their rights. In my view, it's probably justified.

[GreenGoo]

It's interesting how you doubt not only the corporation's intent but also Lorini's good faith. The strong and disconcerting bias is your own.

I don't for a moment doubt lorini's (or Stumpy's) good faith, what would make you say that?

I think it's misplaced, that's all. And from my perspective, obviously misplaced. Like, naively misplaced.

My bias is FOR consumers and the laws protecting them and AGAINST corporations seeking to undermine those protections.

That's pretty much the extent of it. I don't "know" Bethesda from a hole in the ground.

Any "bile" is simply frustration that people accept attacks on their rights (even small, incremental ones) because a corporation says it's a good thing.

Having watched consumer rights erode through expanding and restrictive IP law, I'm predictably cautious when a corp does anything that will impact those rights.

So if it seems like I think Lorini is stubbornly holding a position that is extremely unlikely to be correct despite persuasive counter arguments from blackhawk and others, well, it's because I do.

Lorini suggested I simply stop reading her posts, which is fine. It might be rude to agree with her, but she's the one who put it on the table. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

Some people are worth reading on certain subjects. Some have proven that they are not.

[Zarathud]

Stubbornly holding a position, indeed.

[GreenGoo]

Stubbornly holding a position, indeed.

Well, duh. Although if you can provide me with evidence that Bethesda is acting in good faith beyond blind belief, that what they are suing for will have the proposed outcome they are suggesting it will, and that the outcome is worth the changes in interpretation to the law as it applies across all other industries it covers, I'm willing to re-consider my position.

So far you've provided...what, exactly? Businesses have conflicts? Well, duh again.

So sure, I'm unreasonably stubborn based on not wanting consumer rights eroded. At least I'm not unreasonably stubborn based on my hurt feels.

And you wonder why I might say hostile things on occasion.

How about this. Provide me with a single instance where Bethesda sued someone that resulted in improvements for consumers, and I'll consider "being less stubborn". I'll move my position from 99% sure Bethesda is acting in bad faith to something less than 99%. One instance is a pretty small request, and it will show at least a single instance of precedent for Bethesda deserving the benefit of the doubt. I have no idea if such an example exists, but feel free to provide me with at least some, any evidence that they are worthy of consumer support.

[Rumpy]

The question was whether you think it's reasonable. Bethesda clearly thinks it's reasonable cover for their actions. Do you? I'm hearing "maybe", is that right?

Yes, maybe. Fact is, we really don't know the variables. They could have a very good reason for getting on the offensive like this. Part of the blame is on sellers, and part of the blame is on Amazon's system and how they appear to the average buyer and some sellers taking advantage of this. The buyer doesn't have enough information to make informed decisions when "official looking products" are said to be fulfilled by Amazon, and it's been documented that there have been tons of counterfeits falling through the cracks. It happened with Eclipse glasses last year, with the official companies sending cease and desists. For all we know it could be this kind of situation, and where this particular seller was reported to Bethesda. Frankly, there's not one easy answer for this. My only hope is that Amazon looks at this as a chance to improve their marketplace system, both for buyers and sellers.

[GreenGoo]

Rumpy, I called you stumpy before. That was a legitimate mistake, and no disrespect was intended. My apologies.

Second, you're right, we can't know Bethesda's motivations, but we can critically think, we can look at precedent and both sides can speculate. That particular argument was covered earlier by Blackhawk and Lorini.

Not knowing for a fact is not the same thing as all possible outcomes are equally probable.

There seems to be some confusion over what's at stake, what's happening, and how what's happening will resolve things.

a) Scammers exist. No one is questioning that. Anecdotes about them existing are arguing against a position no one here on OO holds.
b) Changing labels from "new" to "like new", assuming criminals suddenly become law abiding citizens, stops these scammers how, exactly?

There are more details available about what's going on than is suggested by your post. In any case, Bethesda is suing someone who has put an unopened, unused game up for sale because they called it "new". Whether the game is actually an old Lionel Richie CD isn't part of the deal and won't be solved by a labeling change. The lawsuit does not depend on the target being legitimate or a scammer.

[GreenGoo]

Here's an easier question for the likes of Zarathud, since he assures me I don't understand, so maybe he can clarify.

How does changing an Amazon listing description from "new" for an unopened, unused product to "something other than new" reduce the number of scams occurring?