Gamer gets mad over E.A's new 'pay more if its used' scheme, sues wrong company instead

Read the story at Edge

Things like this make me laugh for a number of reasons.  Any-ways, in case you haven't been paying attention, Electronic Arts recently introduced a new 'scheme' to encourage gamers to buy games new by including one-time unlock-able content for first-time purchases.  This materialises in Mass Effect 2 as 'The Cereberus Network' offering fairly tossable content such as the chance to explore the crash site of the first Normandy (definitely not worth the time, let alone extra cash by the way...)

If you are fortunate enough to have the cash handy to dish out for a new copy, then this stuff is free.  All you do is punch in a code included with the game to redeem your extra content - but the catch is that this code isn't transferable.  Once it's used, it's gone. (by the way, no one knows if this is console-tied or account-tied so buying a replacement console could actually invalidate the content even if you bought the game new)

At any rate, James Collins thinks that this stinks after finding out that his used copy of Dragon Age: Origins (another title employing this new scheme) asked him to fork out another $15 USD to gain access to the 'free content' normally granted to first-purchase owners.  Having bought the copy from Gamestop, Collins is now suing Gamestop (not E.A.) claiming that Gamestop failed to alert him to the fact that his used copy, of which he saved a meager $5, worked out to be $10 more than a new copy if you took into account the free content which was $15 to second-hand owners.

While I feel for him (well kindof not but...), he needs to realise that he's walked headlong and blind into the bear-trap set by Electronic Arts.  In fact, the trap has worked so well that the wrong company is being held to account.  Now some of you out there may agree - Gamestop scammed him, right?  After all, another $5 would have got him the 'full game' but Gamestop wants to ship their used copies too and why not?  It makes up 20% of their annual revenue.  So Collins is quite right to stab his anger at Gamestop for being greedy jerks. -Except that, Gamestop is not at fault here; at least, not in my opinion.

Collins suit is warranted, but he should have gone after the company that set the trap in the first place: Electronic Arts.  This lawsuit is the fallout of Electronic Arts' attempt to lure gamers away from the used market by offering them candy if they buy new.  Technically speaking, their marketing assholes will say that this candy is 'the rest of the game'; essentially, you don't get the 'full' game unless you buy new, or fork out more moula.

From what I've witnessed in Mass Effect 2, this is far from the truth.  Now I'll hold my hands up and say that I did actually buy a new copy to get the content, but then I took the time to pay attention long enough to realise that this scheme was in place and the used copy on the shelf (which was also $5 cheaper coincidently) was a false economy and I was better off getting the new copy.  I didn't hold my retailer responsible for having the 'cheek' to discount a measly $5 of the used copy.  Why should I?  My retailer sets the price according to demand.  If customers are picking it up either because they don't know or don't care about E.A.s scheme, why should my retailer do anything different?  If customers DO care then they won't buy the used game at the price set and that will drive the used price down accordingly.  What did Collins expect: that Gamespot should place fancy stickers and lights, at their own expense, saying that 'HEY BUDDY, YOU'LL GET SCREWED BUYING THIS AT $5 LESS!!!"??  Well pardon me but that's complete and utter horse-dodo.

Not only is doing such a thing logistically tricky and expensive (particularly if you take in printing costs, lost time, etc) - this notification would only have relevance if the discount was within the spread of a new copy less DLC.  Effectively, Collins is alleging that Gamestop should:

A) Identify any game that carries the scheme
B) Establish the cost of the DLC if purchased
C) Monitor the cost of the DLC in real-time (because publishers discount things too, you know)
D) Monitor the prices of the new and used copies in real-time
E) Calculate the effective price of a used copy + DLC, in real-time

F) Calculate the difference of the effective price of a used copy compared against the price of a new copy
G) If the effective price exceeds the price of a new copy, alert the staff that morning to place a sticker on all affected products (or remove if effective price is now lower)
H) Send staff out routing through the shelves of used copies placing or removing stickers

Now if you bothered to read all that, does it sound complex, expensive and a bit ridicoulous? Well that's because it is.  What retailer would take such insane measures purely to educate a consumer about pitfalls of a scheme launched by a publisher?  Answer - none.  Electronic Arts should have declared this very clearly and boldly on their box art along the lines of, oh I dunno "FREE CONTENT IF PURCHASED NEW!!!"  Collins inability to be an informed consumer is certainly not Gamestop's problem.  The price of used copies has always been set according to the demand of the market.  In fact, given a few months the effective price of a used copy (including the dlc cost) will drop well below the cost of a new copy anyway; and even if it didn't, there are undoubtedly consumers out there that don't care about the free content and would have no intention of buying the DLC.

I agree with James Collins - this scheme is cheeky.  But if he doesn't like it, I suggest he takes the fight to the horse's mouth: Electronic Arts.  After all, there is much wrong with Electronic Arts' thinking here, but that's another blog I have yet to write ;)

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.