And with that, I must wonder: How is this legal? What they're doing is removing a product that the customer, I assume, is still paying for.
What's worse is that the promised product that was advertised was not supplied to consumers. That is misrepresentation of a product and is illegal. That's bat **** crazy. And illegal. Every owner of the incomplete product has a right too sue and receive compensation from Gamestop in some shape or form.
Yeah, I enjoy gamestop, but this is rediculous. I mean, you can't sell something as new if it's already been opened. It's kinda like opening a christmas present and then wrapping it back up after you've seen it.
I'm not too surprised. I hate Gamestop anyways, but it's the only video-game provider closest to my home, which is still like 2 miles away. It would be even more illegal if the Gamestop employees who did this didn't even get paid.
Lying to the public is a crime, indeed. Did they at least give a reason for recalling it? Also, not that I'm on their side, but going by the general "Terms of Service" for all games, websites, etc., don't companies have the right to terminate a product or service without notice or something?
I agree with everyone else that this is wrong of Gamestop. Like PaWn said, the product advertised by Square (who owns and distributed the product) was altered by GameStop just so they could get more money. >_> I do hope that legal action is taken, as that is a crime not just to Square, but to us consumers as well.
While I do think it's pretty messed up, if the code isn't advertised (unless I read the article wrong), and it's even 'free,' you're not really losing out on anything legally. Of course, there are the people that buy the game expecting the code. It's wrong, but doesn't look like it's wrong legally.
Apparently the CEO of Gamestop missed that whole ethics section they pound into you in Business 101. Unfortunately what they did ends up as legal. At least they're being properly recalled now, because if this was overlooked, the precedent it'd set would start a godawful chain reaction for gaming. I feel worst for OnLive. They'll still have a ton of other retailers that will have the vouchers in the game, but this was a good chance to let people see how a real powerhouse game will work on their service. Plus this will no doubt negatively skew the initial sales for the game, even if its just a little bit. Stuff like this reminds me how truly infantile the gaming business is compared others, and that much more laws and regulations still need to be created and refined so that this happens less.
