Game.co.uk Rental Service

[Ch3tan]

Right.

You are costing the retailer. You are costing them the wages of the person who served you, and the person who does the refund for you. They make no profit. You have bought a game and then refunded it, you have cost them money, not made any for them. This is a very simplified argument. If you want to bring all the overheads into it, and the fact that the game depreciates in value after release day, then you really are harming business.

You ARE hurting the developer and publisher as well as the retailer. A shop sells 5 copies of a game and has none returned. They buy 5 more from the supplier, the supplier buys 5 more from the publisher. Everyone makes a profit.

A shop sells 5 games, 5 games are returned. They buy no more from the supplier, the supplier buys no more from the publisher. No one makes any money.

The fact you cannot see this just proves that everyone in this country wants something for nothing. Maybe if we did not live in a welfare state, people would actually appreciate the value of things.

 

[Will]

A shop sells 5 games. They buy 5 more from the supplier, then 5 games are returned. The shop is left holding 10 games, more than it expects to sell.

Fixed.

 

[tris-]

the argument about hurting a retailer, in my view, isnt applicable.

the retailer doesnt care about the consumer, they just give the impression they do. the ultimate aim of a business is to make a profit.
i care about a retailer as little as they care about me.

most pricing strategies are scams to make you think youre getting a bargain. such as RRPs being slashed, sale prices etc.

imo none of that should be allowed. a price should just be given and thats that.
thats probably completley off the point now though!

 

[~Latency~]

i know it's pretty much the same nath, my point being i didn't make the returns policy i'm merely using it. you however are downloading games illegally.. i'm in no wrong i'll return as many poo games as i like.. there's no way i'm keeping something crappy i can finish in 5 hours for £40.. if they priced it at £25 then i'd be happy to.. it's all about value for money

and i also don't give a flying fuck about woolies, they are a business, they do not care about you or me.. they wont be changing the world or helping the poor, just the people at the top getting filthy rich and the till peons on an average wage selling overpriced goods

fookers

 

[nath]

Oh the big evil corporations. Did they eat your baby?

Don't try to make it out like it's the quality of the game that forces you to do it - you've demonstrated that you know well in advance that you'll buy the games then take them back - thus exploiting the policy. Enough people do this sort of shit and they'll remove the policy (like they did at Game) and that only hurts the people who appreciated the policy and used it with a modicum of restraint.

 

[taB]

the argument about hurting a retailer, in my view, isnt applicable.

the retailer doesnt care about the consumer, they just give the impression they do. the ultimate aim of a business is to make a profit.
i care about a retailer as little as they care about me.

Personally I think abusing returns systems is fucking pikey.

I work in retail - albeit a rather different field to this. We offer full money back satisfaction on all that we sell. If someone took the piss with it I wouldn't deal with them. In the non personal world of multiples I doubt the till people know their customers by name though.

 

[tris-]

Personally I think abusing returns systems is fucking pikey.

then surely the business should modify the policy to be used how they want it to be.

eitherway why is everyone stating it as fact that game removed it due to people using it like latency did?

was there a press release?
do you work there and know it first hand?

where is the source for these facts youre all throwing about.

 

[nath]

then surely the business should modify the policy to be used how they want it to be.

Tris are you smoking crack or something? That's exactly what Game have done... they offered a good will policy, it got abused, they removed it.

As to what you put in your edit, granted there's no release that says this - but it seems pretty obvious. They had what was essentially a good-will policy, they removed it when it was abused.

 

[tris-]

aslong we can accept that then, and you accept there could be a number of other possible reasons for it

 

[Ch3tan]

tris they started putting security seals on the games, so they could only be returned unplayed.

I am sure both gaffer (former game employee) and deebs (current game employee) have both said that was the reason to.