Bethesda blocks resale of used game

[cimerians]

Holy shit:

 

"Bethesda’s letter claims that Hupp’s sale is not protected by the First Sale Doctrine, because he is not selling the game in its original form, which would include a warranty. The letter says this lack of warranty renders the game “materially different from genuine products” that are sold through official channels.."

 

 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/11/17661254/bethesda-sell-used-games-amazon-block

 

[Video]

Heh, not sure. The topic said the game was sealed, and later goes to say it wasnt. Incorrect information could potentially get the seller in trouble, though not usually, and that's only if the buyer takes exception.

 

This mostly reeks of click bait sensationalist carp more than anything to me. If there was any truth at all to the "story" then Bethesda would be going after stuff like GameStop and their modified "new" items, not some blip on the radar nobody.

[Flojomojo]

That story seems a bit fishy. There are other sellers of that game on Amazon ("unclear why he was singled out") and plenty of used copies at GameStop https://www.gamestop.com/browse?nav=16k-3-Evil+within+2,28zu0

 

But yeah, Zenimax and Bethesda's lawyers can be dicks, so maybe this is their new move?

[cimerians]

"sounds like one of the ridiculous things you read on a fallout terminal"

 

Almost sounds like an April Fool's joke but considering it's Zenimax it wouldn't surprise me in the least

[Greg2600]

Makes zero sense.

[Albert]

If true, that is complete bullshit. If others are receiving letters like this, I'm sure we'll have some corroboration soon.

 

..Al

[Flojomojo]

Here's a bit more info. I'm now convinced that Bethesda/Zenimax is out of line and overreaching their authority.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-08-11-pete-hines-defends-bethesdas-legal-threat-on-amazon-marketplace-game-seller

 

Reminds me of a time I got a copy of Final Fantasy IV DS from Target, got it home and unwrapped it, and inside was Robots for DS. Someone swapped it out and resealed it. Getting my money back was a pain in the ass. I'm pretty sure Bethesda would consider them an "authorized reseller."

 

Between this and the announcement that they won't put Fallout 76 on Steam, WTF is wrong with this company?

[cimerians]

Here's a bit more info. I'm now convinced that Bethesda/Zenimax is out of line and overreaching their authority.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-08-11-pete-hines-defends-bethesdas-legal-threat-on-amazon-marketplace-game-seller

 

Reminds me of a time I got a copy of Final Fantasy IV DS from Target, got it home and unwrapped it, and inside was Robots for DS. Someone swapped it out and resealed it. Getting my money back was a pain in the ass. I'm pretty sure Bethesda would consider them an "authorized reseller."

 

Between this and the announcement that they won't put Fallout 76 on Steam, WTF is wrong with this company?

 

You have to be kidding me ffs

[Tanooki]

Am I reading this right. Assuming Hupp isn't lying and it really is just new, not resealed but new. Right?

 

That's basically saying if you have a NEW truly sealed game, and try and sell it because you can't for some reason return it, as far as Zenimax's lawyers are concerned, is illegal since no warranty is implied. I guess Zenimax would want the receipt of purchase for warranty and a random dude on amazon new or not isn't likely to supply their best buy(or wherever) receipt so therefore it's not so called truly new.

 

That's bs.

[cimerians]

They don't want you saying it's new even though it's new because your not an authorized reseller and they can't prove it's new.

 

This is what lawyers have been doing for centuries, they try to figure out how words and sentences are structured in a rule so they can get around a rule.

 

It's a 100% bullshit scare tactic. Also IMO when they say 'we support people selling used games' it's a lie, none of them like it, not one publisher likes it.

[cimerians]

So Bethesda should also go after GameStop then, who “guts” copies and sells them as new. Or any major retailer who accepts sealed returns. “We can’t be sure it’s not tampered with” right?

[pacman000]

In theory, a store which accepts a return confirms that it's complete & in good order before doing so.

[Keatah]

Now that I understand the details I would side with Bethesda. I understand why they're doing what they're doing. They have a point when they're trying to guarantee what is said is new is new.

 

Ever try buying a NOS HDD on ebay marked as new? 80% of the time it is genuinely new to the seller. But is yet a refurb to you and I - this even according to forensics and SMART data.

 

How can that be? The seller buys them "new" from an HDD refurbisher that wipes the disk, zeroes the disk, and tests the disk. And in many cases clears the SMART data. The seller bought fresh new(other) disks, never opened them, and can therefore sell them as new. In reality the disk may have thousands of hours of usage on it. But it is new(other) sealed in a supplier's package.

[Keatah]

In theory, a store which accepts a return confirms that it's complete & in good order before doing so.

 

They don't always do that, 50/50. I bought an iPod from BestBuy one time, and it was full of music from a previous customer. Yet it was sold as new. So any procedures and litigation to curb this activity is a good thing.

[eightbit]

It sounds like they were proactive and nabbed a few shady sellers on Amazon and I am all for it. Recently I purchased a Switch game (Unboxed Newbies Adventure) "new" on Amazon. It was sold by a private seller that had a Amazon storefront selling many games, and was fulfilled by Amazon via Prime. I figured if it were fulfilled by Amazon they would have at least inspected it as sealed before accepting to fulfill it. I figured wrong.

 

The game arrived in a ziplock bag, with no game cart in the box. Not only was it not sealed and the game was missing, but the insert was fake and looked like it were printed on a cheap inkjet printer. The only legit item was the plastic case. I fought it with Amazon and they refunded me, and I left a bad feedback for that seller....which Amazon removed shortly after because I called the seller a scammer!

 

My company (I cannot divulge the name) manufactures and sells video cards and other items. One line of our video cards are not sold on Amazon (or are not supposed to be) but till this day there is someone selling a bunch of them as "new". When the customer contacts us with a problem we have to tell them there is no warranty on the product because it was not sold by an authorized dealer. They get pissed and rightfully so, but these cards being sold were only intended for system integrators and were sold at a lower price by us as bulk oem because they come with no warranty from us. Where did the seller get these? Purchased them sideways somewhere. My company has tried to have them removed, but Amazon does nothing.

 

Anyway, I applaud what Bethesda is doing...which is protecting the buyer from getting scammed in the wild west that is Amazon nowadays.

Edited August 12, 2018 by eightbit

[Austin]

Anyway, I applaud what Bethesda is doing...which is protecting the buyer from getting scammed in the wild west that is Amazon nowadays.

I can see going after businesses that are making a living out of selling fake "new" games. One-offs like in this example here though is a complete overreach and extremely bad PR for the company. Shame on them.

[eightbit]

I don't buy that this guy was selling a "new" game. He tells the article writers that his game was "never unwrapped" in the third paragraph of this article, but the next paragraph of the article states that Bethesda took issue with him selling the "unwrapped" game defined as "new". And then the next paragraph after that has the guy attempting to fall on the First Sale Doctrine...which applies to second hand items.

 

The reporting here is terrible and all I smell is bullshit. Reading between the lines I read the guy had his used game, took a picture of the unwrapped game and listed it on Amazon with the description that it was a new game. Bethesda found it and called him out for the false advertising. Instead of dealing with it he cried to the internet. He could have just edited his Amazon listing and changed it to "used", but making a stink online is the name of the game nowadays.

 

What Polygon should have done is pressed this guy a bit more regarding the condition of the game and how it were listed. They should have requested a picture, or tried to obtain a cached copy of the Amazon sale page before it was removed.

 

EDIT:

 

Gamestop has Bethesda's reponse here:

 

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-explains-why-it-threatened-a-lawsuit-over/1100-6461108/

 

It makes sense. Someone who is not an authorized reseller should not be able to advertise the product as "new" on Amazon. Why? Well, Amazon always points the customer to the manufacturer for warranty if a problem occurs outside of the return period when it is marked as new. When marked as "pre-owned", the warranty link on the page refers you to contact the Amazon seller. They cannot verify that what he sold as "new" was really new. It could have passed through a few hands, been resealed, etc. They can only verify their new games as "new" when they themselves are providing them to the seller (ie: Amazon directly, Gamestop, etc).

Edited August 13, 2018 by eightbit

[Austin]

I agree that he should not be describing it as "new" if it was indeed unwrapped. I was under the impression it was still factory sealed. Even if it wasn't, I don't believe asserting potential legal action was the right call on Bethesda's part. On Amazon there's a process to report inaccurately described listings and this is the route Bethesda should have taken. Their actions were overkill for this specific situation.

[Keatah]

I can see going after businesses that are making a living out of selling fake "new" games. One-offs like in this example here though is a complete overreach and extremely bad PR for the company. Shame on them.

 

One-offs can be part of a business.

[eightbit]

I agree that he should not be describing it as "new" if it was indeed unwrapped. I was under the impression it was still factory sealed. Even if it wasn't, I don't believe asserting potential legal action was the right call on Bethesda's part. On Amazon there's a process to report inaccurately described listings and this is the route Bethesda should have taken. Their actions were overkill for this specific situation.

 

 

I would put total faith in Amazon doing something about it.....if they would actually do something about it. In my case with my empty game case scenario they refunded me. But, they let that seller continue with his "business". As a matter of fact, someone else posted a review for the same game I was scammed on outlining the same issue of the game being missing.

 

This just goes to show that Amazon is not very proactive when it comes to issues with sellers. I know this firsthand as my company has products on their website and they keep linking to another territory warranty (Europe) and I have to keep fighting with customers trying to explain that the warranty in Europe is different and that warranty does not apply to them. I have reported it to Amazon no less than a dozen times. They remove it, and then a week later it is back to the wrong warranty.

 

I suspect Bethesda did try to contact Amazon first and received the same results that I did...and then took it upon themselves to correct the issue. I do not think Bethesda has any evil motive in this. I think what it is all about is protecting the buyer from a purchase that would have no warranty. The average buyer sees something is fulfilled by Amazon via Prime and thinks everything is fine. Until they receive it and it is not. Then they contact the company and find they have no warranty because the sale did not come from an authorized dealer of the product. I deal with that daily and the customers just do not understand. As far as they are concerned they purchased our product and they should have warranty. But, it is a big deal where you got it from. You can buy a sealed game at a flea market but it doesn't mean you can collect warranty from the company on that purchase. They are just trying to snuff that out before buyers make that mistake.

Edited August 13, 2018 by eightbit

[Rocket Man]

"Bethesda’s letter claims that Hupp’s sale is not protected by the First Sale Doctrine, because he is not selling the game in its original form, which would include a warranty."

 

Horseshit, Bethesda: prove it in court and set a precedent... good luck. Not only do they not offer a Warranty, they can't decide what someone does with their own property. The Seller should have told them to get bent.

[Tanooki]

I'm curious how many of you here are lawyers getting mad at Bethesda as I'm seeing a lot of legal expertise here. I'm still believing it's a bs stunt to prove, but legally speaking they're probably right unless someone here knows some bit of law or case precedent that says that they're in the wrong. They're tying it to warranty, and if a warranty replacement would require you to have an original receipt from a licensed vendor, random ebay/amazon guy selling new won't have it.

[Flojomojo]

random ebay/amazon guy selling new won't have it.

 

[spacecadet]

I'm still believing it's a bs stunt to prove, but legally speaking they're probably right unless someone here knows some bit of law or case precedent that says that they're in the wrong. They're tying it to warranty, and if a warranty replacement would require you to have an original receipt from a licensed vendor, random ebay/amazon guy selling new won't have it.

 

You're assuming that, as Bethesda is. I've sold several games on Ebay that I included the receipt with for just this reason.

 

It's not Bethesda's job to police this before the fact. Do you not think there's a reason that companies don't do this as a matter of course? That it's news this time? Is Bethesda the only developer with a competent legal team, or is it more likely that they're the only one with the opposite?

 

And no, I am not a lawyer, but does their reasoning even make sense to you? If someone's selling a NIB Atari 2600 on Ebay, does that imply to you that it comes with a valid manufacturer warranty from 1978 just because it's listed as "new"? Yet that's the logical extension of their argument. I have a feeling Bethesda would get laughed out of court on this one. But they're counting on it never coming to that over a $30 sale of a video game.

Edited August 24, 2018 by spacecadet

[+frankodragon]

Might as well add Bethesda to the growing list of Copyright Trolls.