On Saturday, Two gamers went to the EB Games near there house. While there they saw an inexpensive second-hand copy of Bioshock and proceeded to the cash to pay. They were refused.
that bastard wanted the game for himself i can see where the guy is coming from though you are not his guardian and u cannot decide whether he can play a game or not BUT if your brother isnt going to play the game then there's no excuse easy solution would've been to pick up a $5 dora the explorer game and said that that one is for my brother :)
Why? Retailers have the right to refuse to sell to people if their policies prevent it.
Reburn there is no policy that states that im not gonna sell you the game because you walk into the store with your brother (btw i didn't disagree with you, people need to explain why they disagree not just click a button. I only disagree to extreme fanboy comments)
Stores can refuse service to anyone regardless of policies period. They don't have to sell you jack. As for this being a bad thing, how is it? I think it's proving good salesmanship and in this day in age where parents and others are blaming media for kids growing up and shooting up schools, it's a perfect way to prove it's the parents fault for not raising their children properly. As for the guy not getting the game, go back and get it later when your brother isn't with you, it's not that big of a deal.
That may be the case but, this policy is for minors. If you walk into a store and a manager says we don't service your kind this isn't only unfair it could cause legal action to be taken. In this guys case he didn't fall in the <18 category. So the underaged policy between the customer & the merchant isn't valid. In fact the sales clerks refusal is a lack of faith. It's not only insulting but a bad business practice imho. Yes, if it was an minor but as an employee he choose to extend that policy to an adult on the assumption that he was giving it to his little brother. In other words he's discriminating on assumed false pretence. Just think of this as an example. You walk in a store with kids and pick up 1 or more of the following items. 1. Porn magazine. 2. Condoms. 3. Beer, or alcoholics. 4. Cigarettes. 5. Caugh medication. At the register the clerk assumes your buying them for the kids and refuses to sale on those grounds even though you are of legal age and mentally stable. No matter how things roll its an insult to you. To be accused of providing for a minor is prejudiced. "Justice before the fact" not only that but there is no faith in the customer this would discourage future visits to that shop. No one wants to be falsely accused of breaking laws or wrong doing. This clerk was obviously acting outside the box and the right to refusal was personal judgement rather then company policy. This makes the claims null as it doesn't fall under the companies best interest to falsely assume/accuse customers beforehand. Such accusations are more representable as direct discrimination.
your allowed to buy condoms if you are under 18
I'm glad that Mature rated games are getting to be more difficult to get into hands of younger people. And not JUST GTA. If the system was perfect we'd see better games for M rated games without as many constraints.
a while back when we were younger roughly 16, 15,( we are now 25 and 24) and the clerk wouldn't sell the game to us (it was walmart), luckily there was a kind gentlemen behind us at the register and said that we were mature enough for the game and took our money and bought it for us.
Did I miss that part? Because that's the most important piece of info according to me. I'm assuming the kid had to be at least 17, or else he has no case whatsoever. So assuming he is 17 or older, that's total BS on EB Games/GameStop's part. Technically, if you're old enough to buy the game, we can't (speaking on behalf of Game Crazy) "refuse" to sell you the copy. If I was this kid, I'd raise hell. You might get a free t-shirt to shut you up about it.
Just buy off ebay instead of those corporate wh0rse.
Actually please all read the blog again... he was initially displeased but in the end saw the wisdom of the policy. He isn't condemning them - in the end he praised them for the policy. His reasons are sound so listen to what is really said in the article.
Your posting amidst some of the youngsters here that hate "the man". You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Or better yet, your throwing pearls to the swine... You get my point.
true enough. /shrug oh well they will learn -=hopefully=- -=eventually=-.
I believe the people who agree the most about this are adults. I myself don't agree with "the man" comments. Why, because the person buying the product doesn't fall underage. In all respect, adults are just as easy to influence. The government has controlled alcohol, taxed smokers, enforced gun laws and basicly created laws to protect us as a citizens. Technically, based on some of these "the man" statements, we as adults aren't capable of making intellectual chooses either. So laws are created to protect us from ourselves. The only difference here with the underaged laws are that kids can't fight back. Their rights don't extend to the same levels as adults. The majority of adults fall under two categories: (1) adults simply don't care about it as it doesn't effect their rights (2) Adults that totally support it because they hold authority status. This mismatch leads to a one sided argument that's lose lose.
Talking on the phone to rent a house and when you get there the landlord decides that because you have kids, sees your black or chinese he's not renting it anymore? So what if you have a kid with you, if he really wanted to be dishonest he could have said "my mother died and yes i'm the legal guardian" If the person buying the product is 18+ that deal is between the 18 year old and the store. If the game is then transfered to the little brother the consequence is on the 18+ year old that gave him the game "NOT THE STORE". By choosing not to sale to the 18+ on the grounds that he might give it to an underage user is prejudiced. It's the clerks responsibility to insure he/she doesn't break any laws not police potential customers that aren't underaged. By making that choice, if this person was black etc. he could easily have based the non-sale on racial prejudice. This is no difference here. The clerk is assuming a lack of fath with the customer and underminding them. Making accusations that a customer is lier without proper justification is not only insulting, its bad for business. If the underaged kid was buying it then yes, the laws prohibit sale to minors in some states. This wasn't the case though. The person buying the game was denied sale based on him having a minor with him. I believe, legal action could be taken if some conditions are met. There may be more to this then a clerk denial over what's being mentioned.
It's actually more like a liquor store not selling you booze because you have a 15 year old with you. It's like a convenience store not selling you cigarettes because you're with your buddies who are underage. Or like a movie theater refusing to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors. All of those situations are entirely legal and NOT prejudiced. Your logic is way off. The teller was 100% in the right here. Not that EBgames does much right, but this isn't that big of a deal.
I think he is, the teller is making an assumption that he's selling this to his little brother. He says no it's for me. This he's calling the customer a lier. It's legal to refuse sale but it doesn't make it right in respects to customer relationship. If the customer literally made a statement that he was buying it for his little brother then yes. The customer said specifically "No it's for me" by making that statement the teller transfers all legal responsibility to the 18+ person buying the product. The teller can then wash their hands of it. As for your alcohol statement, if the adult smelled drunk or wasn't in sound mind perhaps. People buy booze every day with their kids at their side, there is nothing wrong with buying booze for yourself and having a minor at your side, as long as it's for your and your mature enough to consume it at the proper time and location. What you have here is an employee accusing a customers of attempts to break the law before the fact. The teller ask the questions and the customer answered them in good faith. Yet, the teller still refused sale on an assumption. It appears to me as though the teller was on a witch hunt and no matter what the customer said his choice was made before the sale. This underminds the dignity if the customer by insinuating he's a lier. I'd clearly see that as premeditated discrimination. So please explain to me how i'm "way off" by selling the product to an adult they aren't breaking any laws and by not selling it they aren't. So, this leads to only one possible conclusion, the customer is being discriminated against for some reason or another. The actual point of sale isn't the issue. It's the possibility of an outside discriminating factor. This undesclosed factor has more impact then the refusal to sale on marit. I'll end this response with a quote from Frank Barron. "Never take a person's dignity: it's worth everything to them and nothing to you."
He didn't sell him the game because he wasn't the kid's legal guardian. If I walk into a liquor store with my 15 year old son, then I can buy all the alcohol I want. If a frat boy walks into a liquor store with his 15 year old brother, no sale. This case is the second one. Same with cigarettes and porn. Saying "No, it's for me" doesn't absolve you of anything. You're not "way off," but there's no discrimination here. The younger kid was too young to play the game, that's it. That's why we have these rules and policies.
I was returning a game during soon after christmas this year so there was a big line in EB. So I'm waiting in line for like 20 minutes and then I'm about to be next and the kid in front of my was trading in a bunch of his old games to get trade in credit. Sure enough, they said he couldn't trade in half of his games because they were mature rated and he was 18. I was in awe. He already has the games, he is not going to be able to play them again, and he is selling them back to you. The clerk told the kid that in order to return mature games you need to be over 18. Needless to say, I wound up selling the kids games for him so he could get a new game. Still, I find this policy of not buying mature games of a under 18 people absolutely ridiculous and it doesn't even make sense.
That's what you get for hanging out with a 15 year old...I'm just kidding. That sucks though, but if it's close to his house he can just take his brother home and go back and pick it up, it's not that big of a deal.
lol. At the wal mart here you can be 12 and go up there and buy M rated games, no one will give a crap and at this EB they wont sell a game to an adult because a 15 year old is next to them.
Stupid policy. What if he came back an hour later by himself? Would they still refuse purchase KNOWING he has a little brother at home?
Based on what I read the teller was looking for a reason not to sale it. It's besides the point that he had a minor with him. If he came back and the same teller was there he'd probably remember the face and say no again to save face over his previous ruling. I'm thinking that the disagrees i'm getting aren't from people diagreeing with the customers rights their more less at arms over the possibility that i'm in defense of the "sale to minors" concept. This isn't the case though. I stand by the store protecting the minors but I don't condone the abuse of these policies to discriminate without proper marit. To clarify, I don't discourage refusal to sale mature games to minors. I reject the accusations that this employee assumed.
Another reason why I refuse to give a dollar to eb or gamestop. Gamecrazy takes much better care of its customers. Minus the 16 year old telling me(someone who has gamed since the 2600 days) why my ps3 "sucks" and that I should get a 360. SHOP GAMECRAZY!!!
You guys need to read the article. He actually agrees with EB games.
Slightly off topic here but I went into Gamestop today with 2 friends. One went up to the counter and asked had they got any copies of GTA 4 on 360. The guy behind the counter says "yeah, we have 4 or 5 copies left we can sell" She buys one and comes back over to us pleased with herself. My other friend walks up to the counter to try get the game but the Clerk tells him, "We are all out". Now i really cant figure this one out. Why did they tell my friend they were out if they told my other friend they had some left?. Was it because they wouldnt sell 2 copies to the same group? was it sexist? or even a mis-understanding? It's been boggling me all day.
or maybe he just sold her their last copy - He could have just been wrong the first time. Maybe she was fourth in line and the other 3 people bought GTA4. There's lots of reasons this could have happened. I highly doubt there was anything nefarious going on...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.