Amazon's Marketplace is home to many sellers who try to resell used games, or occasionally, new games. Usually, there's no issue with this method, at least, until Bethesda involved themselves with one of the sellers, Ryan Hupp. Hupp had been trying to sell a sealed copy of The Evil Within 2; the product itself had been purchased by him prior, but still remained in the shrink wrap from original store that he'd bought it from. The sale page stated the copy of the game was "new", rather than used, due to that fact. However, shortly after creating the listing, Bethesda had contacted Hupp, telling him that he needed to remove the listing. He was also issued a legal notice from their lawyers, telling him that if he didn't take down the sale, legal action would be taken. Within the notice was the explanation that Hupp's sale was "unlawful", as he was not an authorized reseller of the company's games.

Unless you remove all Bethesda products, from your storefront, stop selling any and all Bethesda products immediately and identify all sources of Bethesda products you are selling, we intend to file a lawsuit against you

After the listing was removed, Bethesda made an official statement on the matter, claiming that they never have, nor ever will prevent used games sales. They specifically took issue with Ryan Hupp selling The Evil Within 2 due to the fact that he marked the copy of the game as "new", and according to the legal team, it's impossible for him to sell a new game, as he cannot provide a warranty on the product.

Bethesda does not and will not block the sale of pre-owned games. The issue in this case is that the seller offered a pre-owned game as “new” on the Amazon Marketplace.

We do not allow non-authorized resellers to represent what they sell as “new” because we can’t verify that the game hasn’t been opened and repackaged. This is how we help protect buyers from fraud and ensure our customers always receive authentic new product, with all enclosed materials and warranty intact.

In this case, if the game had been listed as “Pre-Owned,” this would not have been an issue.

Currently, there are no listings for "new" copies of The Evil Within 2 sold by marketplace users on Amazon. Though, eBay has dozens of listings of "new", factory sealed versions of the game, sold by regular eBay sellers, with varying amounts of feedback. Do you agree with Bethesda's stance, or do you think that they're trying too hard to police the public on game sales?

Source

 

[Ritsuki]

The title is rather clickbait-y and from the comments it's apparent that many people didn't even read the article and simply read the title.

Yeah, I'm not saying Bethesda won't do that anymore (what they did is really not cool) , but it's one case, not every second hand sell of their games, and the solution is as easy as either sell it on a dedicated second hand items website (with no shop accounts like in Amazon for example) or changing the state of the item from 'new' to whatever he founds on eBay (there must be something like mint condition, or never used)

 

[SG854]

"We do not allow non-authorized resellers to represent what they sell as “new” because we can’t verify that the game hasn’t been opened and repackaged. This is how we help protect buyers from fraud and ensure our customers always receive authentic new product, with all enclosed materials and warranty intact.
In this case, if the game had been listed as “Pre-Owned,” this would not have been an issue."

Why do they care so much about whether or not the "New" game isn't authentically New.
And why are they worried so much if they get warranty or not. The buyer knows they are not getting warranty buying from an un-authorized seller. If they cared about warranty so much they they would've bought from an authorized store.

Does Bethesda thinks they are like some kind of savior.
I don't think the customer cares about being saved by their Knight in Shining Armor Bethesda. Saving them from those evil unauthorized new copies.
They know whats up buying online and the risk of people lying, thats the game of online buying. If they care so much about authenticity then they would of bought form an authorized place for delivery.

 

[GensokyoIceFairy]

bad post strikes again

 

[Taleweaver]

He wasn't given the option. He was demanded to cease sale of all Bethesda games regardless of condition (you people keep ignoring this). Also to "reveal his sources" as if he were running some sort of drug smuggling operation. All this cloak-and-dagger secrecy, exclusionism, middle-men, and questionable legal representation present in the game industry makes it more camparable to a cartel than a legitimate business.

We don't ignore the condition of the game because, as stated in the OP, Bethesda does not and will not block the sale of pre-owned games. The issue in this case is that the seller offered a pre-owned game as “new” on the Amazon Marketplace.

You also point out the thing I was going to say: the firm demanded him to cease his sale. Sure, it might sound a bit intimidating (I don't like being lawsuited against either!), but I don't see how a single phone call to the firm to find out what his options really are (and yes, he HAS options...it's not the firm's job to hand them out to him).

I have no idea what that "reveal his sources" thing is about, so I assume that quote is aimed at someone else.

They may not make them up, but they can twist and distort the wording of the law to fit whatever narrative they think will destroy their target. Also, it's not illegal for a company spokesperson to lie or to simply not be aware of the legal department's true intentions, which are quite obvious. That is why this story is getting the attention it has. They are trying to set a precedent to eliminate used game sales.

Sorry, but I still disagree. This is one situation of one guy trying to sell one game as being 'new' instead of 'preowned' (between brackets because these are the terms that are used...and probably misunderstood by some). If I read you correctly, you're claiming that this one incident means that the entire stance of a multinational company is fraudulent. And...well...if that's the case, I'm sorry, but I honestly disagree with you.

 

[The Catboy]

Honestly this was a complete overstepping of their boundaries and just unnecessary policing of the market. There's no reason for them to have gotten involved, especially based on such bullshit claims.

 

[Subtle Demise]

I have no idea what that "reveal his sources" thing is about,

identify all sources of Bethesda products you are selling, we intend to file a lawsuit against you

Why is this necessary?

 

[kevin corms]

I dont think bethesda really thought this through, probably decision made by a single employee.

 

[WildDog]

Once the game leaves the gamestore, is no longer new. You can keep the foil, but is not new anymore. It's PRE owned, even if you never used the disc or the cd key. It's a shame for those who want to make a cheap buck reselling games...

And yet nothing is done about the countless clones of old games? Ugh

They are made in China, good luck telling them to cease and desist.

 

[Foxi4]

Then new doesn't have meaning at all then, besides the fact that one got a license to use the word and one didn't. It has no bearing on the quality of the item.

New means new. The opposite of pre-owned. You're the first owner of the item, it wasn't re-sold. It has no bearing on the condition or "quality" because it never did. In fact, the situation is similar with cars - if you buy a car from a dealer right now and immediately sell it to someone else, that's a pre-owned car, even if it never left the lot, simply because the chain of ownership is recorded. The word "new" never had anything to do with the condition of an item, it's merely used colloquially by some people who don't know what it actually means.

 

[FAST6191]

Read that document from the firm... every time I think if I could push down the bile from the notion I could actually write like a lawyer I go read something like that. Wow.

The word "new" never had anything to do with the condition of an item, it's merely used colloquially by some people who don't know what it actually means.

If that is the case then it is if not pointless then arbitrary and I see no gain in that definition and no issues that are not trivially solved. Furthermore courts have recognised colloquial definitions (in the US I believe I am supposed to point at the is the tomato a fruit case, forget the name of the case but it came out of new york quite some time ago in response to an import tax) in the past and in that case new would be "unused and as it comes from the factory rather than chain of owners.

 

[Taleweaver]

Why is this necessary?

Ah...that. Erm...seems kind of obvious to me. One look at the full quote:

Unless you remove all Bethesda products, from your storefront, stop selling any and all Bethesda products immediately and identify all sources of Bethesda products you are selling, we intend to file a lawsuit against you

Doesn't that strike you as the straight copy-paste line the legal team probably uses against everyone they suspect to be an actual illegal reseller? I mean...the storefront? Wow...in that light, it's as if I myself man about half a dozen stores (in other words: I've placed about 5-6 items up for sale online over the years).

Look...I don't suspect Hupp of anything fishy, but how does someone browsing amazon marketplace know whether Hupp sells his one and only copy of a game he never bothered to unpack, or whether he has somehow obtained a truckload (okay: a store's shipment box) of these things and simply doesn't remove the 'for sale' thing once someone buys one of his games?

Yeah, I get it: it's not fun having to answer "erm...I only have this one copy of this one game, guys" because it means you're being pushed in the defense*. But in all honesty: it's a completely legitimate question.



*and in this day and age, everyone's assumed guilty the moment you're accused of something.

 

[Foxi4]

Read that document from the firm... every time I think if I could push down the bile from the notion I could actually write like a lawyer I go read something like that. Wow.


If that is the case then it is if not pointless then arbitrary and I see no gain in that definition and no issues that are not trivially solved. Furthermore courts have recognised colloquial definitions (in the US I believe I am supposed to point at the is the tomato a fruit case, forget the name of the case but it came out of new york quite some time ago in response to an import tax) in the past and in that case new would be "unused and as it comes from the factory rather than chain of owners.

I wouldn't know the value of the term "new" because I generally don't buy games new unless there's a hefty discount involved or I *really* can't wait - I'm familiar with the margins involved and not interested in paying premium when the pre-owned copy is just as good. As a consumer I'm only interested in the physical condition of the item, and since in the UK the retailer must give a 12 months warranty on sold items, whether they're new or pre-owned, it makes no difference to me. Unless those bonuses outweigh the premium price point or unless I want to explicitly support the developers there's no reason to buy games new, it's a waste of money. Ever saw a clearance aisle at a supermarket? Every now and then you'll see some goods in damaged packaging that are sold with a discount because customers are fussy and desperately want a bunch of cardboard in their house. Those are "new" items as well. In fact, so are ex-display items, but they are marked as such because their *physical condition* bears signs of use. A software license has no physical condition, it only has a chain of ownership. "New" is a retail term, it signifies that you're the first owner. Just because it doesn't mean what people think it does doesn't mean that it is useless. For instance, as a first owner I have a guarantee that the Day 1 codes in the box will all work. Any benefits of being the first-time owner like DLC, trials, beta codes and the likes are only guaranteed to the first owner. Whether that has value to me or not is up to me, the consumer. Retail terms are confusing, that's fair, but they all have a meaning and function in the distribution chain.

 

[grossaffe]

I don't really know how to explain this any better than I already have. The disc inside the box is just a storage medium, that's not what you go to the store for, what you're actually buying is the software and the license to use the software, the disc is just one of the many means of delivering you the software and granting you the right to use it. It is most certainly "new" as it was never sold to anyone previously. You could argue that it's not "mint", but I don't consider the shrink wrap to be a part of the actual product, rather a protective mechanism. "New" and "pre-owned" are terms referring to the status of ownership, "mint" or "opened" refers to the physical condition of the item in question. You of all people on this board know very well that the physical medium is completely irrelevant in the realm of software sales, for all you know there could be a voucher in that box with no disc at all (as it's the case with PUBG on Xbox One), it literally doesn't matter.

The physical medium is not irrelevant. You sell a product on a physical medium, then it is completely relevant to the sale. If I buy a game on a disc and the disc is broken in half, but comes with a digital download to make up for the broken disc, I am not, as a customer, made whole. I bought not just the license for the game, but the physical medium upon which the game is stored.

Secondly, I keep saying that it is not just the removal of the shrink-wrap, but the disc itself is removed from the box. That makes it an open-box item. It is no longer untainted by the hands of others.

And finally, I reject your definition of the word "new". If a store uses a wash-cloth to clean their aisles, but never sells it to someone else, and they put it back on the shelf as "new", I don't think many people would agree it was new. It never had its ownership transferred, but it is certainly not new. And more importantly to my point, this is about Gamestop opening and repackaging games, which was what Bathesda claimed this was about:

We do not allow non-authorized resellers to represent what they sell as “new” because we can’t verify that the game hasn’t been opened and repackaged.

So with Gamestop, it has been pretty well corroborated that they do sell opened, repackaged games as new routinely, unlike this person they are going after who was a one-off seller, anyways.

 

[Foxi4]

Why is this necessary?

Because having large quantities of sealed games for sale that did not come directly from a distributor points to the possibility of those games "falling off a delivery truck" at some point, which is a polite way of saying that they're stolen. It's perfectly reasonable for Bethesda to be suspicious of anyone selling "new" Bethesda goods if they have no records of providing them to that person.

The physical medium is not irrelevant. You sell a product on a physical medium, then it is completely relevant to the sale. If I buy a game on a disc and the disc is broken in half, but comes with a digital download to make up for the broken disc, I am not, as a customer, made whole. I bought not just the license for the game, but the physical medium upon which the game is stored.

Secondly, I keep saying that it is not just the removal of the shrink-wrap, but the disc itself is removed from the box. That makes it an open-box item. It is no longer untainted by the hands of others.

And finally, I reject your definition of the word "new". If a store uses a wash-cloth to clean their aisles, but never sells it to someone else, and they put it back on the shelf as "new", I don't think many people would agree it was new. It never had its ownership transferred, but it is certainly not new. And more importantly to my point, this is about Gamestop opening and repackaging games, which was what Bathesda claimed this was about:

So with Gamestop, it has been pretty well corroborated that they do sell opened, repackaged games as new routinely, unlike this person they are going after who was a one-off seller, anyways.

In case of damage prior to sale the warranty for new software is 3 months, you're entitled to a medium replacement. The tainted bit is quite funny, but not relevant. The disc was never used either way. I doubt that it's Gamestop policy for employees to play the games and resell them, so the cloth example doesn't apply. There is no wear and tear involved.

 

[WildDog]

And finally, I reject your definition of the word "new". If a store uses a wash-cloth to clean their aisles, but never sells it to someone else, and they put it back on the shelf as "new", I don't think many people would agree it was new. It never had its ownership transferred, but it is certainly not new. And more importantly to my point, this is about Gamestop opening and repackaging games, which was what Bathesda claimed this was about:

You can reject it, but the fact is. once it leaves the official reseller is not new anymore and it seems that the Law agrees with it.
About gamestop... is not the first time they do things they should not.... like when they were selling refurbished 360, that had bad fixes applied... So gamestop is not an example of good business practices

 

[MadonnaProject]

Simple, the guy can sell it "as-new" and state its wrapped.

This is where the law needs to be adequate when it comes to downloadable copy sales also. How do you provide warranty on software?

This is also why I think the gaming industry is shit and we need piracy more than ever.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Because having large quantities of sealed games for sale that did not come directly from a distributor points to the possibility of those games "falling off a delivery truck" at some point, which is a polite way of saying that they're stolen. It's perfectly reasonable for Bethesda to be suspicious of anyone selling "new" Bethesda goods if they have no records of providing them to that person.

In case of damage prior to sale the warranty for new software is 3 months, you're entitled to a medium replacement. The tainted bit is quite funny, but not relevant. The disc was never used either way. I doubt that it's Gamestop policy for employees to play the games and resell them, so the cloth example doesn't apply. There is no wear and tear involved.

Armchair expert incoming.

 

[Subtle Demise]

You can reject it, but the fact is. once it leaves the official reseller is not new anymore and it seems that the Law agrees with it.
About gamestop... is not the first time they do things they should not.... like when they were selling refurbished 360, that had bad fixes applied... So gamestop is not an example of good business practices

Then they need to be unauthorized.

 

[MadonnaProject]

You can reject it, but the fact is. once it leaves the official reseller is not new anymore and it seems that the Law agrees with it.
About gamestop... is not the first time they do things they should not.... like when they were selling refurbished 360, that had bad fixes applied... So gamestop is not an example of good business practices

The law does NOT agree with it. If an item is not used it is "new" or "as-new". You are allowed to sell it in sealed condition. At least European law suggests that.

Also unless stated upon purchase the item is not re-sellable the item has a stamp saying this.

If the guy takes this to court he has a chance of winning especially as he can personally provide the warranty to repair/replace the medium if need be.

bethesda is relying on the fact it would be too much hassle for him to do so, and take this to court.

So basically bullying. The sad thing about americans is they know so little about the law and often too ignorant to realise their freedoms (something they bitch about most of the time) being watered down. Nintendo and apple fans are habitually supportive of the companies and such restrictions. Its sad but who cares, its americans.

 

[WildDog]

The law does NOT agree with it. If an item is not used it is "new" or "as-new". You are allowed to sell it in sealed condition. At least European law suggests that.

Also unless stated upon purchase the item is not re-sellable the item has a stamp saying this.

If the guy takes this to court he has a chance of winning especially as he can personally provide the warranty to repair/replace the medium if need be.

bethesda is relying on the fact it would be too much hassle for him to do so, and take this to court.

So basically bullying. The sad thing about americans is they know so little about the law and often too ignorant to realise their freedoms (something they bitch about most of the time) being watered down. Nintendo and apple fans are habitually supportive of the companies and such restrictions. Its sad but who cares, its americans.

"as new" is not the same "new".
It's a pre owned game, even if you never used it. It had a "end user" so is not new.
In court he has no chance to win, because he broke Zenimax/Bethesda EULA. When he got the license for the game he agree to those terms... Even if they are crappy.

You want piracy??? No problem, but then don't complaing about crappy ports... Steam with it's bad things did show to the developers that profit was still possible for the PC....
Or you forgot about the crappy ports that PC had from 2004 till more or less 2011.. A good example the first port of Resident Evil 4.... Let's do a quick port of a port (PS2 version) with even less effects, why bother??? if they are going to pirate the game.

 

[Xzi]

"as new" is not the same "new".
It's a pre owned game, even if you never used it. It had a "end user" so is not new.
In court he has no chance to win, because he broke Zenimax/Bethesda EULA. When he got the license for the game he agree to those terms... Even if they are crappy

You realize he never accepted the EULA for that game because it was still shrink-wrapped, right? Regardless, the majority of the blame is on Amazon for having too few options for item condition. Bethesda's still in the wrong for going after an individual for a common practice.