|
|
#141
11-08-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
I see that OP didn't get owned hard enough the first time around so came back for some additional helpings. [/ QUOTE ] Where did I get "owned?" Stick to arrogant one liners like this, you might hurt yourself if you try to make an intelligent post. 
|
|
#142
11-08-2007, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
They shoulda taken the game back. Big businesses like that just write off that kinda stuff.
|
|
#143
11-08-2007, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I see that OP didn't get owned hard enough the first time around so came back for some additional helpings. [/ QUOTE ] Where did I get "owned?" Stick to arrogant one liners like this, you might hurt yourself if you try to make an intelligent post. [/ QUOTE ] OK.
|
|
#146
11-08-2007, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] They shoulda taken the game back. Big businesses like that just write off that kinda stuff. [/ QUOTE ] Jerry: "You don't even know what a write off is." [/ QUOTE ] I love it when someone smashes one of my lobs.
|
|
#147
11-08-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the policy wasn't taking my situation into mind, that's why I felt some kind of exception would be reasonable. I don't understand how people can be so bad with analogies. How is negotiating for brand new coffee prices remotely similar to this? First off, every cup of coffee is the same. The condition of the game discs is not. Secondly, there is no buying used coffee, or buying a capuccino with a hair in it for a dollar off. In general any analogy pertaining to food isn't going to work, it's a completely different situation. The amount they determined the game to be worth used is based on the assumption that the game has several hours of play on it and is in decent to good shape, since almost all used games fit that criteria. Mine doesn't, and I believe the amount I get back for the game should reflect that. Let's look at this way, let's say I go buy a brand new $60 game. I take off the plastic wrapper and open the case, and that's it. I come back five minutes later with the reciept in my hand and ask for a refund for whatever reason. They tell me they can't accept any kind of refund and all they can do is buy the game back for $20. You think that's fair? Also the "more profitable" part is bs, there is no chance anybody is going to sell them back the game in that situation for that price. How is upping the price they'd pay, even if it's just a little bit, not more profitable? The reason they aren't willing to reason with me is because they're too lazy and don't care, not because it's the most profitable course of action. [/ QUOTE ] Once you take the wrapper off the game is no longer "new" and therefore can't be sold for anywhere near the same price. This may seem unfair and illogical (and it is to some degree), but that's simply the way that reflects how this business (and their customers) operate. Who cares if it's "fair"? Whether or not it is is meaningless, as their policy is based on profit, not on fairness. And don't try to argue that being "fair" to customers would give them higher profit. The company clearly disagrees and the decision is theirs and theirs alone.
|
|
#148
11-08-2007, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
In general any analogy pertaining to food isn't going to work, it's a completely different situation. [/ QUOTE ] And, your food analogy from earlier in this thread: [ QUOTE ] If somebody at Mcdonalds wanted to, they could eat most of their meal, then at the end complain that the food was undercooked or some B.S. and they'll refund your money without thinking twice. And I've seen it happen more than once (not fraud necessarily, just the act of them refunding the meal no questions asked). [/ QUOTE ] Commence "owning everyone in this thread" (including yourself apparently).
|
|
#149
11-08-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In general any analogy pertaining to food isn't going to work, it's a completely different situation. [/ QUOTE ] And, your food analogy from earlier in this thread: [ QUOTE ] If somebody at Mcdonalds wanted to, they could eat most of their meal, then at the end complain that the food was undercooked or some B.S. and they'll refund your money without thinking twice. And I've seen it happen more than once (not fraud necessarily, just the act of them refunding the meal no questions asked). [/ QUOTE ] Commence "owning everyone in this thread" (including yourself apparently). [/ QUOTE ] Hence the word "generally," genius.
|
|
#150
11-08-2007, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This kinda pissed me off
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Obviously the policy wasn't taking my situation into mind, that's why I felt some kind of exception would be reasonable. I don't understand how people can be so bad with analogies. How is negotiating for brand new coffee prices remotely similar to this? First off, every cup of coffee is the same. The condition of the game discs is not. Secondly, there is no buying used coffee, or buying a capuccino with a hair in it for a dollar off. In general any analogy pertaining to food isn't going to work, it's a completely different situation. The amount they determined the game to be worth used is based on the assumption that the game has several hours of play on it and is in decent to good shape, since almost all used games fit that criteria. Mine doesn't, and I believe the amount I get back for the game should reflect that. Let's look at this way, let's say I go buy a brand new $60 game. I take off the plastic wrapper and open the case, and that's it. I come back five minutes later with the reciept in my hand and ask for a refund for whatever reason. They tell me they can't accept any kind of refund and all they can do is buy the game back for $20. You think that's fair? Also the "more profitable" part is bs, there is no chance anybody is going to sell them back the game in that situation for that price. How is upping the price they'd pay, even if it's just a little bit, not more profitable? The reason they aren't willing to reason with me is because they're too lazy and don't care, not because it's the most profitable course of action. [/ QUOTE ] Once you take the wrapper off the game is no longer "new" and therefore can't be sold for anywhere near the same price. This may seem unfair and illogical (and it is to some degree), but that's simply the way that reflects how this business (and their customers) operate. Who cares if it's "fair"? Whether or not it is is meaningless, as their policy is based on profit, not on fairness. And don't try to argue that being "fair" to customers would give them higher profit. The company clearly disagrees and the decision is theirs and theirs alone. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen GameStop sell a used version of a $60 game for $55, so your first point is simply not true. You're right that fair doesn't matter necessarily. Evaluating individual cases can be more profitable than sticking to a no exceptions policy if they only disregarded the policy when it was more profitable for them to do so, and there are plenty of situations in which this is the case. It would be unpractical to implement is as a policy, of course, but making general exceptions in cases like mine, at least to some degree even if I still don't think it is a fair deal is more profitable than blindly obeying the policy because it isn't required of them. I never argued that being fair is the most profitable policy, either.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
