My brother finally learned his lesson

Demon2005

Dedicated Member
Jul 2, 2009
1,137
3
0
37
Vancouver, Canada
#32
[QUOTE="bfd_josh, post: 0]you should of stood there and argued pointblank,,,id be majorly pissed of, its like been old enough to buy beer, then still getting shunned...you just cant do it,,,your legally old enough[/quote]

meh, not worth the effort to make a scene about it. We got the games traded in and a new game bought. business finished.
 

higgos22

Master Guru
Feb 8, 2009
6,619
10
0
#33
here EB games pretty much only gaming store
obviously real expensive so other sotres like JB Hi-Fi or maybe Game you go to though jst no trade ins there
 

Staticneuron

Sublimely Static
Feb 3, 2007
9,991
75
0
40
Vekta
#34
[QUOTE="Metfanant, post: 0]they are the worst because they refused to break the law and sell the game to someone not old enough to purchase it??...awesome logic on your part...[/quote]

Its a law? I am not even sure if it is a law in most parts of america much less canada.
 

[valium]

lawlydoodlez
Jun 12, 2008
5,769
8
0
32
#35
No, that is not why EB/Gamestop is bad for business.
They are bad for business because they are a rip off, not because they refuse to sell M/17 rated games to minors.
Last time I checked, everyone is suppose to refuse.
 

psp&me

Dedicated Member
Mar 27, 2006
1,266
1
0
#36
When my friend was 14, he went to the convenience store and bought a porn magazine. Then there are people that won't sell me a lighter without seeing ID.. Just depends on the person you get I guess.
 

Metfanant

Forum Sage
Apr 12, 2006
7,554
61
0
37
NY
#37
[QUOTE="Staticneuron, post: 0]Its a law? I am not even sure if it is a law in most parts of america much less canada.[/quote]

no its not technically a law...but it is a rating system that is followed by the industry...and it is 100% company policy to not sell them to minors without their parent or guardian present....the clerk was simply following the rules...end of story...

next time the OP can simply go down and do it without his younger brother present and there would be no need for this...
 

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
31
#38
[QUOTE="Metfanant, post: 0]no its not technically a law...but it is a rating system that is followed by the industry...and it is 100% company policy to not sell them to minors without their parent or guardian present....the clerk was simply following the rules...end of story...

next time the OP can simply go down and do it without his younger brother present and there would be no need for this...[/quote]

but as long as someone there is old enough, and they buy it... it dont matter... that is according to gamestop policy... its not their fault if the dude justs hands it to the younger kid...
 

Metfanant

Forum Sage
Apr 12, 2006
7,554
61
0
37
NY
#39
[QUOTE="Spider, post: 0]but as long as someone there is old enough, and they buy it... it dont matter... that is according to gamestop policy... its not their fault if the dude justs hands it to the younger kid...[/quote]

im not so sure about that...i would imagine that not to be the case...

but regardless...that is not the situation that we are presented with...the OP described a situation in which he accompanied his younger brother to the store...his brother had store credit, and his brother tried to trade in games and his brother tried to buy the new game...even at that point if the OP were to say "fine then ill buy the game" i think it would still be in violation of company policy knowing that the game was being purchased for a minor...

its sorta a similar situation when buying alcohol...while it is not LAW, it is common place for stores to ID all individuals present at the time of purchase...this is to stop people of age purchasing alcohol for friends that are minors...

again, while it is NOT a law...there is legal precedent for it...when two adults go into a store to purchase alcohol they are both wholly responsible for their own actions...and that includes the consumption of alcohol...therefore there HAVE been cases where stores/employees have been found liable in cases where they sold alcohol to someone who in turn gave it to a minor...i think its crazy...but its the truth...and therefore stores protect themselves....

for instance i have seen two different versions of this policy...one where stores ID everyone in the party...if even one person is under 21, or doesn't have an ID...the sale is refused....the other is that anyone who is giving money towards the purchase is to show ID...

this doesn't apply to parents shopping with their kids however because parents/guardians are legally responsible for the actions of their children...which means if they buy alcohol and then allow their children to consume it, it is the PARENTS that face legal action...

the same applies to video games...lets take a look at some scenarios...

1. 14 year old boy enters Gamestop....purchases an "M" rated video game...which is intended to be sold to people 17 and older...this child then precedes to play the game and act out scenes with his friends in which someone gets seriously hurt, or dies...

As the investigation goes down it turns out that the actions were from a video game, that the child purchased from the local gamestop AGAINST the recommendations of the ESRB....this store could and most likely WILL be held to some sort of legal liability in the case....do i think its right??? no not at all...but its the truth...

who is to blame for the child getting their hands on the game??...personally i think its the parents, but lets face it...14 year old kid...might have just been at the mall with friends or something...parents cant always be around...the store/clerk is the one who SHOULD in this case prevented the child from obtaining this game that was intended for 17+ year old kids...

2. Now look at the OP's situation...its the same thing...there just happens to be an older brother present...the clerk still KNOWS that the game will end up in the hands of the minor...they still could stop that by refusing the sale...

3. If a parent or legal guardian is present and purchases the game FOR the child then all legal liability is removed from the store/clerk...the parent is informed of the content of the game and the full burden of liability is then squarely on the shoulders of the parent/guardian...

and that is why a "older brother" is not acceptable as a guardian...because an older brother has no legal responsibilities for the actions of that child...parents/guardians do....

its not about things being LAW....its about liability and parental responsibilities that can be shown in court....

the Gamestop employee in this case did NOTHING wrong, unless you consider preventing a minor from obtaining a copy of a game that is intended to be sold and USED by people that are 17+...
 

T2OY

Superior Member
Nov 17, 2006
730
1
0
#40
[QUOTE="Demon2005, post: 0]so my 14 yo brother wanted to get BF Bad Company for 360. he didn't have enough cash, so he decided to trade in a couple games. despite numerous warnings by myself and our other brother, he went to EB Games. He has done this before, and still has a trade-in credit there of like $4.50.

Anyways, I walk into EB with him and he proceeds to tell the clerk that he wants to trade in 2 games and use the credit toward BF. well the clerk gets all high-horsed (like I knew she would) and says that me being a brother isn't good enough to get the game. That he needed a parent and that they would warn the parent about everything in the game. Dejected, we walk through the mall to Future Shop and he has no trouble trading the games and getting BF with me present. Now walking back through the mall he flashed the game at the EB clerk as we passed the store.

I hope now that he will finally listen when I say that EB is the worst place to do any kind of gaming business.[/quote]

Wow you showed her!! :dunce
Maybe your brother will listen to you now or maybe he should hold out for someone smart enough to tell him ALL of those stores that trade in games low ball and rip you off, put'em on Ebay lil'dude.
 

Staticneuron

Sublimely Static
Feb 3, 2007
9,991
75
0
40
Vekta
#41
[QUOTE="Metfanant, post: 0]
<snip>

its not about things being LAW....its about liability and parental responsibilities that can be shown in court....

the Gamestop employee in this case did NOTHING wrong, unless you consider preventing a minor from obtaining a copy of a game that is intended to be sold and USED by people that are 17+...[/quote]


You have a point. In the end I guess it is CYA.
 
Nov 28, 2009
285
4
0
Indiana, USA
#42
If she was upholding store policy, regardless of what that store policy is (as long as it is legal), then she did the proper thing. She did as her employers would have wanted her to, which is her job. Good job. If you really believe that she did something wrong and you're concerned about it (as you appear to be), the proper course of action would be to take it up with the store's management, not flashing the game (purchased elsewhere) at the clerk. Do you really think that she cares that you have the game??? She simply cares about store policy because she cares about her job.
 
Sep 11, 2007
4,147
24
0
32
Philly
#44
[QUOTE="Shaunyac, post: 0]It's like when I was getting trained to work in Sainsbury's, we weren't allowed to serve a customer if we suspected the product was for someone under-age, even a child or toddler.

If there was an action man DVD which was rated say age eight, if there was a minor present who appeared to be below that age we would first ask the parent and then the child, normally the child wouldn't lie and if we say "Is this video for you?" to the child they would say yes because they don't know about licensing laws etc and wouldn't think there's anything wrong with them having the DVD.

And to be honest, I wouldn't have served you, I wouldn't risk putting my job on the line, the store getting a fine or even going to court so that some little kid gets to play a game. For all you know, every couple of months they send in people undercover and under-age to see if they're able to buy age-restricted products. Is it really worth selling something when you know the risks?[/quote]

if the parent was present and gave his or her consent then you have no right to deny that purchase.

if it's just a sibling, then you do.
 

Smorkin Panda

Elite Member
Feb 21, 2009
1,874
0
0
41
#45
[QUOTE="Demon2005, post: 0]so my 14 yo brother wanted to get BF Bad Company for 360. he didn't have enough cash, so he decided to trade in a couple games. despite numerous warnings by myself and our other brother, he went to EB Games. He has done this before, and still has a trade-in credit there of like $4.50.

Anyways, I walk into EB with him and he proceeds to tell the clerk that he wants to trade in 2 games and use the credit toward BF. well the clerk gets all high-horsed (like I knew she would) and says that me being a brother isn't good enough to get the game. That he needed a parent and that they would warn the parent about everything in the game. Dejected, we walk through the mall to Future Shop and he has no trouble trading the games and getting BF with me present. Now walking back through the mall he flashed the game at the EB clerk as we passed the store.

I hope now that he will finally listen when I say that EB is the worst place to do any kind of gaming business.[/quote]

Quite frankly, EBGames/Gamestop choose to enforce the ESRB ratings. They are not law, but it is their choice. That said, when I worked there I sold it as long as someone there was 17...You should have just left the store, came back and traded them in for your brother, what would she do? Not sell you the game? If that was the case I would have demanded to speak to a manager as you meet the "requirements" to make the purchase lol. It is funny to hear these stories though, I wonder what the clerk thought when your brother flashed the game...Unfortunately I doubt she cared since she doesn't see any extra cash for getting higher sales. Gamestop really should realize though that enforcing the ESRB suggestions loses them sales quite often, especially when there are any number of stores that people can go to and purchase the game anyways...

Finally sorry for my incoherent ramblings, I need to eat breakfast lol.
 
May 19, 2009
64
0
0
#46
It's their company policy...the guy was just doing his job. Of course, not all employees follow the rules, but apparently this one did. Of course though, maybe he just felt like being a ****** to some little kid. If I worked at a store like that, just for the heck of it I'd love to screw around with a little 14 year old and make him go emo because he couldn't get his precious video game.
 

crooky369

Superior Member
Jul 21, 2006
719
5
0
GT_RacerUK
#48
But the real moral to this story is forget brick and mortar shops. Sell your games on Ebay and buy them online as well because 99% of the time you'll get a better deal the only exceptions being the crazy launch day prices at supermarkets. (Fifa 10 was like £25 and COD:MW was £26)
 

Smorkin Panda

Elite Member
Feb 21, 2009
1,874
0
0
41
#49
[QUOTE="HypeNotiq, post: 0]It's their company policy...the guy was just doing his job. Of course, not all employees follow the rules, but apparently this one did. Of course though, maybe he just felt like being a ****** to some little kid. If I worked at a store like that, just for the heck of it I'd love to screw around with a little 14 year old and make him go emo because he couldn't get his precious video game.[/quote]

From my experience working at a Gamestop, you get to know certain people that you enjoy screwing with...Or if the kid is an ***hole then yeah, but just randomly for no reason, not really worth it from my experience. I mean honestly your experience with some of the 14 and 15 year olds on this site should dictate that not all of them are bad :) .

[QUOTE="Roadside, post: 0]Go cry in the mall's Hot Topic, OP.[/quote]

Was that necessary man? I mean he was just telling his story, and it was about his little brother not being able to get a game...We should all be so lucky to have big brothers who care about us. Honestly no real need to post things like this.
 

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
31
#50
[QUOTE="Metfanant, post: 0]im not so sure about that...i would imagine that not to be the case...

but regardless...that is not the situation that we are presented with...the OP described a situation in which he accompanied his younger brother to the store...his brother had store credit, and his brother tried to trade in games and his brother tried to buy the new game...even at that point if the OP were to say "fine then ill buy the game" i think it would still be in violation of company policy knowing that the game was being purchased for a minor...

its sorta a similar situation when buying alcohol...while it is not LAW, it is common place for stores to ID all individuals present at the time of purchase...this is to stop people of age purchasing alcohol for friends that are minors...

again, while it is NOT a law...there is legal precedent for it...when two adults go into a store to purchase alcohol they are both wholly responsible for their own actions...and that includes the consumption of alcohol...therefore there HAVE been cases where stores/employees have been found liable in cases where they sold alcohol to someone who in turn gave it to a minor...i think its crazy...but its the truth...and therefore stores protect themselves....

for instance i have seen two different versions of this policy...one where stores ID everyone in the party...if even one person is under 21, or doesn't have an ID...the sale is refused....the other is that anyone who is giving money towards the purchase is to show ID...

this doesn't apply to parents shopping with their kids however because parents/guardians are legally responsible for the actions of their children...which means if they buy alcohol and then allow their children to consume it, it is the PARENTS that face legal action...

the same applies to video games...lets take a look at some scenarios...

1. 14 year old boy enters Gamestop....purchases an "M" rated video game...which is intended to be sold to people 17 and older...this child then precedes to play the game and act out scenes with his friends in which someone gets seriously hurt, or dies...

As the investigation goes down it turns out that the actions were from a video game, that the child purchased from the local gamestop AGAINST the recommendations of the ESRB....this store could and most likely WILL be held to some sort of legal liability in the case....do i think its right??? no not at all...but its the truth...

who is to blame for the child getting their hands on the game??...personally i think its the parents, but lets face it...14 year old kid...might have just been at the mall with friends or something...parents cant always be around...the store/clerk is the one who SHOULD in this case prevented the child from obtaining this game that was intended for 17+ year old kids...

2. Now look at the OP's situation...its the same thing...there just happens to be an older brother present...the clerk still KNOWS that the game will end up in the hands of the minor...they still could stop that by refusing the sale...

3. If a parent or legal guardian is present and purchases the game FOR the child then all legal liability is removed from the store/clerk...the parent is informed of the content of the game and the full burden of liability is then squarely on the shoulders of the parent/guardian...

and that is why a "older brother" is not acceptable as a guardian...because an older brother has no legal responsibilities for the actions of that child...parents/guardians do....

its not about things being LAW....its about liability and parental responsibilities that can be shown in court....

the Gamestop employee in this case did NOTHING wrong, unless you consider preventing a minor from obtaining a copy of a game that is intended to be sold and USED by people that are 17+...[/quote]
im not sure excatly how he went about it... but if he asked to buy the game for him self (even after she denied the younger one the sale) then she broke game stop policy... i worked there... i know the policy :lol:
they can not control where the game ends up, so they can sell to someone 17 or up... end of story. Trust me, gamestop could give a rats *** about who plays the game, only reason they even have the policy is to get certain pro censorship nut groups off their back...
 

Roadside

Elite Member
Feb 14, 2010
1,678
29
0
#51
[QUOTE="Smorkin Panda, post: 0]Was that necessary man? I mean he was just telling his story, and it was about his little brother not being able to get a game...We should all be so lucky to have big brothers who care about us. Honestly no real need to post things like this.[/quote]
Fine, both him and his little bro should go cry in the mall's Hot Topic.

:p
 

T2OY

Superior Member
Nov 17, 2006
730
1
0
#52
[QUOTE="Metfanant, post: 0]im not so sure about that...i would imagine that not to be the case...

but regardless...that is not the situation that we are presented with...the OP described a situation in which he accompanied his younger brother to the store...his brother had store credit, and his brother tried to trade in games and his brother tried to buy the new game...even at that point if the OP were to say "fine then ill buy the game" i think it would still be in violation of company policy knowing that the game was being purchased for a minor...

its sorta a similar situation when buying alcohol...while it is not LAW, it is common place for stores to ID all individuals present at the time of purchase...this is to stop people of age purchasing alcohol for friends that are minors...

again, while it is NOT a law...there is legal precedent for it...when two adults go into a store to purchase alcohol they are both wholly responsible for their own actions...and that includes the consumption of alcohol...therefore there HAVE been cases where stores/employees have been found liable in cases where they sold alcohol to someone who in turn gave it to a minor...i think its crazy...but its the truth...and therefore stores protect themselves....

for instance i have seen two different versions of this policy...one where stores ID everyone in the party...if even one person is under 21, or doesn't have an ID...the sale is refused....the other is that anyone who is giving money towards the purchase is to show ID...

this doesn't apply to parents shopping with their kids however because parents/guardians are legally responsible for the actions of their children...which means if they buy alcohol and then allow their children to consume it, it is the PARENTS that face legal action...

the same applies to video games...lets take a look at some scenarios...

1. 14 year old boy enters Gamestop....purchases an "M" rated video game...which is intended to be sold to people 17 and older...this child then precedes to play the game and act out scenes with his friends in which someone gets seriously hurt, or dies...

As the investigation goes down it turns out that the actions were from a video game, that the child purchased from the local gamestop AGAINST the recommendations of the ESRB....this store could and most likely WILL be held to some sort of legal liability in the case....do i think its right??? no not at all...but its the truth...

who is to blame for the child getting their hands on the game??...personally i think its the parents, but lets face it...14 year old kid...might have just been at the mall with friends or something...parents cant always be around...the store/clerk is the one who SHOULD in this case prevented the child from obtaining this game that was intended for 17+ year old kids...

2. Now look at the OP's situation...its the same thing...there just happens to be an older brother present...the clerk still KNOWS that the game will end up in the hands of the minor...they still could stop that by refusing the sale...

3. If a parent or legal guardian is present and purchases the game FOR the child then all legal liability is removed from the store/clerk...the parent is informed of the content of the game and the full burden of liability is then squarely on the shoulders of the parent/guardian...

and that is why a "older brother" is not acceptable as a guardian...because an older brother has no legal responsibilities for the actions of that child...parents/guardians do....

its not about things being LAW....its about liability and parental responsibilities that can be shown in court....

the Gamestop employee in this case did NOTHING wrong, unless you consider preventing a minor from obtaining a copy of a game that is intended to be sold and USED by people that are 17+...[/quote]


Hot Damn, Hot Topic someone needs a blog.

CSI PSU SUV Law an Order FTW
 

Suley

Elite Guru
Apr 9, 2009
5,253
14
0
Hertfordshire
#54
[QUOTE="Smorkin Panda, post: 0]



Was that necessary man? I mean he was just telling his story, and it was about his little brother not being able to get a game...We should all be so lucky to have big brothers who care about us. Honestly no real need to post things like this.[/quote]
I have a big brother but he's isn't really caring.. ;)
 

JordanL

Elite Guru
Sep 29, 2005
5,848
3
0
35
#55
You guys all know that it's not illegal, right? It's just against store policy.

The only places in the US where it was declared illegal the courts have ruled that the law was illegal.
 

Solaar

Apprentice
Jul 3, 2007
285
0
0
46
#56
Just to back Spider up:

"At present in the US, there is no federal law against the sale of violent video games to children. However there is a system of self-regulation governed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The ESRB is a self-regulatory body for the interactive entertainment software industry established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB independently applies and enforces ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the computer and video game industry. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings are designed to provide information about video and computer game content, so consumers can make informed purchase decisions. ESRB ratings have two parts: rating symbols suggest age appropriateness for the game, and content descriptors indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thompson was able to get hold of the game despite the recommended age of 17 being prominently displayed on the cover of the game. Under the ESRB rating the content descriptors for the game included "blood and gore", "intense violence", "use of drugs" and "strong sexual content". Even though mature games are labelled with the "M" rating, there are no legal mechanisms in place preventing children from buying or renting them. The National Institute of Media and the Family has found that 87% of pre-teen and teenage boys play games rated "M". Unlike the motion picture industry, the video game industry has not developed an effective self-regulation system that keeps adult material out of the hands of children. In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission found that 69% of teenagers were able to purchase M-rated video games – giving them easy access to images many adults would consider offensive. The FTC also found that not only are children easily purchasing violent and sexually explicit games, 10 of the 11 companies it studied produced at least one marketing document specifically targeting boys under 17 for a violent, M-rated game. Adrian Fenty, a member of the Washington DC City Council who recently introduced legislation that would ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit games to minors, said the games industry's current rating system is ineffective, "it's a rating system without any penalties … it's like any other law that doesn’t have teeth – it just does not accomplish what it is supposed to" Fenty said."

http://www.out-law.com/page-5810

Solaar
doing the foot work
 

Smorkin Panda

Elite Member
Feb 21, 2009
1,874
0
0
41
#57
[QUOTE="JordanL, post: 0]You guys all know that it's not illegal, right? It's just against store policy.

The only places in the US where it was declared illegal the courts have ruled that the law was illegal.[/quote]

This is really the point that I think would be a good response to Metefant's post. Your purchasing alcohol example doesn't really work to compare because alcohol is actually illegal to sell to minors, and because it is a law on the books, people who do sell it to minors can be prosecuted as well as held liable for any sort of horrible thing that happens to people because of their sale. This is why store are careful and tend to ID the entire party purchasing the liquor.

As for games, the store would never be held liable for some kind of stupidity that a 14 year old (I know, I shouldn't lump the people committing these acts into one age group, sorry) decides is a good idea because he saw some video game character do it. As someone explained, the ESRB is a suggestion. It is there for parental units to actually take an active role in raising their children. Unfortunately the rating generally falls on deaf ears. In the end I sold to people as long as they were 17 (or looked it, quite frankly I ID'ed people very rarely because I thought it was stupid to enforce something that wasn't a law...Besides I played a ton of violent video games growing up and I am basically a pacifist). Every now and again I got a mother in complaining about how I sold it to their kid (how was I supposed to know the guy with him was a cousin or a brother lol)...But the store policy while I was working there was certainly not as harsh as it may be now (as long as it seemed like I was doing the right thing I never got in trouble lol).

In the end I suppose it is what it is...If Gamestop wants to enforce the ESRB rating, then they will...Make sure the person doing the purchasing is actually 17+ next time you are buying an M rated game I guess, I mean they can't really not sell it to you just cause you have to go shopping with your little brother right? Or purchase your games from the store you went to instead of Gamestop.

Finally, after Jack Thompson didn't we learn that video games aren't responsible for acts of violence? As I said, I played a ton of violent video games growing up (let's not forget how violently bloody and gory Wolfenstien 3D was lol) and I have yet to commit any acts of violence. It all boils down to what individuals are taught by their parental units early in life, teach your kid the difference between right and wrong and I don't care how many violent video games he/she plays, how many violent movies he/she watches, how much of the news he/she watched, chances are they won't be acting out the things they see because they know it is wrong. Simple as that.

As a suffice, I would just like to say that the above is simply my opinion, take it for what it is worth, not much ;) .