Consumer Reports: Microsoft is Nice, GameStop is Naughty

November 22, 2011 -

Uh oh!  Looks like one popular games retailer may be getting a lump of coal in its stocking this Christmas.

Consumer Reports has released its 2011 Naughty & Nice Holiday List.  First introduced last year, the list examines various companies’ shopping policies and gives them a thumbs up or thumbs down depending on how consumer friendly they are.  Consumer Reports notes that the list merely comments on specific policies, not “everything else the company does or how it treats its customers.”

Xbox 360 manufacturer Microsoft managed to make the Nice list.  “If someone buys and installs software on his or her computer, most retailers won’t give out a refund, no matter how much the customer hates it. Not so with Microsoft. Consumers dissatisfied with a Microsoft software or hardware purchase from any retailer can send it back to the company within 45 days for a refund and reimbursement of shipping costs up to $7.”

Meanwhile, video game retailer GameStop landed smack dab on the Naughty list.  “A Fortune 500 company with more than 6,500 stores worldwide, this video game software and hardware merchant has a laundry list of conditions governing returns and exchanges. And in the end, GameStop proclaims, ‘We reserve the right to refuse any return.’”

The full list is below.  You can watch the embedded video or check out the report for more details.  

Nice:

Bi-Lo supermarkets
Cablevision
Live Nation
American Express
Orvis
Crutchfield
Costco
Amazon.com
Microsoft
REI

Naughty:

AirTran
RadioShack
American Apparel
Verizon Wireless
Liberty Travel
The Swiss Colony
Southwest Airlines
SiriusXM satellite radio
GameStop

Source: Consumer Reports

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Contributing Editor Andrew Eisen has been extra specially good this year...


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Big Permlol, ya'll are still going back and forth? Take a break and play some video games07/31/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Are you using "cabal" to describe a group of writers or to suggest they all worked together in secret to publish those articles?07/31/2015 - 8:30pm
Andrew EisenMatt - That doesn't disprove the general premise of the various articles as that's not what they're about. Unless, again, he's talking about a different batch of articles.07/31/2015 - 8:28pm
Goth_SkunkThe difference between one voice being offensive and a cabal being offensive.07/31/2015 - 8:22pm
MechaCrashFunny how "you're offended, so what" flips into "we're offended, retract everything and apologize."07/31/2015 - 8:18pm
MattsworknameIts not the only argument he points out ,its just one of them07/31/2015 - 8:06pm
Mattsworknameidea that Gamers as the articel puts it, the "White male sterotype are dead, essentially was compltely false07/31/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameThe video actually shows that the shaw study actually disproves the Premise of the artices by showing that the "Gamer" dentity, has no actual meaning to thsoe who use it other then "I play games", its not connected to race, gender, or orientation. So the07/31/2015 - 8:01pm
Andrew EisenWith the exception of a brief mention in Golding's Tumbr post. Even so, he's talking about gamer identity, not desire for diversity in gaming.07/31/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenI'm not calling his examination of the Shaw study into question. I haven't read the study nor seen his video. All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the Gamers Are Dead articles I've been referencing for the last year.07/31/2015 - 7:49pm
MattsworknameSome times sargon just goes off on tangents but in this case he was pretty direct and went through teh research in detail, did the whole first video about the shaw study itself07/31/2015 - 7:45pm
Andrew EisenWell, unless it's disingenuous twaddle but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.07/31/2015 - 7:42pm
Andrew EisenGotta be. The argument you describe makes no sense otherwise.07/31/2015 - 7:40pm
MattsworknameThat is a possibility, they looked like offical articles but its possible they are different from the articles you mentoin07/31/2015 - 7:28pm
Andrew EisenNot unless he's referring to a completely different set of Gamers Are Dead articles.07/31/2015 - 7:19pm
MattsworknameIT is possibel the articles aren't readily visable or no longer show up on the sites diretly, as over time they might have been shuffled around to get them outta teh spot lights07/31/2015 - 7:18pm
MattsworknameThe video proves otherwise andrew, the links to shaws research are in the articles themselves07/31/2015 - 7:17pm
RedMageAs someone who writes extensively himself, I can see when writing has been influenced by boiling anger from a mile away.07/31/2015 - 7:12pm
RedMageI also didn't see Leigh Alexander's original article as an attack on gamers; it was just poorly written. She'd likely had a terrible day and was projecting the activities of gaming's vicious fringe onto "gamers" collectively, however you describe that.07/31/2015 - 7:11pm
Andrew EisenI searched for the RPS article but the best I can find is a weekend wrapup article that links to Alexander and Golding's articles. That can't be it.07/31/2015 - 7:11pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician