G2A will require key sellers to provide name and address

G2A, the controversial marketplace for key sellers, will soon require any users hoping to shift game keys to reveal their name and address. “Starting July 1st, 2017, buyers will have access to detailed information about the sellers on G2A.com, including their names and addresses,” G2A told Polygon. “This information will be included, among other places, on the bills provided to buyers, allowing them to know exactly who they are purchasing products from.”

G2A hopes that this will make the process of purchasing keys more transparent.

“This is another step in making our marketplace more straightforward and accessible,” G2A PR specialist Gabriela Lefanowicz told PCGamesN. “By providing more information to buyers and making the process of buying and selling more clear-cut, we are making G2A a better place for our customers. Other changes are planned and will be rolled out in the coming months as well.

In April, Gearbox ended its partnership with the marketplace because the publisher felt it didn’t do enough to protect customers from key sellers using fraudulently-acquired game keys.

The company no doubt hopes that this move will improve its reputation, a reputation that has cost it at least some business. Earlier this week the co-founder of Slime Rancher developer Monomi Park publicly refused to work with G2A after he was approached in regards to his game being included in a bundle.

19 Comments

  1. ran93r says:

    Michael Mouse
    Walt Disney World Resort
    Orlando, FL 32830

  2. Premium User Badge

    Yyve says:

    Oooh I think I know you, didn’t you sign a petition for me once? :D

  3. Premium User Badge

    Aerothorn says:

    Yeah, there is absolutely nothing about address verification in this. On one hand, I realize that is arduous for the consumer/seller/whatever; on the other hand, without that, this is an entirely useless initiative.

    • Premium User Badge

      DuncUK says:

      I got ripped off by a seller on EBAY once* by a guy whose address was available to me. I doubt very strongly that he actually lived there, although I considered paying him a visit for a laugh nonetheless.

      *a fairly sophisticated scam which involved posting a box to his own address, just so he could generate a shipping ID that I could track on the website in the hope I’d leave feedback for him and hence sacrifice any ability to raise an EBAY dispute. I’m not that stupid and I got a refund and him banned, eventually.

  4. fish99 says:

    Until they get rid of G2A Shield and start providing support to every customer, they’re still shady as hell in my books. This is just the latest in a bunch of PR exercises which doesn’t address the core problem.

  5. Phantom_Renegade says:

    That’s not why Gearbox ended their partnership. They ended their partnership because, while they were perfectly willing to take dirty or stolen money, they weren’t happy when people got angry at Gearbox for taking dirty and stolen money.

    In other words, they weren’t sorry because they did something bad, they were sorry for getting caught.

  6. somnolentsurfer says:

    I’ve not used G2A, so I don’t know exactly how it works, but I can’t see how this is supposed to make any difference to the problems they get accused of. More likely, it seems like it’s just a way to pass the buck for responsibility to the sellers when publishers come knocking.

  7. Freud says:

    They’re going to get crapped on whatever they do, but it’s a good step in the right direction.

  8. lglethal says:

    No actually not really. Unless there is some way for them to verify the names and addresses all this does is move the heat off them when something goes wrong, and moves it to the purchaser.

  9. klink-mit-panzerslip says:

    Why do we care about the seller identity, exactly? Do we care about the identity of any employee in charge of the steam store?

    • Viral Frog says:

      I’ve never used G2A because I’ve heard nothing but bad from them. But don’t they have a sort of “buyer beware” policy? If so, then that’s why we would want to take up grievances with the sellers and not G2A. The difference between G2A and Steam in this case would be that we could go directly to Valve with any grievances, where G2A would likely respond, “Well, we warned you.”

      This is assuming they do have that sort of policy, mind. I did try looking at their terms and conditions, but I can’t access the site from the computer I’m using and my cell phone data connection does not work where I’m at. If anyone can confirm for me, that’d be great! :D

      • fish99 says:

        They sell codes to people in the EU, that means they have to follow EU law. They’re not allowed to just say ‘buyer beware’ and let people get ripped off.

        Let’s be clear here, when you buy something on G2A, you are buying it from G2A, not the seller. The money you pay goes to G2A. If you get ripped off, it’s G2A’s fault, and they need to provide customer protection with every transaction, which they don’t.

        If you don’t have Shield and get ripped off, they don’t give a damn. In my experience, even with Shield, they still barely lift a finger.

    • Plake says:

      No, but we care about the company selling it’s game on the store. THATS the correct comparison!

  10. Stingy McDuck says:

    I remember sending a picture of my ID to Gaming Dragons, so I could buy keys from it (I used to buy most of my games in that store, they have really good prices). Then the G2A fiasco happened and I became a little cautious of resellers. Now I wonder if I did wrong in sending that image.

    As a side note, I recently took notice that GOG sells games at a lower price than Steam (at least in my region), so I kind of found a substitute store for my indie needs. Now I only use Steam for exclusives or ‘AAA’ games.

  11. benkc says:

    Thanks for the link to the Slime Rancher dev’s twitter post. Further upped my respect for them.

    Also, from that thread, I followed a link to a Lars Doucet article about G2A:
    link to fortressofdoors.com
    Another dev who’s opinion I respect. :)

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>