Say you buy the game for $34.50 digital.....10% = $3.45.
Lmao... better than $0 that's true.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox Survey: would you sell back your digital games at 10% of purchase price?
- Thread starter MauroNL
- Start date
Say you buy the game for $34.50 digital.....10% = $3.45.
Lmao... better than $0 that's true.
Bear Force One
Banned
I haven't had to say this in a while but Fuck Off, Microsoft.
The new slant MS is taking is a shit show frankly.
The new slant MS is taking is a shit show frankly.
ok imagine this scenario. Battlefield comes out only 1000 copies sell. Everyone now waits for for the user to put their digital copy for sale on the market place. According to you devs and microsoft should get 10% of whats sold on our end. How many copies would they have to sell to make money to survive. You don't know what the market will buy it at. Imagine people only paid about 5-10$ a game. Companies would go bankrupt.
Your comparing ebay to a gaming marketplace, not realizing ebay doesn't make anything (physical or digital) whatever they earn is profit to reinvest into the platform. They don't pay anyone to manufacture or produce anything.
Ebay is a platform, you want to dictate what devs and microsoft will make with your idea.
LostDonkey
Member
It's better than nothing, but what can I buy off the Xbox Store with that amount of money (Games).
Nothing. Unless you want some crap.
As opposed to the infinitely pro-consumer stance of no digital trade-ins at all by everyone else? C'mon.
50% is absurd. That's basically making your games half price since almost everyone would just trade it back in once they're done.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I suppose it might encourage me to be more experimental in my digital purchases.
I'm kind of a collector, so when it comes to digital games, I only want to buy what I know I want to keep forever.
If I can sell back stuff I don't want to keep forever, and get something for it, then it encourages me to be more adventurous in my digital purchases.
I'm kind of a collector, so when it comes to digital games, I only want to buy what I know I want to keep forever.
If I can sell back stuff I don't want to keep forever, and get something for it, then it encourages me to be more adventurous in my digital purchases.
a Master Ninja
Member
I hope they do it. Then I hope competitors follow suit and compete/offer better "trade-in" values. I've got some junk I'll never touch again, especially if Xbox 360 titles would qualify.
LostDonkey
Member
I wouldn't. I like to keep the games I buy. If I really have to sell one to fund another purchase if I'm a bit short at any time, then they need to make it worth my while. 10% is not worth anybodies time. Even a premium edition game at 69.99 would only net you 6.99. What can you buy with that?
lococycle. c'mon.
Edit: Nope. You can't even buy fucking lococycle.
https://store.xbox.com/en-US/Xbox-One/Games/LocoCycle/85e5ffc6-8595-4066-b1e5-5fbe7779dddd
$9.99 lol
James Scott
Banned
There are a lot of digital games I'd never play again...but I'm not sure 10% would be enticing. That's basically less than the tax i paid on the game.
Bear Force One
Banned
An option for $1+ is more useful to me than $0, yes.
Bear Force One
Banned
Like I said earlier, get Microsoft involved and others will join. More will be offered. Leaving it at zero with digital continuously growing is a sure fire way to paint yourself into a corner where no one offer anything.
If you read this thread, you'd see im advocating quite clearly for a larger stake than 10%.
However the outright rejection of an option, is what you're doing, and is pointless.
They already do that
Dead Man Typing
Member
Steam refund has set a standard of 100% return within 2 weeks and 2 hours of gameplay. Microsoft should be looking to match that and then offer less as time goes on with it stopping at 10%.
I wouldn't trade in any of my games at any percentage but this is the system I'd like to see.
I wouldn't trade in any of my games at any percentage but this is the system I'd like to see.
Umm... you misunderstood and that's really not my fault. We're talking about the re-sale market of digital licenses, NOT the new game sales market (digitial in this case).
So that throws your rant out the window. Now since you've used eBay as your loud claim suggest, I am really not sure how you avoided picking up the difference in such but no matter. You should know that:
#1
As you stated, instead of eBay, it would be Microsoft proving a platform for owners of digital licenses to resell the right of those licenses to others.
#2
The cost of using that platform will be a fee on final purchase price, usually a percentage, which, could be anywhere between a reasonable amount, 10% ish or on the high end, 30% or more. This fee could and could not include a smaller pie cut for publishers.
#3
It would operate mostly under the rules of any auction. Seller sets a minimum price (a floor might be arbitrarily imposed) for the resale of a digital license on the marketplace and buyers can bid on it. At the end of the bidding period, the buyer that bid the most wins the auction and that license is transferred over (the right to use the license) to another consumer.
A simple Buy-it Now is just a fixed price, even simpler. A seller sets a fixed price and if a buyer is willing to buy a game for that price, the transaction occurs.
There is no such thing as the end of the world.
As for the fear mongering. Pretty sure if you sell only 1k copies of your game these days you're in trouble unless the budget is pretty low. That didn't stop the industry from growing when physical carts were made (which were allowed to be resold anyway possible), nor will it stop the industry today. Not to mention online piracy.
Unless you didn't really misunderstood but instead arguing that $60 price points must be enforced along with price cuts managed by publishers. In essence that MS providing a marketplace destroys that model and as a result the "end of gaming". Which is, like in the physical world, another myth. I do realize however that the convenience factor of a digital store does make a system such as this one truly a buyers market more so than even its physical incantation. The idea of endless resales dominating the market and driving the price down to oblivion with a publisher having no ability to control it - given the fact that there is no loss of wear and tear associated with a digital good and it's easily transferable. But again that's demand and supply for you...
So say x publisher sells 100k copies and of those 100k, 50k end up in the marketplace continuously being resold without netting a new sale to the publisher. Same thing happens in the physical world but there are cost associated with acquiring physical goods not found in a digital environment, like traveling to the physical store to acquire the game or shipping times. That's where fees could come in to mitigate the bleeding and actually reimburse publishers which the current physical resale market does not....along with price drops.
It would be interesting to see it all play out on a smaller scale experiment. Of course the major players will never ever take that dive if given the choice.
flatearthpandas
Member
Better than nothing, still worse than physical though.
Not sure why people are comparing the deal to Gamestop trade in prices, which are not good for games you bought D1, but are also a flat rate. $3 back from Gamestop on a game you bought used for $10 is still a better deal than what MS is suggesting.
Allowing us to sell licenses to other users would be a good deal though. I would jump all over that.
Not sure why people are comparing the deal to Gamestop trade in prices, which are not good for games you bought D1, but are also a flat rate. $3 back from Gamestop on a game you bought used for $10 is still a better deal than what MS is suggesting.
Allowing us to sell licenses to other users would be a good deal though. I would jump all over that.
This is the system i'm leaning on.
It's great that they are maybe considering that option and it is definitely better than no ability to sell at all but I would like to see some improvements to this.
It would be great to have additional bonus % if you are buying game during launch or some short time after.
I would be ok with 10% if this would be money that you can spend anywhere because it's pretty much MS giving you money for nothing (I know that you loose your game but they don't gain anything from it)
10% for credit that you have to spend on their platforms any way is a little too little.
I would take that option if this is only option though because it's better than nothing.
It would be great to have additional bonus % if you are buying game during launch or some short time after.
I would be ok with 10% if this would be money that you can spend anywhere because it's pretty much MS giving you money for nothing (I know that you loose your game but they don't gain anything from it)
10% for credit that you have to spend on their platforms any way is a little too little.
I would take that option if this is only option though because it's better than nothing.
10% should be the minimum that should rarely ever be touched, but Microsoft should study current trade in rates a little more.
If someone bought a new $60 game, played it for 2 weeks and then trade it in the value should be much higher then just 10%. The highest should be 50% within the first week or two (you play it for story, beat it, done with it.) before dropping to 40% a month in, 35 and 30% after the next 2 months of being released that remains the constant value for most of the year. After 12 months a 10-20% trade in value.
10% is a ridiculously low price, it's not even worth selling any game at that price point.
If someone bought a new $60 game, played it for 2 weeks and then trade it in the value should be much higher then just 10%. The highest should be 50% within the first week or two (you play it for story, beat it, done with it.) before dropping to 40% a month in, 35 and 30% after the next 2 months of being released that remains the constant value for most of the year. After 12 months a 10-20% trade in value.
10% is a ridiculously low price, it's not even worth selling any game at that price point.
BananasWithGuns
Member
And if they did something like that, almost every developer that has ever released a game on XB1 would be furious.
Randolph Freelander
Member
10% is a lot of money for something they can't exactly resell, and cuts into their margins quite a bit. I find it rather generous, considering the thought of selling back digital goods is outright silly.
I know the thought is that it might spur you to spend more money in their store than you would have done anyway, and 10% lines up with with the best guess of what would maximize the extra net value -- or at least, that's what I would hope. At any rate, I wouldn't hold out out hope for more. It's basically a discount system that you control the timing of (so you're not tied to when a digital sale might happen), but with rather prickly strings attached (removes access to games you already own).
I know the thought is that it might spur you to spend more money in their store than you would have done anyway, and 10% lines up with with the best guess of what would maximize the extra net value -- or at least, that's what I would hope. At any rate, I wouldn't hold out out hope for more. It's basically a discount system that you control the timing of (so you're not tied to when a digital sale might happen), but with rather prickly strings attached (removes access to games you already own).
No I don't think you understand the effect of what your saying. Why would I buy a new game if it'll show up on the marketplace for cheaper? Everyone would wait for titles to be sold by other users. I think you really need to think about what your saying. And I know what buy it now is.
You still end up dictating what they would make on their own products. People would start undercutting each other in prices. There will be no stable money coming into the companies.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The first gaming company that goes digital and puts this plan into place is the first gaming company I stop buying consoles from.
I can sell most of my used games through Amazon months down the road at anywhere from 30-75% of the price. 10% is insulting.
I can sell most of my used games through Amazon months down the road at anywhere from 30-75% of the price. 10% is insulting.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
50% makes no fucking sense. On a $60 game, MS would be making zero dollars after the sellback and actually be paying you to delete your own game at that point.
I don't think people are thinking about this rationally.
I don't think people are thinking about this rationally.
10% is pathetic. 30% is the bare minimum for me to even consider.
edit:
Or this. MS can take their cut and this would still be an infinitely better option than 10 freaking percent.
edit:
Or this. MS can take their cut and this would still be an infinitely better option than 10 freaking percent.
Sparkedglory
Member
Hell no. 50% minimum. 90% if it's within the first two days.
Exactly.
LostDonkey
Member
I don't tend to think rationally when someone is trying to rip me off.
Good luck with that.
WickedCobra03
Member
this, for say 5$ or 6$, is it even worth the trouble of going through your library.
Maybe for at 25% at the lowest.
LostDonkey
Member
how can they not resell it? You give up your digital license for cash. They assign that license to another account. Selling it on for cash again.
Sparkedglory
Member
I know the 90% is an impossibility
inpHilltr8r
Member
They're almost certainly doing this without the publishers, who will already have their money, and have no interest in giving any of it back for nothing. So this is coming out of MS cut, and they must be viewing it as an incentive to spend more.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
Although 10% isn't much to write home about, I imagine it would add up nicely if you had a lot of smaller digital games that you bought years ago.
flatearthpandas
Member
Give them a cut as well, why not? After that, what do I care? As a consumer, this would be a great deal for me. And it's nothing more than just matching what I can already do with physical games, except they can actually cut publishers in on this so it works out better for them and actually makes an all digital console appealing instead of a nightmare.