-
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
That license is an infinite item which are all exactly the same, the concept of it ever being "someone elses" previously means nothing. It's not a pre-owned item of a worsened condition being sold for a profit, its just another license with money and product being distributed to the same parties the exact same way.
Randolph Freelander
Member
They're not exactly going to have a wall full of used games next to the lone new one like you find at a GameStop. "Save 5 bucks, here's a used digital license!"
mmazurkiewicz
Member
i sell most physical games back at 75% now as I buy them for $48 and can usually sell them for around $35. 10% is a joke.
microsoft wants me to buy a game for $60 and sell it for $6.
microsoft wants me to buy a game for $60 and sell it for $6.
Maintenance
Member
Since so many people are happy with 10%, Microsoft should've said 5%.
Or maybe even 1, that's still more than 0.
Or maybe even 1, that's still more than 0.
I really dont think this is the case.
I've personally argued that something is better than nothing, but 10% is not satisfactory.
Zombie James
Banned
That's why the 10% return isn't enough. You'd have to return three retail-priced games to get enough credit to buy a $15 indie game. That won't incentivize anything.
timmyp53
Member
SerTapTap
Member
Yeah, so there's probably a hard cap at 20%, if not 10% (30% is their cut and I doubt they'd give even the majority of that back).
It sounds really bad but...I'm not sure it could even be much better. At the same time, I'm not enticed myself either.
I edited my post since I noticed the underlying argument. The physical market suffers from the same disease and it hasn't gone under - nor the industry with it. Now there are some differences to take into consideration which are valid - very valid, and I stated some but I don't necessarily think it's the end all as we know it. Although, a different beast altogether on who dictates price (mostly a buyers market) and it does shake up traditional ways of looking at budgets and sales revenue. The unknown....
Orthogonal
Member
This is really bizarre messaging. What is there to "sell back". Why not call it what it is.
Would you be willing to relinquish rights to a game in order to get a discount on the purchase of another?
Would you be willing to relinquish rights to a game in order to get a discount on the purchase of another?
Obliterator
Member
10% is way too low. Wouldn't bite for anything less than 20 - 25%
Calling it a trade-in for store credit is a bit easier, and also still accurate.
TheFinalCut
Member
Exactly. With this case, unless this begins competition among digital stores to offer better return value I don't see anywhere offering better than 10-15% for returning digital goods (a value of nothing). This is just a tool to incentivize liquidating older games to what they would hope will be new full game purchases.
There's probably a lot of smart data analysts at Valve/EA/Microsoft/Sony/GOG/Etc. trying to figure out what the minimum return they can give to maximize future purchasing.
My dream scenario would be to have smart detection for a cart full of items that they can increase the value of the return based on how much you're going to be spending it on.
Case: Cart totalling $150.00 gets a 40% return on a $60 purchase vs Cart totalling $40 returns 10% on a $60 purchase
A less ideal version may be to create a trade forward program when a new entry is releasing from a developer/publisher and you can increase the trade in value if you're trading it towards this new game of theirs.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I haven't been involved in console market sales in a long time, so I could be behind on numbers. But last I heard, Microsoft was getting around 30% on sales in the Xbox marketplace. I don't know if that cut was even accurate, if it holds for all games for all publishers, if it applies to full games like it might have to DLC and Arcade titles, but let's just say it does. They're talking about giving up a third of that. That's a pretty significant cut. If it helps drive you to the store and increase profitability overall, then it's worth it. But at same point, giving you more is going to reach a point where it does nothing to increase their numbers and will start to drive them down.
Basically, people holding out for 20, 25 percent (or more!) aren't being realistic. If you want to get more (or any!) money back for your games, continue buying physical.
BananasWithGuns
Member
There's still no incentive for publishers to agree to that. They'd rather have people buying their game at full price from them/Microsoft and maybe putting it on sale a few times a year.
Microsoft's scenario in the survey makes more sense for everyone because it doesn't come out of the publisher's pocket to do it. It's Microsoft fronting that money in hopes that people will invest it back into more content so that both they and the publishers make more money in the long run.
LostDonkey
Member
Exactly, so what's stopping them from selling it again at full price once you've accepted your 10%? Who would know.
Jackbooted
Member
I'm having a hard time understanding some people's responses here. Currently you get nothing for a digital game once you stop playing it. MS is proposing to give you 10% back once you stop playing it. So we're going from 0% to 10%, seems like a good improvement to me. Hell, I would've jumped all over this offer after Destiny came out.
LukasTaves
Member
Yeah, the only way they will get anywhere near that rate is to allow selling your license to another customer.
This. It's a survey. It's not a product offering.
Yup. The analysts are going to want to figure out an acceptable price point for digital trade-ins before they even think of offering it as a service.
People filling up this thread with outrage are responding prematurely.
A binding agreement with the publishers not to do so. Pretty sure there are agreements in place between publishers and MS on how to handle the sale of their games on Xbox Live and licensing agreements etc...
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Welcome to your digital only future.
Alright now where talking. Just keep in mind what happen last gen and how . Many developers went under. Second hand market didn't cause all the mid tier developers to go under but I'm sure it had a profound impact. Honestly I contributed to that. When a b grade game would be released I would wait for it to go used before buying it. I can't imagine how many people had this say same tactic. It's not good to go down this road, it's being done in other industries and it's toxic. I would like to point to steam as a prime example. Trading cards in particular. That's what happens when user dictate prices, prices tank like crazy. The only cards that hold value are the ones that are hard to get a hold of. If games did that companies would have to release like 10 copies and let everyone pay crazy prices on the market for them to make money.
So let me ask digital only GAF this question. Whats the difference between a used digital game copy and new digital game copy?? I honestly eould offer nothing for reselling a used copy. 10% is sufficient. Guess thsts another reason physical games aren't going the way of the dodo as long as you cam trade your physical games for a decent credit
7DollarHagane
Banned
Lol why even do it at this amount
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I don't think MS gains anything from paying you and restricting access to the game sold back to you.
The license isn't something that's finite or transferable, so basically MS would be losing money by doing this.
The license isn't something that's finite or transferable, so basically MS would be losing money by doing this.
Dylan Sexbang
Banned
I still stand by 10% is a fair reasonable trade in for a digital good that Microsoft cannot do anything with when you "trade in". It's a digital license, essentially non existent except in the fact that it ties a game to your XBL account. They can generate licenses infinitely, and have nothing to gain in allowing me to relinquish my digital ownership except that I can use the money toward another game.
I already have games lined up that I would "trade in" digitally for this 10% because I will probably NEVER play those games again, and won't miss them when they're gone. Right now, those games are providing nothing for me, and if I could $6 off of a game I will never play again, more power to me!
The people who are saying! "HURRRR I WANT %50 MICROSOFT SCREW ME OVER." Are batshit insane. GameStop GAINS something by returning at any price. They gain you as a customer by giving you store credit, and they gain money on the guy who turns around and buys their marked up used games!
And you could say, the return in credit is keeping you as a customer, yes but they're not going to turn around and sell the license you just revoked for 3x what they gave you for. The license doesn't exist, it isn't tangible, it isn't something that can be exchanged to another customer for $30 to the $60 you paid. They're just hoping you'll use that credit to pick up another game down the road. But when they already have people buying digital, like myself, they don't even have to offer this. So I will take 10%. I'll take it in a heartbeat. Because I'm not getting anything for the titles that are sitting in my "Ready to Install" list as it is now. And something is better than nothing.
I already have games lined up that I would "trade in" digitally for this 10% because I will probably NEVER play those games again, and won't miss them when they're gone. Right now, those games are providing nothing for me, and if I could $6 off of a game I will never play again, more power to me!
The people who are saying! "HURRRR I WANT %50 MICROSOFT SCREW ME OVER." Are batshit insane. GameStop GAINS something by returning at any price. They gain you as a customer by giving you store credit, and they gain money on the guy who turns around and buys their marked up used games!
And you could say, the return in credit is keeping you as a customer, yes but they're not going to turn around and sell the license you just revoked for 3x what they gave you for. The license doesn't exist, it isn't tangible, it isn't something that can be exchanged to another customer for $30 to the $60 you paid. They're just hoping you'll use that credit to pick up another game down the road. But when they already have people buying digital, like myself, they don't even have to offer this. So I will take 10%. I'll take it in a heartbeat. Because I'm not getting anything for the titles that are sitting in my "Ready to Install" list as it is now. And something is better than nothing.
flatearthpandas
Member
Honestly, it would be up to MS to work this out with publishers. I see what you're saying but, as a consumer, I'm really only interested in what benefits consumers. They'd rather sell software for prices they dictate, but I'd rather not by a digital only console where that is my only option, so compromise is necessary. If the goal is a digital only console, I don't think it's unreasonable for consumers to want at least a facsimile of the options we have already available to us with physical, e.g. reselling our licenses for market determined prices.
LostDonkey
Member
So is this a console only thing then? Because isn't there a PC site, Used soft or something, where you can buy licences for cut down prices from other users.
Edit: Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft
Apollo Cree
Member
I'd probably do it. 10% is infinitely greater than 0%.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Stop thinking of this in physical terms. They don't need your license, they can do nothing with it. They have eleventy billion licenses they can already sell at full price, and if you think that reselling yours would allow them to pocket all the revenue and cut the publishers out, I think you've missed a large part of the point of going digital in the first place.
Ol No Bones
Banned
It's better than nothing if you truly were never gonna play the game again.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Well, maybe you should?
If you aren't willing to look at the situation from relevant perspectives, you aren't going to get anywhere.
If you could give me an example situation where MS giving you 50% percent of the value of a game at your purchase date makes any sense at all then I would think otherwise: while taking into account they only make maybe less than 30% on a purchase and are not going to pay you on top of that for the convenience... they aren't going to pay you to play a game, and they aren't going to hold and the cut for the publishers to make up that difference.
On the other hand, you could just ignore the incentive to ditch a game you aren't playing anymore.
I love how people are beginning to rationalize this. It's hilarious, people rip apart GameStop for their trade prices which are around 40% on a title on average, but MS offers 10% and people suddenly start to think, "Well.. they don't have to do anything, so it's better than nothing, they lose out on the deal, not us!"
Seriously? The Reddit community is doing the same thing, rationalizing that buyback price. Pretty sad to think people will back this and watch MS laugh all the way to the bank. They'll give you 6 dollars for a 60 dollar game, you know what the does? It gives you 6 dollars of encouragement on your next 60 dollar purchase. It's the only reason they're doing this, you saw the next game up was 60, but you don't want to spend it. Suddenly you've got 6-12 bucks towards it, well.. now suddenly that 60 is 52-48, not as bad.
You know what you just did? You paid 124 dollars for two games, instead of just 60 on one. Had you liked the first one by researching or possibly waiting for a sale, you gave in to impulse, and now you'll do it again.
You as the consumer benefit nothing from this kind of deal, period. You'll spend more money on the rationalization that you're getting a discount.
Seriously? The Reddit community is doing the same thing, rationalizing that buyback price. Pretty sad to think people will back this and watch MS laugh all the way to the bank. They'll give you 6 dollars for a 60 dollar game, you know what the does? It gives you 6 dollars of encouragement on your next 60 dollar purchase. It's the only reason they're doing this, you saw the next game up was 60, but you don't want to spend it. Suddenly you've got 6-12 bucks towards it, well.. now suddenly that 60 is 52-48, not as bad.
You know what you just did? You paid 124 dollars for two games, instead of just 60 on one. Had you liked the first one by researching or possibly waiting for a sale, you gave in to impulse, and now you'll do it again.
You as the consumer benefit nothing from this kind of deal, period. You'll spend more money on the rationalization that you're getting a discount.
I agree to a significant extent, people keep mentally linking a digital license with a physical item, which completely fails to grasp the point
GeordieMark
Member
This is it. It seems like a shitty deal if you view it like a traditional trade-in, but it's actually not the same thing at all. MS don't get to resell the games, so they can't really afford to be too generous with this.
Cool, could you tell how much gamestop spends to make these games that they resell? and who said your next purchase is $60 again. Keep going I love the assumptions people are throwing around on this forum.
LostDonkey
Member
They can resell it. There was a court decision in 2012 that digital content had to be treated the same way as physical when it comes to reselling licences etc.
"The ECJ's ruling was announced on 3 July 2012 (case C-128/11). The ECJ ruled, barring further recourse for appeal, that the principle of exhaustion applies to every first-time sale of software. Thus, used software trade has been declared fundamentally legal. According to the Court, this also applies to software that has been transmitted online. The ECJ even laid out that the second acquirer of computer programs that have been transmitted online may download the software from the manufacturer: "Moreover, the exhaustion of the distribution right extends to the copy of the program sold as corrected and updated by the copyright holder," according to the ECJ"
Dylan Sexbang
Banned
Because GAMESTOP TURNS AROUND AND SELLS THE GAME FOR 5x WHAT I TURNED IT IN FOR.
MY license ISN'T A TANGIBLE ITEM. IT HAS NO REAL WORLD VALUE. ZERO. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. NONE. Microsoft GAINS NOTHING. They CANNOT resell that license, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. GameStop can take the DISK, the CARTRIDGE, whatever AND SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE for 3x what they have you for it. AND have you come back with store credit to buy ANOTHER GAME OFF THEM on top of what they get from SELLING your used game.
MICROSOFT has an INFINITE supply of licenses for their games. They're not going to go resell THE LICENCE THAT HAS NO REAL WORLD VALUE. All they gain is that the user who REVOKED their license will come back and buy a game again. WHICH IS FINE BY ME. Because I'm buying all my Xbone games digital ANYWAY. And if that game has NO USE TO ME ANYMORE, as of now I CANT DO SHIT with it. Can't sell it, can't put it on eBay, can't trade it to GameStop. Microsoft is GIVING me CREDIT for something that doesn't exist. They can't resell. And have no use for. Whereas GAMESTOP up marks the game I gave them for .28c to fucking $10.
snoopeasystreet
Member
If Microsoft is in line with other digital stores, they're probably getting 30% from each digital sale.
I'd assume they won't be expecting the publishers to give back any cut of a digital trade in. That means if a user were to trade in every game after they've played it, Microsoft would now only be making 20% on every game sold.
They can't really afford to give more than 10 percent without getting the publishers involved.
I'd assume they won't be expecting the publishers to give back any cut of a digital trade in. That means if a user were to trade in every game after they've played it, Microsoft would now only be making 20% on every game sold.
They can't really afford to give more than 10 percent without getting the publishers involved.
flatearthpandas
Member
Companies make more money from digital sales so obviously they want to push them.
So if I spent $60 on one game
Traded that in
Got a $6 discount on the other one
And then got that $6 discount on the next $60 game
Wouldn't that work out at 114?
Also your criticism seems to be based on the basic idea of in-store credit done by nearly every big chain, you get a discount for relinquishing goods in exchange for more goods from the same person.