Support NeoGAF

[DapperSloth]

Well since you get nothing now for your digital games this is a good deal.

You really complaining about this? You all mentioning Gamestop, well you can't trade in your non-physical games at Gamestop.

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

.

iPhone. Caps is easier

 

[MikeE21286]

Buy a $60 game and get back $6.

I wouldn't do it

 

[Zombie James]

Well since you get nothing now for your digital games this is a good deal.

You really complaining about this? You all mentioning Gamestop, well you can't trade in your non-physical games at Gamestop.

A game loses 90% of its value the second it touches your hard drive. That's not a good deal.

 

[RoninChaos]

Well since you get nothing now for your digital games this is a good deal.

You really complaining about this? You all mentioning Gamestop, well you can't trade in your non-physical games at Gamestop.

No it's not a good deal. This is like pissing in a glass when someone says they're thirsty. "Well, you didn't have anything to drink before!"

 

[SOR5]

A game loses 90% of its value the second it touches your hard drive. That's not a good deal.

You could say right now a game loses 100% of its value the second it touches your hard drive.

 

[Head.spawn]

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"

That's Europe only though, right?

I'm not sure how things work over there. Do you actively sell your digital Xbox/PS4/Steam games?

Clearly that would be the best solution from a consumer point of view.

 

[GnawtyDog]

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.

It's always had a profound impact...the more players (game developers) seeking to sell a good (video game) to a limited common pot (consumers with consoles) the less disposable income to be shared around various titles. Not to mention other products from other industries competing for that same disposable income like smartphones, smartwatches and stuff of that sort. The surge in popularity of other goods competing for the same disposable income, along with stagnant wages and higher cost of game development have all had a major effect in devs going under. It's easy to scapegoat to the resale market because it's something publishers can at least try to control by coercive force, unlike the economy, wages, smartphone sales and consumer buying patterns. So in short, some devs are bound to go under. The resale market in a way helps alleviate some of the strain in consumers pockets by minimizing the cost of recurring purchases and also helps w/ consumer retention in the hobby overall. So I see it the other way around in many ways.

Say x individual purchases a game for $60. Same individual sells it for $40 (resale market to y consumer) and with that $40 buys another game that's worth $60 by adding $20 from his pocket. So x consumer spent in reality only $80 for the purchase of a $120 in games. The publishers got to sell 2 copies at full price ($120) instead of 1 copy at full price ($60), another copy discounted at $40 and another discounted at $20. All while the publishers had to do nothing, nothing, to guarantee that these 3 distinct transactions take place in a theoretical perfect publisher scenario. Which I should say, their perfect scenario is the usual nonsense of three distinct $60 purchases...which is not based on reality but their wild wet dreams. Obviously things like elasticity of demand and disposable income all play a part in this -- we're just discussing abstracts here.

I have no idea of what business model Steam is running with trading cards so I can't comment on that. All the details matter.

 

[LogN]

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.

My math was off, yes. As for the GameStop, which people as usual are quick to jump on, it was an example.

Let's breakdown further what you pay for digitally, as others point out, a license. However, look a little bit more, you didn't actually buy anything. You have zero ownership of that license. In fact, Microsoft, Steam, Origin, PSN, etc.. can revoke the use of your license at any time for any reason. You're paying full price for a rental that gets returned when they want. Will they ever make due on that? Likely not, but it's a possiblity that looms regardless.

Now, back to my point of "return" of value on a physical game; you CAN sell it to GameStop or you can sell it on eBay, Craigslist, your friend, family member, etc.. the list goes on. The point I was making was, you have options as you own the item physically and therefore control it.

Giving in to ludicrous "buyback" is simply justifying the use and rental of full priced licenses when you the consumer have the option (in most cases, in terms of bigger titles, indies I get) to actually OWN the game.

Simply put, allowing this program and using it will only make publishers and digital store fronts strong arm you into getting digital, they'll gladly lose 6 dollars if you're willing to spend another 60, in a heartbeat as we know the margin on digital is through the roof.

Also, those defending Microsoft on this saying they lose money, really? There is no loss to them at all, not only did it cost them nothing to provide the license to you, it costs them even less to give you a small fraction of you what you paid as you'll be immediately returning that credit plus more into their system. Do you think a company starts a program like this with the intent of losing money and benefiting the consumer, it's simply never the case.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Yes, more options, especially for games you possibly don't want anymore, and can sell back for a little something, is a good idea. I can't see how anyone's answer would ever be no.

 

[Dunan]

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.

This right here. WIth good timing you can very occasionally get all your money back when selling physical games onward when you're done. Microsoft wants to turn game buying into a service where you pay 90% of the retail price for a long-term rental? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Give us 75-90% in credit and I'll consider it.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Well since you get nothing now for your digital games this is a good deal.

You really complaining about this? You all mentioning Gamestop, well you can't trade in your non-physical games at Gamestop.

Here is a thought...don't buy digital on console. It is usually the worst option. Only reason to buy digital on console is if you are too lazy to change discs. Generally no other benefits.

 

[Apollo Cree]

This right here. WIth good timing you can very occasionally get all your money back when selling physical games onward when you're done. Microsoft wants to turn game buying into a service where you pay 90% of the retail price for a long-term rental? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Give us 75-90% in credit and I'll consider it.

They make negative money doing this

 

[Silent Chief]

That's insulting, that is barely even the tax in most areas.

Tax is 15% here.

 

[SOR5]

My math was off, yes. As for the GameStop, which people as usual are quick to jump on, it was an example.

Let's breakdown further what you pay for digitally, as others point out, a license. However, look a little bit more, you didn't actually buy anything. You have zero ownership of that license. In fact, Microsoft, Steam, Origin, PSN, etc.. can revoke the use of your license at any time for any reason. You're paying full price for a rental that gets returned when they want. Will they ever make due on that? Likely not, but it's a possiblity that looms regardless.

Now, back to my point of "return" of value on a physical game; you CAN sell it to GameStop or you can sell it on eBay, Craigslist, your friend, family member, etc.. the list goes on. The point I was making was, you have options as you own the item physically and therefore control it.

Giving in to ludicrous "buyback" is simply justifying the use and rental of full priced licenses when you the consume have the option (in most cases, in terms of bigger titles, indies I get) to actually OWN the game.

Simply put, allowing this program and using it will only make publishers and digital store fronts strong arm you into getting digital, they'll gladly lose 6 dollars if you're willing to spend another 60, in a heartbeat as we know the margin on digital is through the roof.

So would you state the existence of no option whatsoever is more beneficial than an in-store credit trade option when it comes to digital purchases? Is it more beneficial to me the consumer, to be left with a digital license to a game I don't play or want, or to relinquish that license in exchange for a discount on a game I would play or want?

I understand your point, but you do seem to just be more focused on the dangers of a digital market taking over the physical market.

 

[LostDonkey]

That's Europe only though, right?

I'm not sure how things work over there. Do you actively sell your digital Xbox/PS4/Steam games?

Clearly that would be the best solution from a consumer point of view.

It looks that way with it being the ECJ. Do we know if the survey was from a European account? Or was the user from elsewhere? Has anyone in the US for example received this survey?

I've never sold on a license but I knew I'd read somewhere that you could.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

This right here. WIth good timing you can very occasionally get all your money back when selling physical games onward when you're done. Microsoft wants to turn game buying into a service where you pay 90% of the retail price for a long-term rental? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Give us 75-90% in credit and I'll consider it.

Here's what you need to do. Open a store, any store. Sell products where you maybe have a 30% margin that you keep from the sale, the rest is cost of goods sold. Start your buyback program where you give customers 75% of what they paid for their original purchase, at which time you accept the good back and it immediately evaporates to nothing.

Is this a good deal to you? If so, I would love shopping at your store for the two days before you go out of business.

 

[Timeaisis]

I guess I don't understand the point of all this? Why would Microsoft want to buy back the rights to a digital game? They seemingly gain nothing from it. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding some licensing law, I don't think they "gain" a license back to sell.

EDIT: By gain I mean gain anymore. They may gain a single license, but they already have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited licenses to sell for their digital games.

 

[LogN]

So would you state the existence of no option whatsoever is more beneficial than an in-store credit trade option when it comes to digital purchases?

I understand your point, but you do seem to just be more focused on the dangers of a digital market taking over the physical market.

Yes, I would rather see a zero return on digital. We know the risk buying it, you don't own it, you can't sell it, you can't trade it. We just didn't feel like getting off the couch, it's the price we pay for that trade off.

 

[Apollo Cree]

I guess I don't understand the point of all this? Why would Microsoft want to buy back the rights to a digital game? They seemingly gain nothing from it. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding some licensing law, I don't think they "gain" a license back to sell.

A guess would be that having that extra cash around would be an incentive for someone to spend money that they otherwise wouldn't have.

 

[SOR5]

Yes, I would rather see a zero return on digital. We know the risk buying it, you don't own it, you can't sell it, you can't trade it. We just didn't feel like getting off the couch, it's the price we pay for that trade off.

Sorry i just amended my post, I'm interested in your answer, again this is not in an attempt to discredit you, I believe any evidenced opinions for both sides that isn't just driveby criticism is worthwhile

EDIT: I do want to say I dont believe why those things you said should be solidified as the norm.

 

[Dice]

I would rather lend/gift them to friends.

Yes, this.

 

[LostDonkey]

Yes, this.

You can with gamesharing can't you?

 

[SOR5]

I guess I don't understand the point of all this? Why would Microsoft want to buy back the rights to a digital game? They seemingly gain nothing from it. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding some licensing law, I don't think they "gain" a license back to sell.

EDIT: By gain I mean gain anymore. They may gain a single license, but they already have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited licenses to sell for their digital games.

They don't really "gain" a license, you lose access to a license you don't want, in exchange for a bigger balance in your XBL account, this could accumulate to gaining a new license in their store, or serve as an incentive discount to another purchase.

In my opinion it's a win/win, if the traded license truly serves no purpose to the consumer anymore.

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

Yes, I would rather see a zero return on digital. We know the risk buying it, you don't own it, you can't sell it, you can't trade it. We just didn't feel like getting off the couch, it's the price we pay for that trade off.

So because you prefer physical, dick over digital consumers. When MS is considering giving a return for an expanding digital market wher the games currently have zero value post purchase. Yeah sure.

Edit: and if you're gonna keep consuming physical media, as I do with Nintendo/Sony, what the fuck difference does it even make whether digital consumers get any return at all?

 

[JeffG]

You can with gamesharing can't you?

Thats just between 2 people

 

[Alucrid]

I guess I don't understand the point of all this? Why would Microsoft want to buy back the rights to a digital game? They seemingly gain nothing from it. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding some licensing law, I don't think they "gain" a license back to sell.

EDIT: By gain I mean gain anymore. They may gain a single license, but they already have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited licenses to sell for their digital games.

it makes them "look good"

 

[EdgeXL]

I am 90% digital this generation and I don't miss physical media at all. That said, I have no plans of ever using this. I will just keep playing my digital games.

I don't oppose this option for those who want it though.

 

[gus-gus]

It's always had a profound impact...the more players (game developers) seeking to sell a good to a limited common pot (consumers with consoles) the less disposable income to be shared around various titles. Some are bound to go under. The resale market in a way helps alleviate some of that strain in consumers pockets by minimizing the cost of purchase. So I see it the other way around in many ways.

Say x individual purchases a game for $60. Sells it for $40 and with that $40 buys another game that's worth $60 by adding $20 from his pocket. So x consumer spent in reality only $80 for the purchase of a $120 in games. The publishers got to sell 2 copies at full price instead of 1 copy at full price, another discounted at $40 and another discounted at $20. All while the publishers had to do nothing (no discount marketing, nothing) to guarantee all of those 3 distinct transactions taking place in a theoretical perfect publisher scenario. Which I should say, their theoretical is the usual nonsense of three distinct $60 purchases...which is not based on reality but their wild dreams. Obviously things like elasticity of demand and disposable income all play a part in this -- we're just discussing abstracts.

I have no idea of what business model Steam is running with trading cards so I can't comment on that. All the details matter.

I have to disagree, you assume the original purchaser continues to buy new games with the money made. Look, I understand what you're trying to say but the business model is dangerous. And steam is running exactly the model you described about having user price games for resell in a marketplace. That model would destroy gamestop, who already is struggling. Good chat though, I kind of have to study economics and inventory management for my job so I really get into. No harm meant though.

 

[JeffG]

I guess I don't understand the point of all this? Why would Microsoft want to buy back the rights to a digital game? They seemingly gain nothing from it. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding some licensing law, I don't think they "gain" a license back to sell.

EDIT: By gain I mean gain anymore. They may gain a single license, but they already have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited licenses to sell for their digital games.

maybe they are trying to give you some value for something that has no value.

Make you a happier customer

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Yea 10 percent is insulting as fuck. 50 percent at minimum. Anything less is a hell no.

 

[Forerunner]

Sure, if I don't plan on playing it anymore, there is no sense in keeping it.

 

[LogN]

So because you prefer physical, dick over digital consumers. When MS is considering giving a return for an expanding digital market wher the games currently have zero value post purchase. Yeah sure.

Digital customers are already "dicked" over, there is virtually no benefit to "buying" digital. They tell you right in the EULA/TOS that you do not own the game. You didn't buy anything, you paid for the use of the game.

Someone buying a physical game owns it. It's in their hands, that's how ownership in most countries works. I buy plenty of games digitally, especially indie games, I expect nothing back for them. I understand how it works, same with how I cannot sell my iTunes music or movies versus my CDs and Blu-Rays, I don't own them. It's the price I paid for an easier way in which to manage/use those products.

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

Yea 10 percent is insulting as fuck. 50 percent at minimum. Anything less is a hell no.

That's just batshit insane! If MS makes 30% off of a digital sale like I read here, that's negative money! That's like the comic I saw on this forum, where the potion seller was selling their potions at a loss compared to the mats it took to make them! What would even be the point for MS if they're going to take an actual Loss at that point? They're the supplier of the game and the credit, and cannot turn around and sell the game for a profit! D:<

 

[Apollo Cree]

Yea 10 percent is insulting as fuck. 50 percent at minimum. Anything less is a hell no.

Everyone values their stuff differently and that's perfectly fair but I can't fully understand where you're coming from. Why is 0 return on your purchase a nonissue when 10% is insulting?

 

[SOR5]

Digital customers are already "dicked" over, there is virtually no benefit to "buying" digital. They tell you right in the EULA/TOS that you do not own the game. You didn't buy anything, you paid for the use of the game.

Someone buying a physical game owns it. It's in their hands, that's how ownership in most countries works. I buy plenty of games digitally, especially indie games, I expect nothing back for them. I understand how it works, same with how I cannot sell my iTunes music or movies versus my CDs and Blu-Rays, I don't own them. It's the price I paid for an easier way in which to manage/use those products.

I want to present a scenario

I have a digital license of The Deer God, I do not want to play or keep my license of The Deer God, also since it's a digital only game, the likeliness or hindsight of me owning a physical copy is null.

I want to buy Dark Souls 3

Is it beneficial if I have the option to trade in The Deer God for a small value towards Dark Souls 3?

 

[Apollo Cree]

Digital customers are already "dicked" over, there is virtually no benefit to "buying" digital. They tell you right in the EULA/TOS that you do not own the game. You didn't buy anything, you paid for the use of the game.

Someone buying a physical game owns it. It's in their hands, that's how ownership in most countries works. I buy plenty of games digitally, especially indie games, I expect nothing back for them. I understand how it works, same with how I cannot sell my iTunes music or movies versus my CDs and Blu-Rays, I don't own them. It's the price I paid for an easier way in which to manage/use those products.

Huh

People buy digital for convenience and that's a perfectly valid reason.

 

[Mr-Joker]

Pfft 10% for store credit that's a fucking rip off.

Still the door is open for the option to resell digital games, just need to improve on the pricing though and give the option for real money.

You could say right now a game loses 100% of its value the second it touches your hard drive.

You're basically saying folk could either chose nothing or a slap in a face, both are still shitty option.

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

Digital customers are already "dicked" over, there is virtually no benefit to "buying" digital. They tell you right in the EULA/TOS that you do not own the game. You didn't buy anything, you paid for the use of the game.

Someone buying a physical game owns it. It's in their hands, that's how ownership in most countries works. I buy plenty of games digitally, especially indie games, I expect nothing back for them. I understand how it works, same with how I cannot sell my iTunes music or movies versus my CDs and Blu-Rays, I don't own them. It's the price I paid for an easier way in which to manage/use those products.

So what's the negative? If some of us prefer having a digital library. Whether for convenience, less storage, not having cluttered library everywhere. What is the harm in allowing a digital return. Especially if it's coming out of MS' wallet? That only benefits the people this is targeting, digital consumers. Microsoft is offering CREDIT for something that has ZERO real world value. Why would anyone object to that?! I don't even see how an argument can be made, especially if one is going to buy physical media anyway?

Are you afraid it'll impact the physical market? People still buy physical games! That's not going anywhere! I have friends who won't ever buy a digital game! And there are plenty of others out there who will do that?

So what is the harm in giving a user credit back to revoke a license that has no value at all. If it's coming out of the supplier of the licenses pocket to begin with? Where is the problem.

 

[Alienfan]

I don't understand the "go f*ck yourself" mentality - 10% is still better than the current 0%. But I also don't understand why a publisher would even give us the option of trading in a digital game, they have nothing to gain from it

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

I don't understand the "go f*ck yourself" mentality - 10% is still better than the current 0%. But I also don't understand why a publisher would even give us the option of trading in a digital game, they have nothing to gain from it

This wouldn't be coming out of the publisher's pocket. Except for 1st party games. In which case it would. This would be coming out of Microsoft's to keep you on their digital ecosystem and continue to spend money on their digital library.

 

[JeffG]

Yea 10 percent is insulting as fuck. 50 percent at minimum. Anything less is a hell no.

lol

Your digital license has 0 value

 

[GnawtyDog]

I have to disagree, you assume the original purchaser continues to buy new games with the money made. Look, I understand what you're trying to say but the business model is dangerous. And steam is running exactly the model you described about having user price games for resell in a marketplace. That model would destroy gamestop, who already is struggling. Good chat though, I kind of have to study economics and inventory management for my job so I really get into. No harm meant though.

I am not assuming, I've engaged in such practice and continue to engage in such - on occasion. So I know first hand and there are many others like me. And this practice becomes even more essential for cash strapped gamers in their teens years. If you're cash strapped and you struggle to buy games because your allowance doesn't allow for full $60 purchases of the latest, hottest games, eventually, without a resale market you're endangering losing a potential customer in the hobby due to disengagement aka said customer losing interest and spending that disposable income elsewhere ($40, $20 or whatever) to get entertainment value or whatever - could be movies, drinks, clothing, sport supplies, a smartphone bill etc....

Now publishers would naturally say they're not interested in that consumer (they didn't have him in the first place they'll say) but they're gravely mistaken to piss away a consumer in the loop..... Claims of believing in "industry growth" when it's just short-term bottomlines what they're worried about. What's taking their lunch is another industry that burst into the scene in the last 10-15 years: smartphones for young teens, young adults. Whereas before phones were limited to a house, and household, these days everyone in the family pratically has one (that's a big strain on disposable income believe it or not). Tablets (and smartphones) are doing the same thing to desktops. Add stagnant wages for this very same consumer base, along with mild unemployment for this very same segment + the "cool factor", "essential need" trend of smartphones......it all adds up.

I would even argue that engaging in the resale market outside Gamestop is much better for the industry overall than Gamestop's trade-in shenanigans. I guess they do provide a convenience service that's valuable, like all trade-in programs BUT, the more trade-in values reflect open resale market values (eBay, Amazon etc), the better the industry will be at maintaining consumers and cash-flow. If Gamestop negotiated with publishers a percentage cut on their final value of a resale (% cut already factored into the price after the transaction takes place) perhaps I would be more inclined to side with such an arrangement depending on close inspection - to coexist with an open resale market but yet being a better alternative to publishers. Gamestop doesn't allow this for one simple reason: they see no reason to put that money into publisher pockets - they rather keep all for themselves.

Good chat.

 

[J_Viper]

I don't understand the "go f*ck yourself" mentality - 10% is still better than the current 0%. But I also don't understand why a publisher would even give us the option of trading in a digital game, they have nothing to gain from it

I'm with you.

10% is a paltry amount, but at least I'd get something for the unused games on my hard drive.

 

[Hyunashi]

For 10% id rather just keep the digital games. 25-30% would be much more relavent.

 

[User 479360]

Perhaps do it by time played plus length of ownership. The Valve model with a few tiers basically.

Valve model > Full Refund

10 hours played > 25% refund

25 hours played > 10% refund

Something along those lines. I think MS should just bite the bullet and go full digital with their next machine. There are plenty of ways to incentivize it if they are smart.

This works for me.

 

[LogN]

So what's the negative? If some of us prefer having a digital library. Whether for convenience, less storage, not having cluttered library everywhere. What is the harm in allowing a digital return. Especially if it's coming out of MS' wallet? That only benefits the people this is targeting, digital consumers. Microsoft is offering CREDIT for something that has ZERO real world value. Why would anyone object to that?! I don't even see how an argument can be made, especially if one is going to buy physical media anyway?

Are you afraid it'll impact the physical market? People still buy physical games! That's not going anywhere! I have friends who won't ever buy a digital game! And there are plenty of others out there who will do that?

So what is the harm in giving a user credit back to revoke a license that has no value at all. If it's coming out of the supplier of the licenses pocket to begin with? Where is the problem.

I don't care in anyway to which you care to keep your library, again I own both. However, I understand what digital means. As for the "CREDIT" portion, you're right it's credit. Microsoft isn't magically draining a bank account to give you the credit, it's simply a number on their marketplace with virtually no value to a company as large.

I'm trying to find a way to explain this better from my perspective, alas I'm not a smart man.

Hmm.. So, let me try it this way. Consumer A is impulsive, grabbing things on a whim digitally due to convenience of the way to shop. So, let's say Consumer A buys on average 5 digital AAA games a year at 60 dollars a pop. Now, this program suddenly kicks in. Consumer A sees this is a benefit to him, increasing his purchasing power. In the back of his mind, he's winning. This mentality enables his impulsiveness even more, now with the precendent he gets something for nothing, he'll buy more and therefore ends up buying 7-8 titles a year. Microsoft has now gained not only the same, but more profit from Consumer A.

What I'm trying to get at here is that we're exchanging nothing, for something to get more nothing. I would rather buy my digital game and know that, hey, this is mine and will always be mine. This was my choice, regardless of if it was available otherwise or not. I own more digital AAA, AA, etc.. games that were 60 bucks than physical at this point. However, I would never sell them back for a fraction, I'm not going to allow myself to be undersold at the grip of a company, regardless if I use it or not. I know it'll enable me to have more "buying power," when in reality I don't.

I also don't sell my physical games either, with few exceptions. This probably doesn't help explain my point any better, but what I'm trying to say is, it's making Microsoft more evil, not more generous.

 

[daveo42]

 

[Whales]

Give us 75-90% in credit and I'll consider it.

so you want MS to give you free games basically? lol

10% is low, 25-30% would be good territory imo

 

[Head.spawn]

Here's what you need to do. Open a store, any store. Sell products where you maybe have a 30% margin that you keep from the sale, the rest is cost of goods sold. Start your buyback program where you give customers 75% of what they paid for their original purchase, at which time you accept the good back and it immediately evaporates to nothing.

Is this a good deal to you? If so, I would love shopping at your store for the two days before you go out of business.

And the same goes for 50%, 45%, 40% etc etc...

30% is their margin to work with. They clearly aren't going to give the 30% back to you because that would essentially be a free game from their view. @ 10% of your purchase price, they are effectively giving you back 30% of their cut.