Support NeoGAF

Randolph Freelander · Mar 20, 2016

TheSeks said:
Exactly. Needs to be half of what you paid for it ($15 for 30, $30 for $60) to actually make selling it back enticing and putting that money toward a new title. 1:1 even if you "get less" in the process of selling a title you got day-one. At least that goes back to funding the title.

Or (or in addition) you could just trade that title/license to someone else. Would make those "out of print"/license issue titles a bit tricky to negotiate but would allow people to give out of print stuff they no longer play or have an interest in (Marvel and the like) to others to play.

You know what would be a financially better idea for Microsoft than this? Not selling you a game ever.

AP90 said:
I was under the impression that with digital games sales, both Microsoft and Sony make significantly more money and profit compared to having sell the game to BestBuy or local store for less profit, then the store aka BestBuy up charging the game to make a profit as well.

Edit: I think there was either a thread or a multiple post about this before about the difference in profits between physical and digital sales.

30% is significantly more than what they would get for a physical sale. Admittedly, I'm using some old figures thrown around, but the idea as of at least a few years ago was that the platform holder might make $10 on a physical game sale (for third party games). Essentially, you could think of the 30% (if accurate) as the platform holder's cut and (part of) the retailer's cut in the physical world.

Wowfunhappy · Mar 20, 2016

gus-gus said:
Have you thought about using game sharing? or is multiple friends that you have in mind.

...y'know, I'm honestly not that familiar with how game sharing is handled, because I don't buy digital except on the 3DS (which doesn't have game sharing) and the PC (where I try to avoid Steam if I can help it).

I was generally under the impression that it was designed for families, though. That wouldn't work, as there aren't a couple of specific friends I lend all my games too.

AP90 · Mar 20, 2016

Trup1aya said:
Nah, that's the profits publishers make, because with digital, they don't have to split profit with retailers, distributors, disc presser etc.

For the platform holder, it's a 70/30 split.

Hmm... Then I'd say a tiered system would be better, then they could incentivize xbl even more by offering xbl gold members 10-15% back depending on the game (3rd party vs 1st party)... And only for a certain period of time (3-6months). As games like GTA are still selling for ridiculous prices used a year later.

Trup1aya · Mar 20, 2016

AP90 said:
Hmm... Then I'd say a tiered system would be better, then they could incentivize xbl even more by offering xbl gold members 10-15% back depending on the game (3rd party vs 1st party)... And only for a certain period of time (3-6months). As games like GTA are still selling for ridiculous prices used a year later.

I think there are a lot of things that they could do that would be better...

the best thing to do would be to have an open market, where people can sell their licenses. Supply and demand would determine the prices. They'd have eBay-style license auctions where people specify the highest amount they'd pay for a game license. Popular games would pull in higher resale values because there would be fewer used licenses on the market. MS would take a cut of these transactions.

But that's far-fetched

I'm just saying that giving 10% is better than anything we have now. No sense complaining about it or calling it unfair...

gus-gus · Mar 20, 2016

Backlogger said:
But then everyone will go digital. I don't see the problem with this eventuality. The way I see it now the consumer sees no benefit to going digital.

Yes eventually, but if they started this war now it would destroy them. Some people still don't have stable internet, others have data caps. The time will come but it's a ways off. Infrastructure needs to improve before you go down this road. You also have to convince slightly more people that digital is worth more than physical. The margin of people that still buy physical to digital just doesn't compare yet. I believe I read witcher 3 sales was were around 50/50 digital physical which is the highest I can recall, but not every game is there yet.

gus-gus · Mar 20, 2016

Wowfunhappy said:
...y'know, I'm honestly not that familiar with how game sharing is handled, because I don't buy digital except on the 3DS (which doesn't have game sharing) and the PC (where I try to avoid Steam if I can help it).

I was generally under the impression that it was designed for families, though. That wouldn't work, as there aren't a couple of specific friends I lend all my games too.

No you can assign a system in another house as a secondary console it works. Only thing the secondary console has to be always be online (if I remember correctly).

Wowfunhappy · Mar 20, 2016

Trup1aya said:
I'm just saying that giving 10% is better than anything we have now. No sense complaining about it or calling it unfair...

10% is mathematically superior to 0%, yes, but it just feels insulting. And it makes one's lesser rights as a digital purchaser much more painfully obvious.

AP90 · Mar 20, 2016

Randolph Freelander said:
You know what would be a financially better idea for Microsoft than this? Not selling you a game ever.

30% is significantly more than what they would get for a physical sale. Admittedly, I'm using some old figures thrown around, but the idea as of at least a few years ago was that the platform holder might make $10 on a physical game sale (for third party games). Essentially, you could think of the 30% (if accurate) as the platform holder's cut and (part of) the retailer's cut in the physical world.

Damn... So how do console makers actually make money and stay profitable after all the marketing and cost to create first party games? It seems like it's a more of a break even kind of thing on the games end. But if people buy content through the actual platform or watch Netflix or use other apps, then MS and Sony must still get a small percentage cut right?

Rembrandt · Mar 20, 2016

Wowfunhappy said:
10% is mathematically superior to 0%, yes, but it just feels insulting. And it makes one's lesser rights as a digital purchaser much more painfully obvious.

Does it make it more or less painfully obvious than getting $0?

wapplew · Mar 20, 2016

Better then nothing, great first step thou.

brokenbeans · Mar 20, 2016

25% and we can talk.

Ban Puncher · Mar 20, 2016

I don't want to buy someone else's second hand data.

What if they rubbed their balls on it?

20cent · Mar 20, 2016

50% the first year of purchase, 10% less each year until it reaches finally 10%, then why not.

Wowfunhappy · Mar 20, 2016

Rembrandt said:
Does it make it more or less painfully obvious than getting $0?

More, because it's harder to feel cheated by an exchange when the exchange isn't allowed in the first place.

Humans aren't rational creatures.

Ushay · Mar 20, 2016

Well, for games I'm never going to play again. I'd say yes. But it needs to be higher like 20% for it to have any weight behind it.

Which would I choose, Refund Thief for £6 or keep it forever. No brainer.

koziakauzu said:
50% the first year of purchase, 10% less each year until it reaches finally 10%, then why not.

That is a brilliant idea. Should be 100% for the first 30 days, then 50% for 6 months etc

Ivan · Mar 20, 2016

That's insulting. No deal.

clay_ghost · Mar 20, 2016

Ushay said:
Well, for games I'm never going to play again. I'd say yes. But it needs to be higher like 20% for it to have any weight behind it.

Which would I choose, Refund Thief for £6 or keep it forever. No brainer.

That is a brilliant idea. Should be 100% for the first 30 days, then 50% for 6 months etc

I can complete most games in 30 days lol.

Don Draper's Hat · Mar 20, 2016

Ushay said:
Well, for games I'm never going to play again. I'd say yes. But it needs to be higher like 20% for it to have any weight behind it.

Which would I choose, Refund Thief for £6 or keep it forever. No brainer.

That is a brilliant idea. Should be 100% for the first 30 days, then 50% for 6 months etc

Preposterous. You could get most games finished within that time.

aspiegamer · Mar 20, 2016

Though somewhat derailing, I'd like to mention how good Amazon's trade-in service has become. Things will get you ~50% the original retail price within the first month or so after a release. Stack that with the new 20% off pre-orders for Prime and you're talking ~$20 for games new so long as you're done in 3-5 weeks. Doesn't work for some games with long play times, of course, but it covers what a lot of people might get out of a typical AAA title. Only disclaimer being it's Amazon credit, but for anyone using the service that's almost as good as cash.

Ushay said:
That is a brilliant idea. Should be 100% for the first 30 days, then 50% for 6 months etc

...Not sure if serious?

Memorabilia · Mar 20, 2016

A flat 10%? Lol That's a slap in the face and ultimately pointless because not only would it never catch on, but a number that low right off the bat would actually create derision towards the buy-back program. Mocking would reach historic levels.

Realistically, it'd need to start at 50% for the first 2-4 weeks and gradually stair-step down to 10%. If people could get, say, 33% back a couple months after purchase then I'm guessing this might be popular enough to work.

krang · Mar 20, 2016

gus-gus said:
They can't start undercutting retail partners which still hold the majority of their sales. It would piss them off and they'll stop carrying your products.

Digital doesn't have to exclude retail.

Paganmoon · Mar 20, 2016

A percentage of the current price would be hard to implement, and prone to abuse I think. What if you bought the game on a sale for say $10, regular price goes back to $30. You finish the game, sell it back at 30% (the number suggested by many on page 1), get your $10 back pretty much. Would never be allowed to happen by the publishers.

I also agree that 10% is way to low, 20% of original purchasing price would be better (more is always better of course)

krang · Mar 20, 2016

Paganmoon said:
A percentage of the current price would be hard to implement, and prone to abuse I think. What if you bought the game on a sale for say $10, regular price goes back to $30. You finish the game, sell it back at 30% (the number suggested by many on page 1), get your $10 back pretty much. Would never be allowed to happen by the publishers.

I also agree that 10% is way to low, 20% of original purchasing price would be better (more is always better of course)

10% of purchase price, you would expect.

Phyla · Mar 20, 2016

This is a pretty interesting idea, considering Microsoft doesn't directly benefit from this at all. From a marketing point of view though, it gives the Xbox store a unique feature which might motivate people to come back to the store or spend more time in the interface.

Customers hesitant to switch to a digital format might also percieve the transition as smaller when they are provided with an option to sell back their games. It reminds me of the design principle of skeuomorph: designing new objects with hints to older items.

People comparing this with Gamestop trade-ins or labeling this offer 'insulting' just downright amaze me.

Pjsprojects · Mar 20, 2016

I'm sick of £50 console game prices as it is, so selling them back for ten percent is a joke.

No thanks Microsoft.

barneystuta83 · Mar 20, 2016

Ask yourself this.

How much would a Game/GameStop offer you for a copy of a 'used' game if:

- They have infinite number of new copies
- The used copy can not be re-sold at any price

The answer is, if you are very lucky, a little something. Most likely would be nothing though.

So what is it MS is looking to achieve with this? It isn't a way for them to sell used games, because what is the point if they are unable to.

I suspect it is more to do with selling more digital games. Giving people credit back to spend in the store, means more content sold. The fact that people may get a little something back will encourage more digital sales.

People calling for 20-50% have very unrealistic expectations as these 'used' digital licences are worth 'nothing' to them.

leeh · Mar 20, 2016

barneystuta83 said:
Ask yourself this.

How much would a Game/GameStop offer you for a copy of a 'used' game if:

- They have infinite number of new copies
- The used copy can not be re-sold at any price

The answer is, if you are very lucky, a little something. Most likely would be nothing though.

So what is it MS is looking to achieve with this? It isn't a way for them to sell used games, because what is the point if they are unable to.

I suspect it is more to do with selling more digital games. Giving people credit back to spend in the store, means more content sold. The fact that people may get a little something back will encourage more digital sales.

People calling for 20-50% have very unrealistic expectations as these 'used' digital licences are worth 'nothing' to them.

This.

They literally get nothing in return, digital license are worthless to them. They're just giving you 10%.

user_nat · Mar 20, 2016

So I get 10% back for something I don't want, and they get nothing. Seems like a good deal?

Although I think I would rather keep the stuff regardless.

Memorabilia · Mar 20, 2016

barneystuta83 said:
Ask yourself this.

How much would a Game/GameStop offer you for a copy of a 'used' game if:

- They have infinite number of new copies
- The used copy can not be re-sold at any price

The answer is, if you are very lucky, a little something. Most likely would be nothing though.

So what is it MS is looking to achieve with this? It isn't a way for them to sell used games, because what is the point if they are unable to.

I suspect it is more to do with selling more digital games. Giving people credit back to spend in the store, means more content sold. The fact that people may get a little something back will encourage more digital sales.

People calling for 20-50% have very unrealistic expectations as these 'used' digital licences are worth 'nothing' to them.

I agree with much of what you say here, but 10% is insulting to the point it would actually create the opposite of good-will towards the program and MS. Better not to bother. If there's no way to set up an aftermarket so that used licenses have trade/sale value and the buyback prices can be more reasonable then it'd be better to leave this idea on the cutting room floor.

OfTheOverflow · Mar 20, 2016

10% ahahaha

John Caboose · Mar 20, 2016

If i mistakingly buy a game that is complete shit and that I hate I could maybe consider it. But beyond that I'm keeping my library intact.

gamz · Mar 20, 2016

Trup1aya said:
I can't imagine the general public feels similarly. Not in a world of Craigslist, eBay, and yardsales.

Why collect what amounts to digital junk, when you can convert that useless license into $ towards games you actually will play?

its really a no lose situation for MS, so I don't think they are out to 'convince' anyone. You sell your game back, MS throws you a small bone and increases the likelihood that you shop again. You don't sell it, nothing changes.

I mean it's not like the license is actually worth anything to MS. They can't resell it...

Hard to believe that people would see this as unfair, when most companies who deal in digital distribution don't allow anything like this.

Agreed. I'm really surprised with the amount of hatred for this? Weird.

pelican · Mar 20, 2016

InsaneTiger said:
10% is insulting. At least 20-25%.

Why is it insulting? They don't have any obligation to offer this.

I would prefer to see a slightly higher percentage, but I would keep my games as I don't need the cash to fund more. I think using the term insulting comes across as if you feel you are entitled to more - you aren't.

krang · Mar 20, 2016

You would also expect there's a time limit on that. You can't realistically buy a game at launch and then 10 years later expect to get 10% of that price back.

hesido · Mar 20, 2016

10% to give the rights to play the game, seems VERY low BUT I don't think they can offer much higher, because obviously they have to do this without paying back the original publisher that money, so they are offering this from their own cut, they cannot re-create the money out of thin air since not all the money goes to MS.

Also, 10% is a lot higher than the 0% you will get for the games you do not play.

dc89 · Mar 20, 2016

10%. Lol.

Newtype-001 · Mar 20, 2016

Loooool 10%

gamz · Mar 20, 2016

OfTheOverflow said:
10% ahahaha

It's these comments I don't get? What's so funny?

iPaul93 · Mar 20, 2016

10% is nothing.So if I pay 50 bucks for a game,I only get $5 back?Yea,no.

krang · Mar 20, 2016

hesido said:
10% to give the rights to play the game, seems VERY low BUT I don't think they can offer much higher, because obviously they have to do this without paying back the original publisher that money, so they are offering this from their own cut, they cannot re-create the money out of thin air since not all the money goes to MS.

Also, 10% is a lot higher than the 0% you will get for the games you do not play.

Exactly this. They're probably refunding most, if not all of their margin with 10%.

Even first party games you're talking about effectively two unrelated divisions.

Edit: nope, cut is 30%. My bad.

VariantX · Mar 20, 2016

30% of current retail price. I buy something for 60 but can only sell it back for 6 is ridiculous.

OmahaG8 · Mar 20, 2016

gus-gus said:
Ok, this is an idea. Different tiers based on membership status. I think 15-20 is a little high though, but the idea is a good start.

On this hypothetical 2 tiered plan 15-20 is too high? So what, 5 for silver and 10 for gold?

10 does and should feel like an insult. But it's also a survey, and I hope the results are reflective of that.

BananasWithGuns · Mar 20, 2016

VariantX said:
30% of current retail price. I buy something for 60 but can only sell it back for 6 is ridiculous.

30% is literally Microsoft's entire cut of the sale.

It's just an unrealistic expectation. 10% is perfectly reasonable considering it's a third of what Microsoft makes off a sale.

blazeuk · Mar 20, 2016

Personally I don't see the appeal of selling a game for so little but as others have pointed out it's not exactly the same as normal trade in practices, MS can't resell your digital copy to someone else for a profit, they're not making anything out of it and could happily just let you be stuck with your purchase like any other digital retailer.

gamz · Mar 20, 2016

iPaul93 said:
10% is nothing.So if I pay 50 bucks for a game,I only get $5 back?Yea,no.

It's better then nothing. If you have a bunch of games you want to dump it adds up.

ChryZ · Mar 20, 2016

Digital on consoles is a fucking joke. Only suckers pay retail prices for digital. Sell back for mere 10% is for suckers too.

10% would be an okay fee for transferring your software license to some other user account, e.g. end-user A sells a digital game to end-user B and the platform holder takes a 10% cut of said transaction.

Ushay · Mar 20, 2016

clay_ghost said:
I can complete most games in 30 days lol.

Don Draper's Hat said:
Preposterous. You could get most games finished within that time.

aspiegamer said:
Though somewhat derailing, I'd like to mention how good Amazon's trade-in service has become. Things will get you ~50% the original retail price within the first month or so after a release. Stack that with the new 20% off pre-orders for Prime and you're talking ~$20 for games new so long as you're done in 3-5 weeks. Doesn't work for some games with long play times, of course, but it covers what a lot of people might get out of a typical AAA title. Only disclaimer being it's Amazon credit, but for anyone using the service that's almost as good as cash.
...Not sure if serious?

Ignore the figure people, I was firing out wild numbers haha, its the idea of decaying value ie % goes down with time. Interesting anyway.

-MB- · Mar 20, 2016

Peopel do realise this costs MS money out of their own pockets to do so right?
Of course, this is done for more long term profits.

Max_Po · Mar 20, 2016

-MB- said:
Peopel do realise this costs MS money out of their own pockets to do so right?
Of course, this is done for more long term profits.

so they are investing and then raking in profit.

wow....

hesido · Mar 20, 2016

krang said:
Exactly this. They're probably refunding most, if not all of their margin with 10%.

Even first party games you're talking about effectively two unrelated divisions.

Edit: nope, cut is 30%. My bad.

Yes, they are giving up third of their margin.. I think the best offer they could get away with would be 15%, the point still stands, they have to fund this from their own cut, hence the 10%.

Support NeoGAF

Xbox Survey: would you sell back your digital games at 10% of purchase price?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

THE WORDS! They'll drift away without the _!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Similar threads