Support NeoGAF

[Kyry]

Go on? What is the correlation? Steam has absolutely nothing like this at all. Unless you are referring to game sharing, in which case you might've missed a thread a few days ago on the topic.

I mean all the people who claimed that the original plans for the xbox one would have been similar to steam but would also allow people to sell back games. I think its clear that it would have ended up something like this instead.

Whats this about gamesharing?

 

[gus-gus]

I mean all the people who claimed that the original plans for the xbox one would have been similar to steam but would also allow people to sell back games. I think its clear that it would have ended up something like this instead.

Whats this about gamesharing?

Gamesharing is sharing your digital library of games with another "console". Surprised people don't know this, works on ps4 and xbox 1.

 

[farisr]

I don't think that could work especially if you buy a game, beat it one day then return it for 60% value. so that means Microsoft and someone else isn't getting paid.

of course these figures are adjustable based on what the actual costs are, but as far as I'm aware ms/devs get a much bigger share of digital sales than they do for physical ones. If retailers can afford to put preorder sales with 20%, and that's for a physical discs, one has to wonder just how much more money is being made for every digital sale. Also, I really doubt that people who buy the game and beat it in 1 day or even the first week account for a big portion.

The fact that this resell is for MS store credit means that microsoft is keeping the money within their ecosystem and is ensuring that you spend more money on their future products.

Anyways, what it boils down to is if MS wants to appeal to a crowd who care about selling their games once they've played them, they will have to offer something more substantial than 10%.

 

[RdN]

10%?

Fuck off.

 

[Naudi]

Better then nothing. I just wish they had better sales so I could go all digital.

 

[Apollo Cree]

of course these figures are adjustable based on what the actual costs are but I really doubt that people who buy the game and beat it in 1 day or even the first week account for a big portion.

The fact that this resell is for MS store credit means that microsoft is keeping the money within their ecosystem and is ensuring that you spend more money on their future products.

Anyways, what it boils down to is if MS wants to appeal to a crowd who care about selling their games once they've played them, they will have to offer something more substantial than 10%.

It would be perfect for kids. They have short attention spans and almost no cash flow.

 

[darkwing]

10%? better than nothing

 

[family_guy]

Sure if I have no intention of playing it again. What's the point in keeping it around? Although it seemed like it would be easier to implement a rewards program that gives you a 10% credit after you make a purchase.

 

[gus-gus]

of course these figures are adjustable based on what the actual costs are, but as far as I'm aware ms/devs get a much bigger share of digital sales than they do for physical ones. If retailers can afford to put preorder sales with 20%, and that's for a physical discs, one has to wonder just how much more money is being made for every digital sale. Also, I really doubt that people who buy the game and beat it in 1 day or even the first week account for a big portion.

The fact that this resell is for MS store credit means that microsoft is keeping the money within their ecosystem and is ensuring that you spend more money on their future products.

Anyways, what it boils down to is if MS wants to appeal to a crowd who care about selling their games once they've played them, they will have to offer something more substantial than 10%.

it doesn't work unless you are given a full refund within a specified amount of time, the model you suggest keeps the money in the ecosystem but for who exactly?

If I purchase a game at $60 and microsoft says they will give me 30% back if I do a resell. They have now given me back the money they made when the game sold. Ok, next I go and purchase another $60 with the 30% credit they gave back to me. Again after this I resell and receive another 30% back. What at the end of the day does microsoft receive if they are forever giving back the same 30%. They in-actuality don't receive anything ever. They now have to keep 30% there because you continue to give it back to you. The higher %'s are even worse because now they have to tell pubs and devs I have to take back the money I gave you to give it back into the person's account because they sold the game back to us.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

better yet, just buy the game physically for like $20 or less dollars and get $40 more than you would've spent pissing away money on stupid digital rentals

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

Sure if I have no intention of playing it again. What's the point in keeping it around? Although it seemed like it would be easier to implement a rewards program that gives you a 10% credit after you make a purchase.

They have that already.

That's like the 5th time I've said this :Y

 

[Dremark]

10% off the purchase price would only mean something valuable with sports games, where 3 years later you can sell it back for $6 when it is essentally valueless.

Any digital game you're not going to play anymore is valueless though. You can say it's unfair and insulting but honestly the option is better than nothing.

I'd rather stick with physical though.

 

[Future]

Well if you buy on disk you'd sell it for more and probably would have bought it for less.

So... Uh, no

 

[Aske]

But they already do this with XBL Rewards. At my level I get 4% back with every digital purchase.

They do? Good on Xbox for that then. I hope Sony introduce something similar.

 

[Trup1aya]

of course these figures are adjustable based on what the actual costs are, but as far as I'm aware ms/devs get a much bigger share of digital sales than they do for physical ones. If retailers can afford to put preorder sales with 20%, and that's for a physical discs, one has to wonder just how much more money is being made for every digital sale. Also, I really doubt that people who buy the game and beat it in 1 day or even the first week account for a big portion.

The fact that this resell is for MS store credit means that microsoft is keeping the money within their ecosystem and is ensuring that you spend more money on their future products.

Anyways, what it boils down to is if MS wants to appeal to a crowd who care about selling their games once they've played them, they will have to offer something more substantial than 10%.

Why?

Currently, gamers can get nothing for their digital games. If someone has a digital game that they don't intend to play anymore, and MS is going to give them 10% of what they paid for it, that will be appealing because it's better than 0%

 

[Drilbit777]

20% is barely acceptable, 10% is a fucking joke. Even gamestop gives you more money back than that.

 

[farisr]

it doesn't work unless you are given a full refund within a specified amount of time, the model you suggest keeps the money in the ecosystem but for who exactly?

If I purchase a game at $60 and microsoft says they will give me 30% back if I do a resell. They have now given me back the money they made when the game sold. Ok, next I go and purchase another $60 with the 30% credit they gave back to me. Again after this I resell and receive another 30% back. What at the end of the day does microsoft receive if they are forever giving back the same 30%. They in-actuality don't receive anything ever. They now have to keep 30% there because you continue to give it back to you. The higher %'s are even worse because now they have to tell pubs and devs I have to take back the money I gave you to give it back into the person's account because they sold the game back to us.

This is assuming you're going to be selling every single game back, which people won't be doing. And as I said the figures are adjustable based on what the actual revenue share and profits are (which I don't know), they weren't meant to be a "it should be this way or no way" as I stated in my last sentence. But all I'm saying is 10% definitely isn't enough.

 

[Fardeen]

hell no, i would rather trade my games with friends digitally!

 

[...Scatter...]

I mean... 10%? I don't think I ever needed $5 or $6 that bad. Honestly not necessary.

Just keep up the good deals with gold sales.

 

[Apollo Cree]

20% is barely acceptable, 10% is a fucking joke. Even gamestop gives you more money back than that.

Because GameStop makes money from that game. Microsoft is essentially offering a loyalty program.

 

[farisr]

Why?

Currently, gamers can get nothing for their digital games. If someone has a digital game that they don't intend to play anymore, and MS is going to give them 10% of what they paid for it, that will be appealing because it's better than 0%

Not to me (and many others in this thread). A 10% sellback value isn't enough to convince me and a a lot of other people to part ways with a game they own, even if there's a slim chance they'll ever play it again.

 

[Jimmy Rustle]

I'd gladly offload old deleted games for 10% each: AC:Black Flag, Titanfall, COD Ghosts, Forza 5, FIFA 14, FIFA 15, NBA 2k14, nba 2k15, Battlefield 4.

But for a bit more recent games or ones that I perhaps play every 2 or 3 months, 20% would seem a bit more fair.

 

[Naudi]

Instead of offering that just offer better sales for people who buy digital a lot.

 

[Trup1aya]

Not to me (and many others in this thread). A 10% sellback value isn't enough to convince me and a a lot of other people to part ways with a game they own, even if there's a slim chance they'll ever play it again.

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.

 

[gus-gus]

This is assuming you're going to be selling every single game back, which people won't be doing. And as I said the figures are adjustable based on what the actual revenue share and profits are (which I don't know), they weren't meant to be a "it should be this way or no way" as I stated in my last sentence. But all I'm saying is 10% definitely isn't enough.

Ok you do understand that you can't give that option because there will be people who take advantage of it. You can't have it as an option. It has already been said here in this topic Microsoft's cut is 30%. If you want to work a model you have to base it off of that. People are assuming the entire $60 is for Microsoft to do what they want with. They are thinking of the overall number instead. The reality is Microsoft has about $18 of games sold that they can offer back. That is their cut. $6 on a $60 game is actual about 33% of what they make. What else do people want.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

20% is barely acceptable, 10% is a joke. Even gamestop gives you more money back than that.

GameStop doesn't immediately feed your game through a woodchipper afterwards, though.

Not to me (and many others in this thread). A 10% sellback value isn't enough to convince me and a a lot of other people to part ways with a game they own, even if there's a slim chance they'll ever play it again.

That's cool, but you also must understand that the percentage you would prefer is a non-starter. Microsoft isn't reselling the game, there's no value in what they're buying from you. It's an incentive to keep you in their store, but they still need you to be a profitable customer.

They have a budget of roughly 30% of the game's price to work with (an estimate of their cut of the original sale), and they have their own costs to cover out of that, and then there's the profit motive. To be blunt, 10% is probably the best you would ever see, and if the reactions in this thread are an indicator, Microsoft might figure it's best to not do it at all since people so easily form negative opinions over the amount.

 

[AP90]

I'd say 20-25% would be fair.

Edit: I'm sure there is a happy medium but, I don't think it's at 10%. I understand that they need to be able to retain some profit and etc. Maybe the range would be 15-25% depending on the type of game and how long it's been out for.

 

[Naudi]

GameStop doesn't immediately feed your game through a woodchipper afterwards, though.



That's cool, but you also must understand that the percentage you would prefer is a non-starter. Microsoft isn't reselling the game, there's no value in what they're buying from you. It's an incentive to keep you in their store, but they still need you to be a profitable customer.

They have a budget of roughly 30% of the game's price to work with (their cut of the original sale), and they have their own costs to cover out of that, and then there's the profit motive. To be blunt, 10% is probably the best you would ever see, and if the reactions in this thread are an indicator, Microsoft might figure it's best to not do it at all since people so easily form negative opinions over the amount.

Well said.

 

[Aurizen]

10%? umm no Gamestop gives you more than that.

 

[Apollo Cree]

10%? umm no Gamestop gives you more than that.

What are the trade in values for digital games at GameStop?

 

[gus-gus]

10%? umm no Gamestop gives you more than that.

Alright please don't compare the two, they're not the same.

 

[Crzy1]

I'd prefer a way to give them away to someone who would play them. I don't have an Xbox One, however.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I don't care about being able to sell games back, but I really, REALLY wish there was a way to transfer digital games to other accounts. So I could lend them to friends or give them away permanently. That's the big advantage of physical, for me anyway.

 

[Trup1aya]

10%? umm no Gamestop gives you more than that.

GameStop doesn't buyback digital licenses though...

This wouldn't be a ploy to get people to switch from physical to digital. It's a chance to give digital customers an incentive to buy more digital games whilst allowing the customer to extract some value out of their typically worthless licenses.

 

[Backlogger]

I would prefer better pricing on digital games rather than having the ability to sell them back at one hell of a joke price

 

[gus-gus]

I don't care about being able to sell games back, but I really, REALLY wish there was a way to transfer digital games to other accounts. So I could lend them to friends or give them away permanently. That's the big advantage of physical, for me anyway.

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

 

[Aurizen]

What are the trade in values for digital games at GameStop?

Alright please don't compare the two, they're not the same.

Yeah valid point but to spend $60 and to sell it back a few months later or so for $6..... I would say 30% would be more reasonable... and maybe after 6 months the percent could be lowered.

 

[gus-gus]

I would prefer better pricing on digital games rather than having the ability to sell them back at one hell of a joke price

Don't think you'll get better prices as long as people cling to physical.

 

[gus-gus]

Yeah valid point but to spend $60 and to sell it back a few months later or so for $6..... I would say 30% would be more reasonable... and maybe after 6 months the percent could be lowered.

That's fair I use to feel the same way, but please read my explanation above of why it can't be 30%.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'd say 20-25% would be fair.

Edit: I'm sure there is a happy medium but, I don't think it's at 10%. I understand that they need to be able to retain some profit and etc. Maybe the range would be 15-25% depending on the type of game and how long it's been out for.

That just sounds like bad business...MS gets about $18 per $60 game they sell. So, You wager that they should give people $9-$15 in exchange for a digital license that's worth $0 to MS? That's a one-sided transaction. Makes no business sense.

Edit: now people are saying MS should give people more $ for the license than MS made when the game is sold. SMH i can't deal with this site sometimes lol

 

[Xumbrega]

10% for Live Silver members
15-20% for Live Gold members

And it's good.

But yea, I would sell even with 10%.

Options are nice.

 

[TheSeks]

10% lol

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.

 

[AP90]

That just sounds like bad business...MS gets what $18 per $60 game they sell. So, You wager that they should give people $9-$15 in exchange for a digital license that they can't do anything with? That's a one-sides transaction.

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.

 

[Backlogger]

Don't think you'll get better prices as long as people cling to physical.

I don't follow this logic at all

"We want people to go digital, which is better for us. Less overhead, higher profit margin, but we are gonna charge the same price as physical and hope people get on board."

 

[gus-gus]

10% for Live Silver members
15-20% for Live Gold members

And it's good.

But yea, I would sell even with 10%.

Options are nice.

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.

 

[Head.spawn]

I mean all the people who claimed that the original plans for the xbox one would have been similar to steam but would also allow people to sell back games. I think its clear that it would have ended up something like this instead.

Whats this about gamesharing?

I think you're confused.

The original plan involved being able to sell your disc/license back to authorized retailers (Walmart, Best Buy, Gamestop), having a online digital marketplace to sell digital games to others on your Xbox and Gamesharing.

None of those things were on Steam around launch and only gamesharing is the one that actually happened on Steam.

 

[gus-gus]

I don't follow this logic at all

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.

 

[Trup1aya]

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.

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

With digital its it's a 70/30 split in favor of the publisher.

Besides, it really doesn't make sense to compare digital to retail in this case. When you sell your used game to Gamestop, they resell it for a profit.

When you "sell" your license to MS, they are essentially buying NOTHING from you. The idea that MS should give away most of their profits, in exchange for something worthless, is hard to wrap my head around.

 

[Naudi]

Yeah valid point but to spend $60 and to sell it back a few months later or so for $6..... I would say 30% would be more reasonable... and maybe after 6 months the percent could be lowered.

30% back for what though? That is a huge % for them to pay us for literally nothing.

 

[Backlogger]

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.

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.