The precedence has already been set. At 0%. That is the starting point, and it's working tremendously for all parties, except for consumers. This is progress.
-
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
The precedence has already been set. At 0%. That is the starting point, and it's working tremendously for all parties, except for consumers. This is progress.
Not really, because only 10-20% of consumers actually see value in it. Most are rejecting it, likely till better value proposition exists in digital. 10% resale certainly isn't that.
30% - 60% isn't going to happen for digital games any time soon.
Stores are able to offer that because some of them put the game back up for people as "used" for not much less than $60 (the price of a new game). Older games that are a bit hard to find make people enter a store.
A digital game can't be taken from a user and then presented as "used". It would be silly since it's digital content and digital content doesn't run out like physical copies of a game in a retail store.
DreamingCrazy
Banned
I would sell my yearly sport games like nba 2k but 10% doesn't seem worth it. To be honest though, I barely play these games to begin with so it would be nice to get some money out of it.
You keep likening this to physical. This isn't about bringing digital in line which physical. This is about giving digital customers a way to recover some value from their otherwise worthless licenses in exchange for more future digital purchases.
Yep, I can see a line of companies just waiting for the chance to offer more than 10%....
Don't be surprised if 10% is the best you ever see, and it might only be MS that even offer that.
Where are these numbers coming from? And that most are rejecting it? Have they been released?
ultrazilla
Gold Member
When you normally would get stuck with the game and never get anything for it otherwise? Sure, why not?
It's actually a smart business move on MS's part to look into this as it would obviously generate more sales for their online stores/games.
If it was physical? Hell no. Digital? Take what you can get because they don't have to *do anything*.
It's actually a smart business move on MS's part to look into this as it would obviously generate more sales for their online stores/games.
If it was physical? Hell no. Digital? Take what you can get because they don't have to *do anything*.
Agree, I'm perusing through the thread, reading the pros and cons.
I'm guessing people are bringing up physical arguments because companies sell them at the same price. Why should a digital game be worth less than a physical one in trade in value, might be a question. Not sure if that's what they're asking.
I'm well aware of the consequences of digital purchases and personally, I buy some digital titles, mostly indies but as I've said, it's the wild west as far as digital goes. Most of the control, belongs to the corporations. Evidence to this very statement, you get no money back on any digital title for convenience at all. I have no problems switching discs. As soon as we have the same rights as physical or at least close, I'm really not for it being the dominant distribution methods, with no real recourses for the consumer.
I'm not rejecting the incentive at all. Just would like to hear more, maybe it could be a bit more of a % for the consumer, 12-14%. Microsoft is a business, they're not going to give you 40% or some bullshit higher number even if feasible imo. In the psychology of buying and selling, it's just too high of a number.
But consumers imo, should try to bargain for higher gain, than just, "Hey, it's something." Instead it should be, "I like what I hear, let's see what happens."
Again as you have said a couple of times, flat out refusal isn't thinking about it all.
It needs being repeated, it's just a freakin survey.
@Logn
Would you elaborate on how a corporation could strong arm individuals into digital purchases?
He's saying that only 10%-20% of people but digital in the first place, which is irrelevant.
This survey isn't meant for the 80% who stick with physical , it's about the 20% who are getting to recover some value...
Uno Venova
Banned
Why would the percent of the price they give back for a game increase from 10% over time?
Ah ok. So it's being seen as Microsoft getting physical buyers to go digital instead of just letting digital guys get some value where we didn't before.
Competition?
Crimsonclaw111
Member
Just offer full refunds instead, easy peasy.
My understanding is that its possible to refund games atm or is that not true? You obviously wont be able to refund fifa15 for example once fifa16 released
Yeah it's basically people completely missing the point, and/or apply injecting arguments that have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand
Maybe some people genuinely don't understand the difference between physical and digital. :-|
Yes, publishers such as EA, Ubisoft etc have in the past offered figures in their financials.
I don't know if you're not getting my point or just not reading my posts. I get the above, but I still don't agree to it.
It's Microsoft offering the absolute bare minimum to digital buyers in the hopes that the bare minimum sticks, because an alternative does not yet exist. The fear is that Microsoft's bare minimum will be the defecto digital resale value that all other vendors and publishers then follow, which they likely will, especially if it's successful. Basically, in accepting Microsoft's low ball near pointless and terrible offer, consumers are telling publishers they'll accept just about anything they can get, even if it's a shitty deal, because it's still better than nothing, which isn't necessarily even true as consumers still have alternative buying options whilst digital becomes more and more competitive, and further incentivised.
Like I said, at this important point of transition between digital and retail, consumers should be demanding a hell of a lot more. Those settling for a paltry 10% are selling themselves short, and risking worse options going forward imo.
Yes. I got a refund on AC Unity due to the issues that game had at launch. I never started the game during the time though so I'm sure that helped.
senorbivins
Member
this thread is insanity , I could never even imagine expecting to get anything above 15% back... Its literally just not feasible in most situations
10% is shitty but I gotta say there are actually a few PS3 games I would sell back for that if this feature were available on that system. Don't think I have anything on PS4(don't own a Xbox) I'd sell back for that though.. I've been a little smarter with what I buy this generation.
Edit: Wait no I take that back. I'd definitely sell Destiny for 10%.
Edit: Wait no I take that back. I'd definitely sell Destiny for 10%.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
You can already get full refunds for new games
KojiKnight
Member
40%? Hahah no... maybe if you just bought the game a week ago or if they are having a trade-in special for a certain game/hardware.
Try trading your game in 6 months to a year later and see if they offer 40%.
10% is super low, 20% sounds much better. 20% of your full purchase price any time down the line (not current value, of the price you actually paid) sounds nice. Best option though would be to give us a digital marketplace where we could sell our license for whatever we wanted and let the buyers set the market price, give the developers of the game a 20% cut of that and we're square.
Militaratus
Member
I like the concept of getting digital purchases, as long as I can do it whenever I want. The refund % can be lower depending on ownership duration.
For example:
100% refund on Pre-orders
100% refund on less than 2 hours of playing within 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
75% refund on more than 2 hours of playing within 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
50% refund after 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
Plus the refund must be:
Based on the current non-discount price if the game was bought at a non-discount time.
If the game was bought during a sale then the discount % is applied to the current game price.
---
Such a thing would be acceptable, but a base 10% refund amount regardless of anything is just plain wrong.
Edit: Adjusted silly percentage, dunno what I was thinking XD
For example:
100% refund on Pre-orders
100% refund on less than 2 hours of playing within 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
75% refund on more than 2 hours of playing within 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
50% refund after 2 weeks of purchase (after launch) or launch.
Plus the refund must be:
Based on the current non-discount price if the game was bought at a non-discount time.
If the game was bought during a sale then the discount % is applied to the current game price.
---
Such a thing would be acceptable, but a base 10% refund amount regardless of anything is just plain wrong.
Edit: Adjusted silly percentage, dunno what I was thinking XD
joecanada
Member
Some of the responses are surprising like it's an insult... You are getting 0% now but they are asking if 10% would move the needle. Like are you gonna go back to ryse now or ever? If you bought titanfall and 2 comes out are you going to go back to one with no other players? I've already deleted numerous games off my ps4 that aren't ever getting back on there.
The bigger question though is it 10 percent of what you paid or current value? Because if they are only offering you 10% of say the new value of 19.99....
Edit - @ above - 80% after two weeks? I mean wow like no company would even consider that it's insane. You could finish many games and they would get 12 dollars from you.
The bigger question though is it 10 percent of what you paid or current value? Because if they are only offering you 10% of say the new value of 19.99....
Edit - @ above - 80% after two weeks? I mean wow like no company would even consider that it's insane. You could finish many games and they would get 12 dollars from you.
Tax in Puerto Rico is 11.5% so it wouldn't even cover that.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Correct. I love the idea that consumers could be able to set their own price and resell digital purchases that way.
They have already once been caught going to go digital-only. Only consumer backlash changed that. Now, they throw a small bone to the consumer in this realm. There HAS to be something behind it--they wouldn't willingly give up profit for no reason. The digital-only route has to be their next step. Saves them money by not having to include a disc drive.
You're nuts. You really think that they should give you $54 back on a $60 game if you beat it within 2 weeks, or $48 back on a game that you bought 3 years ago?
Sometimes I wish membership of GAF would be based on displaying just some degree of intelligence, and this would be the perfect thread to identify all those who don't meet that criterium. Astonishing.
Hell, they might as well give the game away for free.
just like with physical games, someone can get tired of their digital games. With physical, you can sell the disc to someone else. With digital, it just takes up space on your hard drive. At this point, the license has no value to the user.
If you never feel this way about any title, then just keep it. I know that I'd like to get a little cash back on some of the games I've abandoned... I'm not sure why anyone would want to stand in my way.
Apollo Cree
Member
Gaming is rapidly becoming a digital only market. I think the only way we'll see a market where consumers can sell their digital content to other users is when gaming is 100% digital.
I still think the digital marketplace/developers get a cut is the best idea
That way i could set up the price i want for a game. IF someone else agrees with the price, they can buy it. Developer gets a share, MS/sony/nintendo gets a smaller share, everybody happy
I would CERTANLLY buy more games if that was a reality. And i bet i wouldnt be the only one
That way i could set up the price i want for a game. IF someone else agrees with the price, they can buy it. Developer gets a share, MS/sony/nintendo gets a smaller share, everybody happy
I would CERTANLLY buy more games if that was a reality. And i bet i wouldnt be the only one
This has nothing to do with going digital only.
The benefit to MS is that if they give you store credit, you'll be inclined to by more digital items... But they aren't going to offer any more than 10%, otherwise they'd be wiping out the profit associated with selling digital.
The idea that this has anything to do with a digital console is silly
I don't see why publishers would ever be ok with it though. Unless their cut is ~75% of what you sell it for then I there's really no incentive for them to green light digital resales.
No, he bare minimum is 0%... Which is what we have now...it can't get any worse than that. There is no reason to believe that any publisher or first party would ever be willing to pay there users so much to stick with digital, that they lose the revenue benfits of selling digital.
Apollo Cree
Member
The only way I can see it happening is if the market is nearly 100% digital and the distributors strongarm the publishers into it in a bid to outdo their competitors. The publishers win since there is no resale market that they don't profit from.
Militaratus
Member
Adjusted percentage to 75% and 50%. Dunno what I was thinking XD
Apollo Cree
Member
That's still an insane number. Microsoft would earn negative money doing that.
They receive roughly 30% of a digital sale.
J
JeremyEtcetera
Unconfirmed Member
The reason 2 seems so laughable and outlandish to you is because of the sole reason that when this digital trend started kicking off, everyone was immediately told by service owners that "you don't own your digital games". They stuck that little tidbit in their EULAs and by the time people figured this out it was too late.
I want to talk about your number 1. Microsoft takes that percentage per key bought. At this point, the key, just like a game disc, should theoretically be yours to do whatever you want with(I know at this point it's not). If there were a new rule(and digital market) in place that you could sell a key to someone else, wouldn't it be more beneficial for them to take a percentage from whatever you sell it for rather than pay you 10% back per key you don't want? One gets them more money, the other doesn't. The problem once again lies in how we treat digital purchases of keys. It's the root of this issue but everyone is looking at the branches for solutions.
The reason steam trading cards are a broken system is because they made the system broken to begin with. Making some cards more rare than others and having them all acquired through gameplay will obviously make people oversell and try to cheat the system and cheat others in some way.
Just want to state that I'm not saying any of these huge changes are immediately possible, but if someone were to test a bidding/selling system like this with keys I could see steam taking that first leap.
Sounds like you want the industry to fail with those numbers.
It's not that 10% is insulting or some such. The issue is that out of the gate, they'd be setting the upper bounds of such a program at 10%.
Like it or not (and I don't), digital is what you'll be getting in the future. So there will have to be things like this worked out in the next few years. But setting the bar so low at the start means that it'll never go higher.
Like it or not (and I don't), digital is what you'll be getting in the future. So there will have to be things like this worked out in the next few years. But setting the bar so low at the start means that it'll never go higher.
Apollo Cree
Member
I don't see that as an issue. It would (ideally) drive competition and lead to a larger percentage down the road.
joecanada
Member
The funny thing about all this is that if ms just said " buy 10 games get one free " everyone would think it was the best thing ever. They should just go with that and leave peoples dusty games in their library. It's all about perception
Im not sure why they would want to get your games back anyway
Im not sure why they would want to get your games back anyway
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I don't understand this logic. The bar is currently set at 0%... MS is asking if people would like to see that bumped up to 10%. How is that setting an upper bound? They are increasing the lower bound...
Lol you're right it's the exact same thing, but people would see it differently.