Dude, we wouldn't have a gaming industry.
-
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
Dude, we wouldn't have a gaming industry.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I highly disagree. Time will tell, but the evidence is there--they already tried this. They'll try it again.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Explain.
This wouldn't make a digital console more palleteable.
I'm not saying Ms has no interest in a digital only console. I'm saying this offer has nothing to do with it.
They already sell digital games, and offer no way to extract value from digital purchases. This offer is inarguably better than the current situation.
KojiKnight
Member
I don't think you understand. If you allow people to set their own prices you will kill the game industry. I don't think you understand what you would start by allowing users to set their own price. There is a reason companies price their products a specific way. If it were so easy to put low prices and inject the market with garbage pricing and get away with it, companies wouldn't need you to have your own marketplace they would just price their own products cheap. Just please think about what you are saying, someone tried this argument last night and realized it doesn't work. You will start down a road where everyone undercuts others in price. Believe it or not if gamestop didn't care about holding value you wouldn't be able to sell games on ebay for a decent amount after it's release. Everyone thinks offering cheaper is a way out, it's not. It will spiral out of control until there is collapse.
If you are returning 50-75% of what you bought the game for devs wouldn't have the money to finance the games.
That may not change what our "selling price" is though. Most I could remotely realistically expect is something like 25%, but I can see publishers and Microsoft not wanting to give that much away.
And personally, it really is to me a question of "how much will it cost to reduce your digital library?" and I simply wouldn't want to get 10% in almost every case. I'd rather have even many bad games as something to keep around for novelty's sake, the most application this would have is a mediocre game I got day one and blitzed through with no lasting appeal, and I usually avoid that.
Although, if it could be locked to 10% of what you originally paid that might arguably be worth it. AAA game that was kinda lame and I don't want to play again, and a digital title shows up I want and can offload that to help pay for it years down the road? May be a worthwhile calculated decision.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
You're assuming that most people are buying digital and that most people that are buying digital are going to return their games really frequently.
Even if we're assuming both of those things, with a 50% return policy developper would be making less and not lose money. They have about 70% of a $60 game, with a 50% return policy they'll lose 30% which is less then half of what they make while MS can lose 20% out their 30%.
And since it's only for credit the people that are returning those games are going to purchase new ones, maybe even more frequently. With that in place developers and MS would make more money then they're making on most discounted games right now.
It's just not interesting for developers and Microsoft but it's not going to kill them at all in my opinion.
This can't be real. It's simple adding and subtracting.
@mass
Your post right above is not how you run a business. Those margins would be disastrous for devs and publishers.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Which is why said that it's not interesting for either developers or Microsoft.
And like I also said you're assuming that it's going to be a widespread phenomenon.
I'm confused? So you agree it's not sustainable?
Who wouldn't return their games if they are getting 50-75% back?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
My point was that it can be sustainable, but it's just not interesting from a business perspective.
I can't speak for others but for 50% I won't.
75% is completely unfeasible and non sustainable though?
So what are you talking about exactly? Also, you're assuming it won't be a widespread phenomenon. You have no way of knowing it wouldn't be.
Ok so why doesn't gamestop do it if it's sustainable? Have you checked their stock price lately. Their struggling and they have nothing to do with the original cost of the product. They purchase back from you less than 50% and try to sell games back 54$. However reality is catching up to them. You'll see, keep monitoring their stock price. If they don't adjust they'll be the next ones out.
Reason you don't know how frequent people return their games in digital scenario like this because it doesn't exist. If it was ever offered I guarantee you you'll see the quickest 180 you've ever seen in your life from microsoft. You're plan doesn't make sense plan and simple.
Are you accounting for the rise in cost for labor and everything associated with making a game. You know how many copies of each game they would have to sell to make money to sustain the business.
Look I know what your getting at, but that's not how business works. You make what you can from those who can afford it. Others have to wait until the value is gone and prices drop. Any other way of business is suicide.
MikeE21286
Member
I think the argument that "10% is a bad precedent setting number for setting a low bar on refunds" is kind of a bad argument. It would actually be proven wrong if refunds were to be instituted.
If you think about it, I mean we have been in a world where we haven't been getting refunds on digital purchases for 10-15 years. So moving the bar to 10% would effectively be precedent-shifting (changing the refund from 0% to 10%).
Now I would completely agree that 10% is a low number and would change my purchasing behavior in a meaningful way. I don't think consumers, MS or the pubs/devs would gain in any meaningful way at 10%
If you think about it, I mean we have been in a world where we haven't been getting refunds on digital purchases for 10-15 years. So moving the bar to 10% would effectively be precedent-shifting (changing the refund from 0% to 10%).
Now I would completely agree that 10% is a low number and would change my purchasing behavior in a meaningful way. I don't think consumers, MS or the pubs/devs would gain in any meaningful way at 10%
Gamestop's model is based on them reselling the games they buy so it's not really comparable.
BananasWithGuns
Member
The issue with that is Gamestop makes money off of your used game, Microsoft doesn't.
Amazing post.
Apollo Cree
Member
Gamestop can do that because they can turn around and sell that copy. It would be fair to compare it GameStop if GameStop took your game and immediately snapped it in half and burned it.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Gamestop use that model because they resell second hand games. The newer the game, the more they can resell it for.
A digital key/licence has zero value to MS, regardless of how new the game is.
MikeE21286
Member
Gamestop double whammys it. They not only profit off the game you just sold them but they also in most instances get a portion of the trade credit/cash that you just received.
Thicc Enigma
Member
Hi Microsoft. The answer is no. Low balling the fuck out of us lol
Apollo Cree
Member
How's it low balling when your digital copy has no resale value?
I can totally see where you're coming from. You purchased a product for a certain price; in other words, you traded a product for money. Whether or not you'd want to trade this product back in exchange for money is dependent of your percieved value.
The point which a freightening amount of people don't seem to understand is the fact that in this case there isn't a third trade possible. In other words, the product you trade back has no value to the buyer. Microsoft loses money on buying 'second hand' digital games. GameStop earns money on buying and selling a second hand game.
Microsoft will only agree on the third trade if they see something beneficial in return:
• customers spending more time on the storefront after their trade-in;
• customers who are more likely to buy games because of received credits;
• or customers who are more tempted to try digital purchases because they are offered something which they are used to having with physical media (see also skeuomorph)
Reading some of the posts. What's the benefit of a second hand digital market. I'm telling you now as a consumer I would not buy games on release date, I would wait for a second hand game.
Firstly the game has to be cheaper on the second hand market, then the original game because if not I would just buy from the store rather than another user. Secondly the second hand game is just like a brand new game, exactly like the brand new. Thirdly if you ever played FIFA ultimate team, you would realise why this is a terrible idea for publishers, there's always someone who's willing to sell, because it's a worldwide game mode, the digital world is worldwide, literally I can get a rare Messi if I have the money. The thing is with GameStop, it's limited to the area and people in the area, so sometimes you forced to buy brand new. Think about it. Lastly if consumers set prices it will be a race to the bottom. Come on now. I can go forever, I'm sure publishers know this. Even if it was a digital age it just sounds dumb as hell. I could write a whole essay on why it is bad for business, I can do a 20 page thesis on why it is stupid. Do people take the time to think about stuff they post.
So what publishers now have to do, is give incentives so they can buy brand new. Why would anyone do that? I feel if this is put in place a second game crash could happen, maybe that is hyperbole though.
Firstly the game has to be cheaper on the second hand market, then the original game because if not I would just buy from the store rather than another user. Secondly the second hand game is just like a brand new game, exactly like the brand new. Thirdly if you ever played FIFA ultimate team, you would realise why this is a terrible idea for publishers, there's always someone who's willing to sell, because it's a worldwide game mode, the digital world is worldwide, literally I can get a rare Messi if I have the money. The thing is with GameStop, it's limited to the area and people in the area, so sometimes you forced to buy brand new. Think about it. Lastly if consumers set prices it will be a race to the bottom. Come on now. I can go forever, I'm sure publishers know this. Even if it was a digital age it just sounds dumb as hell. I could write a whole essay on why it is bad for business, I can do a 20 page thesis on why it is stupid. Do people take the time to think about stuff they post.
So what publishers now have to do, is give incentives so they can buy brand new. Why would anyone do that? I feel if this is put in place a second game crash could happen, maybe that is hyperbole though.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Gamestop has employees and retail facilities, Microsoft's digital store does not.
Has I said several times already it does not make business sense for Microsoft or for developers and publishers. That doesn't mean that it's not possible and that it's going to drive the gaming industry to the ground, they'll make less money then they do know that's it.
I'm talking about game claim that they wouldn't be a gaming industry if a plan like that happened.
As far as I know most retail games aren't resold, I don't see why that would change going digitally.
InquisitorAles
Member
This thread, i'm losing my faith in humanity quickly. So much people didn't even bother to read the thread before posting.
Apollo Cree
Member
It doesn't make business sense for Google to liquidate all of its assets and rebrand itself as a shoe company but it's possible. It won't drive the ad collection economy into the ground either.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Makes a post talking about how intelligence should be an important factor in having a Gaf account..
Uses the term "criterium".
Is this real life right now?
So we need to ride bikes to be on Gaf now, according to your standards?
You keep saying that and it's a direct contradiction.
The reason it doesn't make business sense is because it would drive the industry to the ground. How could make one less money as a company and NOT be driven to the ground?
That does not make sense. You can't make that make sense. No matter how many times you throw that contradiction out there, it won't make sense.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
You'd have to be pretty desperate to give up access to a game for a measly few bucks. Unless you really hated the game, I guess.
Thank you, I wonder where these posters study business/economics before. They're all business men apparently. I explained above the very thing you are talking about. I would like to add one more thing. If what people are describing about receiving more money back for their resale of a digital item is sustainable and a smart idea, why hasn't steam done it? They're the market leaders in digital delivery. Hint: they know it doesn't work.
Before anyone says well they price their items cheaper, well no shit there is literally no physical pc market to compete with. If gaming consoles went this route expect more upfront discounts when there is physical market to compete with. You guys are actually holding the market back from expanding.
You'd probably be surprised about how little people take for physical trade-ins.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
How is that even slightly the same? "Buy 10 get 1 free" would mean you get to keep all 11 games. With this 10% thing you'd end up with ONE game. The other 10 you've sold to pay for the 11th. Not the same at all.
ok so who made the games free interns? They have no one to pay? They don't work in buildings, no electricity to pay, no insurance, no health plans to cover? No anything right. Everything they make digital is pure 100% into the pocket of executives. that's what you're saying.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yeah, I'm aware. Guess some people just don't give a shit about their games, while I might be a bit of a game hoarder. I've only ever traded in a few N64 games, and that was then the Gamecube had just come out and I was a kid with too little money to buy Super Monkey Ball. Never did it again.
They can't, pubs would stop doing business with them. It's a dishonest practice.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
If it's a Microsoft published game they gain nothing from reselling it, they can create as many licences as they want to.
If it's not published by MS then the last thing they want to do is piss off publishers.
I have no reason to ever go back to old FIFA/Madden games, if I can get a few quid for them to pay for Cuphead or Below then I'm not going to refuse that offer.
People are asking what Microsoft would get out of such a deal - buying back your old game key, which they can't re-sell.
As far as I can see:
-Encourages users to buy more new games with the credit. 'Oh wow, I just got $18 back, now I'm gonna go buy Halo 9!' etc
-Removes that game from your library. Currently you probably re-download all your games whenever you upgrade your console, have to do a hard drive reformat or your console breaks. When each game is up to 50GB in size, redownloading games you might not even play ever again costs Microsoft some serious server data costs.
I can see the appeal from MS' side.
As far as I can see:
-Encourages users to buy more new games with the credit. 'Oh wow, I just got $18 back, now I'm gonna go buy Halo 9!' etc
-Removes that game from your library. Currently you probably re-download all your games whenever you upgrade your console, have to do a hard drive reformat or your console breaks. When each game is up to 50GB in size, redownloading games you might not even play ever again costs Microsoft some serious server data costs.
I can see the appeal from MS' side.
Ah, my bad. I thought the English would follow the same Latin grammar as we as Dutchies do. Being Dutch, I meet the standard of riding a bike, so I could answer your last question with a yes.
Did you just feel addressed by my remark or can I expect a proper contribution to the discussion?
It may not be that they don't care, but reached a point where there simply is not enough time to play all the games they own, and there are some they might never touch again. So a little money to put toward another game they will actually play versus one never to be played again is an acceptable trade. That's kinda where I am now.
No, I was simply pointing out the irony instead of voicing my issue with throwing insults at people who disagree with you just because some drive-by posts apparently got your feathers rustled.
Because that's the intelligent reaction to have, correct?
Instead of explaining your viewpoints in detail (like other posters in this very thread have), instead of leaving the conversation with some integrity, instead of even taking the time to specify the group of people your probably referring to, you just kinda toss everyone into one category and insult their intelligence?
But it is what it is.
People wanting more than 10% for their digital games are not any less intelligent than people arguing that since this is the only offer, we should take it and apparently shut up about it.
They are just viewpoints, and failing to understand other perspectives on the matter when you have a discussion says more about your character than it does about theirs.
Wanna example of how to do it right?
Look at the people who took the time to explain to me in this very thread why 30% was unreasonable.
No, I still don't like 10% as an offer.
But at least I walked away from the discussion understanding why my ideal situation wasn't realistic.
Yeah like multi-billion dollar corporations are the most Trust worty.
I was responding as if the person would be 'trading-in" the 10 games.
I agree. I see you did take the time to explain your viewpoint properly in that first one, so I retract my previous statement about you not doing so.