• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

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

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
10% is a joke and people saying 'it's better than the current 0%' need to understand - no it's not. The current 0% allows me to maybe play the game again one day - or let friends/kids play the game. It needs to be worth completely losing the game from your catalog.

You can't make a statement like this for everyone.

There are many who buy digital games that they are never going to start and/or play again -- especially single player games, yearly shooters, or yearly sports titles. So yes -- getting money back to use for new games would be better than keeping them tied to an account for these people.
 

MrRemyJe

Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,262
8
265
Chicago, IL USA
steamcommunity.com
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.

I understood what you meant, however I don't think you understand what I mean. Having people set their own prices(used games) have not killed the industry and still won't. Remember, physical games weren't that long ago. You have to look at this from a stand point of physical first. When you purchase a physical game, you are then able to sell it to someone else. It's unfortunate that a company can't profit from this, but at the point of owning the disc it's not up to them to decide what they want from your purchase.

Now, lets say for example all digital purchases became physical all of a sudden. What I'm proposing is that Microsoft(and/or the company that put out the product) can take a percentage of your sell when you sell said product. So, they still had the initial sale from when you bought it, you get paid a set amount, and they also had a profit from when you sold it to another person. Tell me, how is this not a better system than GameStop's or a full on refund? Clearly we can't create a situation where everyone gets what they want, but we could theoretically tweak how things currently work. You eliminate the shady middleman of Gamestop(having them buy low and sell high) and put this type of selling system into the users hands as long as they agree with the percentage policies set by companies.

I'm not just talking about 'offering cheaper' because clearly costs have risen exponentially in the past decade. I'm talking about someone who bought a 60 dollar game, selling it to another person for 55 ish dollars, and the company/companies still making a good percentage profit from that. Like a disc, you would not get the additional DLC(like many companies are injecting in games nowadays anyway to combat used sales) so there's also a possible additional profit from that as well. For some reason you have this belief that a ton of people will undercut others to such a high degree that they don't get money from their sale to another person. However, if the user knows that a percentage of their sale would be taken by said companies, why would they price as low as possible? Why would anyone sell a game for 0.05 cents to get rid of it and earn barely anything at all? The only way I see that happening is if the game has barely a dollar value to begin with.

I'd rather hear your extended thoughts on what I propose and maybe of a way to improve it, rather than just accepting the way things currently are and telling me 'you don't understand' yet again.
 

Lionheart

Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,153
0
0
35
Oldenzaal, the Netherlands
MS can resell the licences they buy back, at least in the EU they can.
Would that mean that revenue of selling a used license would all go to the digital market place owner instead of only the 30 % they usually get?

Although I'm sure publishers would not be so happy about that. They'll probably want a cut anyway or may threat to leave the market place?
 

goonergaz

Member
Jan 8, 2009
3,345
0
770
You can't make a statement like this for everyone.

There are many who buy digital games that they are never going to start and/or play again -- especially single player games, yearly shooters, or yearly sports titles. So yes -- getting money back to use for new games would be better than keeping them tied to an account for these people.

Of course, not everyone but I'm sure most would agree 10% is not enough...it's like anything, I have a shelf full of games I will likely never play but I could get ~£5 each for them but I'd rather keep them 'just in case' than get so little.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
Of course, not everyone but I'm sure most would agree 10% is not enough...it's like anything, I have a shelf full of games I will likely never play but I could get ~£5 each for them but I'd rather keep them 'just in case' than get so little.

I definitely understand that. It's just if MS did do this 10% plan then the option would still be there to just keep them (i.e.: do what you are doing now).
 

LostDonkey

Member
Nov 4, 2015
3,826
3,416
640
United Kingdom
Would that mean that revenue of selling a used license would all go to the digital market place owner instead of only the 30 % they usually get?

Although I'm sure publishers would not be so happy about that. They'll probably want a cut anyway or may threat to leave the market place?

I'm not fully sure how it works. I was speaking about it with another gaffer yesterday and upon looking, there was a case in the ECJ (European Court of justice) in 2012 that states digital property must be treated the same as physical with regards to reselling. There is even a marketplace called Used soft where you can buy and sell used licences. I've never done it myself but it can be done, at least in the EU.

Here is the Wikipedia entry about the case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsedSoft

Scroll down to the ECJ ruling section.
 
Dec 15, 2004
13,436
29
1,505
10% is a joke and people saying 'it's better than the current 0%' need to understand - no it's not. The current 0% allows me to maybe play the game again one day - or let friends/kids play the game. It needs to be worth completely losing the game from your catalog.
You have a hoarder's mentality.
 

gai_shain

Member
Mar 3, 2014
1,881
0
0
That's what I'm trying to understand, what makes people think MS won't resell the license?

Whats the difference between a used license and a non used one for the people buying it?
There isnt one, so are the used licenses going to be sold cheaper? If thats the case whose going to buy non used ones and how is the money going to be distributed between ms and publisher?
Once people start selling their licenses back to ms no one is going to buy new ones and the game basically got a discount while there is still the full price non used one available.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
I understood what you meant, however I don't think you understand what I mean. Having people set their own prices(used games) have not killed the industry and still won't. Remember, physical games weren't that long ago. You have to look at this from a stand point of physical first. When you purchase a physical game, you are then able to sell it to someone else. It's unfortunate that a company can't profit from this, but at the point of owning the disc it's not up to them to decide what they want from your purchase.

Now, lets say for example all digital purchases became physical all of a sudden. What I'm proposing is that Microsoft(and/or the company that put out the product) can take a percentage of your sell when you sell said product. So, they still had the initial sale from when you bought it, you get paid a set amount, and they also had a profit from when you sold it to another person. Tell me, how is this not a better system than GameStop's or a full on refund? Clearly we can't create a situation where everyone gets what they want, but we could theoretically tweak how things currently work. You eliminate the shady middleman of Gamestop(having them buy low and sell high) and put this type of selling system into the users hands as long as they agree with the percentage policies set by companies.

I'm not just talking about 'offering cheaper' because clearly costs have risen exponentially in the past decade. I'm talking about someone who bought a 60 dollar game, selling it to another person for 55 ish dollars, and the company/companies still making a good percentage profit from that. Like a disc, you would not get the additional DLC(like many companies are injecting in games nowadays anyway to combat used sales) so there's also a possible additional profit from that as well. For some reason you have this belief that a ton of people will undercut others to such a high degree that they don't get money from their sale to another person. However, if the user knows that a percentage of their sale would be taken by said companies, why would they price as low as possible? Why would anyone sell a game for 0.05 cents to get rid of it and earn barely anything at all? The only way I see that happening is if the game has barely a dollar value to begin with.

I'd rather hear your extended thoughts on what I propose and maybe of a way to improve it, rather than just accepting the way things currently are and telling me 'you don't understand' yet again.

The only reason value has been held in the used game market is because of gamestop.
If gamestop didn't feel the need to hold the value of games after release you wouldn't be able to sell your games on ebay for the prices that you can. If you think for a second people on ebay price their used games slightly lower than gamestop out of the kindness of your heart your mistaken. Everything has a ripple effect. They locate a value and price appropriately. Regular consumers don't operate a business, most would like to quickly expel games to get what they can(this is especially true the more copies are out there).The value of games would tank. Everyone would start playing the waiting game. Why would I buy if people would be desperate to sell on the open market. It's why game companies try to hold and stick to their prices.
Please look at steam trading cards. Steam even takes a cut of what you sell, look at the prices of the cards after a few days. Market gets flooded with merchandise to the point where people get impatient and start undercutting each other.
If there was a market for returning more to the user then why hasn't steam the digital leader started it?
 

LostDonkey

Member
Nov 4, 2015
3,826
3,416
640
United Kingdom
Whats the difference between a used license and a non used one for the people buying it?
There isnt one, so are the used licenses going to be sold cheaper? If thats the case whose going to buy non used ones and how is the money going to be distributed between ms and publisher?
Once people start selling their licenses back to ms no one is going to buy new ones and the game basically got a discount while there is still the full price non used one available.

That's exactly the same as physical. And why shouldn't it be?
 

Trup1aya

Member
Jan 18, 2015
8,853
1
0
10% is a joke and people saying 'it's better than the current 0%' need to understand - no it's not. The current 0% allows me to maybe play the game again one day - or let friends/kids play the game. It needs to be worth completely losing the game from your catalog.

Huh? No ones forcing you to sell the game. If you want to play the game later keep it. If not, you have the OPTION of selling it. Some games just don't have much replay value or aren't very good. Others have dead MP. Some are annualized franchises and sports games. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to sell those licenses, even if just for 10%

That's exactly the same as physical. And why shouldn't it be?

It's not like physical at all.

1) with physical, their IS a difference between buying new and used. Physical condition of the medium being the most obvious difference. then there is the inclusion of manuals and artwork. This is why New copies are sold for more than used copies.

With digital, there is no difference from a used license and a new one. So there's no reason used would be priced differently than new. It would mean a ton of lost revenue for publishers, as they'd be completely unable to justify selling at MSRP

2) with physical, resellers can afford to give more $ for used games, because they well jack up the price when they resell it. Supply and demand (since there are a limited number of copies of any given game) will dictate how new and used prices fluctuate.

With digital, there's nothing to resell. There are an infinite number of licenses. The party buying the license, in this case MS, cannot profit from the license.

These are he obvious reasons why digital can't and won't be treated the same has physical... These are the obvious points of separation between digital and physical is all media, why would gaming be different?
 

Peterpan

Member
Feb 26, 2013
657
0
0
I understood what you meant, however I don't think you understand what I mean. Having people set their own prices(used games) have not killed the industry and still won't. Remember, physical games weren't that long ago. You have to look at this from a stand point of physical first. When you purchase a physical game, you are then able to sell it to someone else. It's unfortunate that a company can't profit from this, but at the point of owning the disc it's not up to them to decide what they want from your purchase.

Now, lets say for example all digital purchases became physical all of a sudden. What I'm proposing is that Microsoft(and/or the company that put out the product) can take a percentage of your sell when you sell said product. So, they still had the initial sale from when you bought it, you get paid a set amount, and they also had a profit from when you sold it to another person. Tell me, how is this not a better system than GameStop's or a full on refund? Clearly we can't create a situation where everyone gets what they want, but we could theoretically tweak how things currently work. You eliminate the shady middleman of Gamestop(having them buy low and sell high) and put this type of selling system into the users hands as long as they agree with the percentage policies set by companies.

I'm not just talking about 'offering cheaper' because clearly costs have risen exponentially in the past decade. I'm talking about someone who bought a 60 dollar game, selling it to another person for 55 ish dollars, and the company/companies still making a good percentage profit from that. Like a disc, you would not get the additional DLC(like many companies are injecting in games nowadays anyway to combat used sales) so there's also a possible additional profit from that as well. For some reason you have this belief that a ton of people will undercut others to such a high degree that they don't get money from their sale to another person. However, if the user knows that a percentage of their sale would be taken by said companies, why would they price as low as possible? Why would anyone sell a game for 0.05 cents to get rid of it and earn barely anything at all? The only way I see that happening is if the game has barely a dollar value to begin with.

I'd rather hear your extended thoughts on what I propose and maybe of a way to improve it, rather than just accepting the way things currently are and telling me 'you don't understand' yet again.
I know this post isn't for me, but I'm going to try to reply. The problem is we are then becoming a third wheel, we are sharing profits with the distributor and the pub. So that means even less profits in general. Another problem is it is not physical, so it is instant so people from Africa, South America and Europe, wherever can trade and get the game right away, meaning it's easy not a pain like eBay or whatever else meaning people will use it, meaning everyone can find any game they want. Region lock might help, but it's still problematic.

Making it on the official channel makes it easier for people and more visible, meaning even more second hand sales, what pubs need is definitely more second hand sales I'm sure. Why buy games brand new, there's no incentive there. I'm sure there's a solution, but as you describe it, it's not going to work. Game costs are going up and game prices are not going up with them as it is. Further undercutting developers, sound disastrous to me.

Fake edit: Everything Gus-Gus said.
 

Brofield

Member
May 21, 2012
3,422
0
0
I'd rather see interest in a digital marketplace where you can set a price to sell and electronically transfer your game license to a friend or a stranger. From there, I could justify a percentage being taken for the publisher, developer and console holder.

But 10% is definitely paltry. In-store currency only better give me a better offer.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
I'd rather see interest in a digital marketplace where you can set a price to sell and electronically transfer your game license to a friend or a stranger. From there, I could justify a percentage being taken for the publisher, developer and console holder.

But 10% is definitely paltry. In-store currency only better give me a better offer.

I think at this rate you will still get the same offer that's on the table now. 10% that is being offered. Game companies have no reason to give the user a bigger cut than they would platform holder. Microsoft will take there cut which would be about 20% and devs pubs will ask for their cut. It's their content, they pay for everything to be made and shipped. I know it sounds disheartening, and I don't want anyone to think I'm a bad guy who doesn't want people to make more. It's just not realistic with the current model of gaming. I have ideas of how and when it becomes more realistic to expect more for your base game resell. I'll discuss that at another time.
 

Brofield

Member
May 21, 2012
3,422
0
0
I think at this rate you will still get the same offer that's on the table now. 10% that is being offered. Game companies have no reason to give the user a bigger cut than they would platform holder. Microsoft will take there cut which would be about 20% and devs pubs will ask for they're cut. It's their content, they pay for everything to be made and shipped. I know it sounds disheartening, and I don't want anyone to think I'm a bad guy who doesn't want people to make more. It's just not realistic with the current model of gaming. I have ideas of how and when it becomes more realistic to expect more for your base game resell. I'll discuss that at another time.

They're perfectly entitled to it, I completely understand. But if this is merely reaching out with a basic offer, I'd respectfully decline because physical remains the more attractive option.
 

Noobcraft

Member
Nov 9, 2013
8,991
0
0
You can't make a statement like this for everyone.

There are many who buy digital games that they are never going to start and/or play again -- especially single player games, yearly shooters, or yearly sports titles. So yes -- getting money back to use for new games would be better than keeping them tied to an account for these people.

Not to mention if a game you already own comes to GWG you could get a little something back.
 

Naudi

Banned
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
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

Seriously what is this lmao. 75% back ....I'm going to assume you don't run a business in any capacity whatsoever.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
They're perfectly entitled to it, I completely understand. But if this is merely reaching out with a basic offer, I'd respectfully decline because physical remains the more attractive option.

That's ok, it's perfectly acceptable to decline. I'm in on this because I have a feeling what brings to the table if this takes off. Eventually I feel you'll see a marketplace open up. I think dlc would be allowed to be sold back, rare items in games. Lots of things open up, I think people are saying no to quick because the upfront value isn't there. I think eventually microsoft's marketplace becomes more like steam. Other ideas are running through my mind. There needs to be a starting point though. If you want to know why I believe this will happen, well nintendo and sony are not going to sit on their hands while microsoft takes their customers from them. When everyone gets involved it will get interesting.
 

Naudi

Banned
May 9, 2012
979
76
0
10%? LOL get bent MS.

10% for something with zero value isn't bad. I mean they are paying you for nothing. NOTHING! I don't think they should even do this cause there is no way to give a % people won't act like kicked their baby. Instead just give better sale prices to those of us that purchase digital frequently. Tiered system perhaps.
 

gamz

Member
Nov 11, 2015
13,664
4
370
10%? LOL get bent MS.

I can see this thread hasn't changed since last time I was here. LOL!

I love these comments. Get bent MS!!!! And they are the only company offering anything. Okay....You should be saying get bent to everyone else besides MS. The anger is directed wrongly...But please carry on...
 

Head.spawn

Junior Member
Sep 3, 2013
6,745
2
320
I'd rather see interest in a digital marketplace where you can set a price to sell and electronically transfer your game license to a friend or a stranger. From there, I could justify a percentage being taken for the publisher, developer and console holder.

But 10% is definitely paltry. In-store currency only better give me a better offer.

Agreed. If there is an Xbox Feedback listing for that or if someone here has made one, I'd upvote the fuck out of that.
 

educator

Member
Dec 27, 2012
548
0
405
I think it's pretty clear what Microsoft is trying to do here. Just my two cents.

1. Lowball. They know 10% is too low, it is all apart of their public relations strategy. They will garner positive feedback when they "revise" their original plan and change it to 30%, all of course by "listening to our loyal fans around the world". Very simple yet effective.

2. "Why would they do this? I don't understand." It revolves around getting you invested in their ecosystem and digital vision of buying and playing games. They get nothing from customers buying used copies at Gamestop, but if they give you 30% back in Xbox credits they know there is only one place you can spend it. That plus the fact they can sell more DLC.
 

Noobcraft

Member
Nov 9, 2013
8,991
0
0
I think it's pretty clear what Microsoft is trying to do here. Just my two cents.

1. Lowball. They know 10% is too low, it is all apart of their public relations strategy. They will garner positive feedback when they "revise" their original plan and change it to 30%, all of course by "listening to our loyal fans around the world". Very simple yet effective.

2. "Why would they do this? I don't understand." It revolves around getting you invested in their ecosystem and digital vision of buying and playing games. They get nothing from customers buying used copies at Gamestop, but if they give you 30% back in Xbox credits they know there is only one place you can spend it. That plus the fact they can sell more DLC.

If Microsoft's cut of game sales is 30%, you're basically asking them to refund their cut so you can spend it on their store again, which isn't financially reasonable. Asking for 30% is unreasonable, asking for 15% is more reasonable.
 

gamz

Member
Nov 11, 2015
13,664
4
370
I think it's pretty clear what Microsoft is trying to do here. Just my two cents.

1. Lowball. They know 10% is too low, it is all apart of their public relations strategy. They will garner positive feedback when they "revise" their original plan and change it to 30%, all of course by "listening to our loyal fans around the world". Very simple yet effective.

2. "Why would they do this? I don't understand." It revolves around getting you invested in their ecosystem and digital vision of buying and playing games. They get nothing from customers buying used copies at Gamestop, but if they give you 30% back in Xbox credits they know there is only one place you can spend it. That plus the fact they can sell more DLC.

Right because they don't want to make any profit. Sure why not....

This thread just keeps on giving. I don't think I've ever seen where a company wants to give you a third of what they are making and you reject it. Fine you get zero then. MS isn't going to sweat that.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
I think it's pretty clear what Microsoft is trying to do here. Just my two cents.

1. Lowball. They know 10% is too low, it is all apart of their public relations strategy. They will garner positive feedback when they "revise" their original plan and change it to 30%, all of course by "listening to our loyal fans around the world". Very simple yet effective.

2. "Why would they do this? I don't understand." It revolves around getting you invested in their ecosystem and digital vision of buying and playing games. They get nothing from customers buying used copies at Gamestop, but if they give you 30% back in Xbox credits they know there is only one place you can spend it. That plus the fact they can sell more DLC.

Sir, if they give you 30% back they will never make money on digital games sold outside of dlc. Please go back a few pages and please read why 30% doesn't work.
 

MrRemyJe

Member
Mar 8, 2015
2,262
8
265
Chicago, IL USA
steamcommunity.com
The only reason value has been held in the used game market is because of gamestop.
If gamestop didn't feel the need to hold the value of games after release you wouldn't be able to sell your games on ebay for the prices that you can. If you think for a second people on ebay price their used games slightly lower than gamestop out of the kindness of your heart your mistaken. Everything has a ripple effect. They locate a value and price appropriately. Regular consumers don't operate a business, most would like to quickly expel games to get what they can(this is especially true the more copies are out there).The value of games would tank. Everyone would start playing the waiting game. Why would I buy if people would be desperate to sell on the open market. It's why game companies try to hold and stick to their prices.
Please look at steam trading cards. Steam even takes a cut of what you sell, look at the prices of the cards after a few days. Market gets flooded with merchandise to the point where people get impatient and start undercutting each other.
If there was a market for returning more to the user then why hasn't steam the digital leader started it?

I know this post isn't for me, but I'm going to try to reply. The problem is we are then becoming a third wheel, we are sharing profits with the distributor and the pub. So that means even less profits in general. Another problem is it is not physical, so it is instant so people from Africa, South America and Europe, wherever can trade and get the game right away, meaning it's easy not a pain like eBay or whatever else meaning people will use it, meaning everyone can find any game they want. Region lock might help, but it's still problematic.

Making it on the official channel makes it easier for people and more visible, meaning even more second hand sales, what pubs need is definitely more second hand sales I'm sure. Why buy games brand new, there's no incentive there. I'm sure there's a solution, but as you describe it, it's not going to work. Game costs are going up and game prices are not going up with them as it is. Further undercutting developers, sound disastrous to me.

I feel like this debate is starting to go in circles. Basically all 3 of us won't know how consumers and the market would actually react. We will keep making predictions about this. What needs to happen is for steam to test this system out, and if it ends up failing they roll it back, just like user paid mods.

Gus-Gus, I've said it twice already but I'll say it again, steam cards are not a good example and are a terrible representation to base this on. The sole reason is that They hold zero initial value. They are equivalent to a different character skin in a game, being a luxury item that you collect. It would be like models bidding their instagram pictures. So the steam card system can't be accurately compared to selling actual products of worth.
 

blakep267

Member
Dec 9, 2013
6,322
2
210
10% is a joke and people saying 'it's better than the current 0%' need to understand - no it's not. The current 0% allows me to maybe play the game again one day - or let friends/kids play the game. It needs to be worth completely losing the game from your catalog.
That makes a ton of sense. " Now that your older son, I want you to experience this magical game I have. It's called The Deer God. And before you ask, no I have no idea what it's about. Enjoy"
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
I feel like this debate is starting to go in circles. Basically all 3 of us won't know how consumers and the market would actually react. We will keep making predictions about this. What needs to happen is for steam to test this system out, and if it ends up failing they roll it back, just like user paid mods.

Gus-Gus, I've said it twice already but I'll say it again, steam cards are not a good example and are a terrible representation to base this on. The sole reason is that They hold zero initial value. They are equivalent to a different character skin in a game, being a luxury item that you collect. It would be like models bidding their instagram pictures. So the steam card system can't be accurately compared to selling actual products of worth.

How do they hold zero value, if you have to buy the game? Once something is included in a purchase it no longer has a zero value placed on it. We may not have an exact number of what it's value is, but there is a value. If there is no initial value why is'nt given for free upfront then sold out on the market. you pay for it in the purchase.

Actually, the value is the cost of the game. It's the only means to access the content. Even if you were only interested in the card how else can you get it? The free market where prices have tanked, that's your means to get it.
 

OnionPowder

Member
Jan 4, 2014
8,101
1
355
Orlando
I can see this thread hasn't changed since last time I was here. LOL!

I love these comments. Get bent MS!!!! And they are the only company offering anything. Okay....You should be saying get bent to everyone else besides MS. The anger is directed wrongly...But please carry on...

GreenManGaming already does this on PC
 

Vitacat

Member
Oct 20, 2011
4,299
271
790
At least 25% back, and even then I'd be wary of buying digital.

Still, it's exciting to see Microsoft considering this. If companies want a digital future, they will need to restore consumer rights with digital to equal physical.
 
Feb 3, 2016
111
0
0
LOL they're worse than GameStop.
All hail the digital future!

I really hate digital. I will buy physical whenever I can because it's better in every way except convenience but I'll gladly trade some convenience in for basic customer rights.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
For those saying its better than 0, would you trade in a physical $60 game for $6 store credit? Its insulting.

Does gamestop make money reselling your game? Then it's insulting to take $6
Microsoft is not reselling anything. There is a difference.
 

gamz

Member
Nov 11, 2015
13,664
4
370
For those saying its better than 0, would you trade in a physical $60 game for $6 store credit? Its insulting.

Basic math.

What's better:

0 dollars or 6 dollars

I feel like I'm teaching my Son common core math and he's 6 and it's much less complicated. The sad thing is he gets it.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Jan 18, 2015
8,853
1
0
For those saying its better than 0, would you trade in a physical $60 game for $6 store credit? Its insulting.

No, but we aren't talking about physical games...

We are talking about digital games, which currently can't be traded at all...

There's an entire thread here that explains why the physical market and digital market inherently operate differently. In short, I can expect resellers to pay more for used games, because they will turn around and sell them for more that they paid. That option doesn't exist in digital, due to 'supply and demand' principles and the lack of degradation of digital goods.

You are comparing apples to oranges
 

Purest 78

Member
Aug 20, 2014
2,903
1
0
Whats the difference between a used license and a non used one for the people buying it?
There isnt one, so are the used licenses going to be sold cheaper? If thats the case whose going to buy non used ones and how is the money going to be distributed between ms and publisher?
Once people start selling their licenses back to ms no one is going to buy new ones and the game basically got a discount while there is still the full price non used one available.

If they rebuy a license it's theirs to do what they want with it, it's property they bought. Unlike a regular license where publishers have a say in the matter.
 

gamz

Member
Nov 11, 2015
13,664
4
370
I'd be ok with the option, and that it includes part of the sell back gave the dev a bit of money.

The Devs aren't losing any money. MS is eating the loss. It's a loss for for MS and the Devs; only MS is losing, not the devs.