• 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?

Head.spawn

Junior Member
Sep 3, 2013
6,745
2
320
For those saying its better than 0, would you trade in a physical $60 game for $6 store credit? Its insulting.
Gamestop would give you $1 for a Madden 25 today, that you paid $60 for. Under these circumstances and if you bought it at launch, you would get $6 for it.

Clearly the benefit here isn't too unload new games. But old stuff you don't play anymore or games you regret buying early, games that have plummeted in price.. at some point a few bucks for something you don't care about ain't that bad.
 

Hyunashi

Member
Jun 7, 2013
2,294
0
0
10% aint gonna help this digital future people want from coming any sooner. I mean good for MS to suggest it, however 10% aint significant enough to entice people to be more digitally focused when they buy games I feel. Id rather just stay physical, especially with how obnoxious online console store prices are.
 

Bessy67

Member
Jan 20, 2014
4,489
0
0
10% aint gonna help this digital future people want from coming any sooner. I mean good for MS to suggest it, however 10% aint significant enough to entice people to be more digitally focused when they buy games I feel. Id rather just stay physical, especially with how obnoxious online console store prices are.
The digital future is coming with or without MS giving you money for games you never play anymore. There are plenty of other markets that are already mostly digital, and none of them allow you to sell back your digital content. You can't sell back PC games on Steam, you can't sell back songs/movies on iTunes, you can't sell back Kindle books on Amazon, etc. I'd love to get a higher percentage back but honestly just getting anything is already a lot more generous than most other options.
 

cakely

Member
Oct 3, 2013
7,422
0
0
Chicago
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?
Your "contribution to the discussion" was to propose an intelligence test to become a member of NeoGAF and then misspell a word in the same sentence.

In case you missed it, we're having a laugh at your expense. As you would say, "astonishing".
 

cakely

Member
Oct 3, 2013
7,422
0
0
Chicago
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.
I see. So you're implying that we're less intelligent than your 6-year old.

May I point out that you're completely missing one side of the equation: to receive that $6, you need to give up the rights to a game that you paid $60 for.

It's pretty simple: I'm not willing to trade my game for $0, and I'm also not willing to trade my game for $6.
 

Cth

Member
Dec 9, 2008
4,172
0
875
Charlotte, NC
Wouldn't creating a marketplace and letting people at their own prices result in something like the Steam card marketplace and the rush to the bottom mentality?

Sure there's going to be friends who go half on digital games but IMO any marketplace would likely resemble Steams model which doesn't work.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
Wouldn't creating a marketplace and letting people at their own prices result in something like the Steam card marketplace and the rush to the bottom mentality?

Sure there's going to be friends who go half on digital games but IMO any marketplace would likely resemble Steams model which doesn't work.
That's my same reasoning, but according to another member here I can't use that as an example because to him the trading cards have no starting value. To him they are worthless.

What I don't get and I'm still waiting for a response from him, if there is no value why do we pay for it when we purchase the game? To me there is a starting value to the cards, it's the price of the game because it's the only way to access it. Not sure what he means there is no value attached it. The cards are not given for free.
 

Eusis

Member
Apr 15, 2011
36,667
1
705
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)
Well, there probably IS the hope that you change your mind and buy the game again for whatever reason... But, yeah, unless you can make that money by selling it to someone you know or whatever there isn't any gain for them, and it'd have to be similar to the Steam system. And that could just undermine sales of the game normally.
 

gamz

Member
Nov 11, 2015
13,664
4
370
I see. So you're implying that we're less intelligent than your 6-year old.

May I point out that you're completely missing one side of the equation: to receive that $6, you need to give up the rights to a game that you paid $60 for.

It's pretty simple: I'm not willing to trade my game for $0, and I'm also not willing to trade my game for $6.
Then that's your choice. At least with this we have a choice or option we didn't have.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
I see. So you're implying that we're less intelligent than your 6-year old.

May I point out that you're completely missing one side of the equation: to receive that $6, you need to give up the rights to a game that you paid $60 for.

It's pretty simple: I'm not willing to trade my game for $0, and I'm also not willing to trade my game for $6.
That's alright it's good to have options. A few questions how many digital/physical games do you own? A breakdown please.
 

freefornow

Member
Feb 13, 2013
1,508
615
605
It's pretty simple: I'm not willing to trade my game for $0, and I'm also not willing to trade my game for $6.
Thats fair enough. You're not being forced to. Some appear to be willing to consider this and would by all appearances appreciate the choice to be able to do so.
 

Catatafish

Banned
May 8, 2014
280
0
0
I still do not understand how reselling is suppose to work in a digital medium.

As far as I understand a games publisher puts out unlimited number of digital liscenses in let's say PSN. Then a player purchase a license for $60. Platform owner, Sony takes a cut , say 30% and the rest goes to the publisher.

Now if the consumer wants to trade their licence back for some money, say 10% (MS case). Who is exactly paying the consumer here? The platform owner or the publisher. The publisher is not be benefiting from this deal since a digital licence costs absolutely nothing to the publisher and it has zero resell value. In this case the platform owners have to pay 10% from their own pocket. So MS or Sony are really not making money at all by doing this. So for every digital liscens sold at full price and traded back, MS is only making 30-10=20% profit from the games full price. Therfore, one can deduce that if the platform owner cut for every game sold is say 30%, the maximum percentage back the owner can have be giving up their license is 30% of the games initial price.
 

joecanada

Member
Nov 15, 2013
5,887
1
390
Gamestop would give you $1 for a Madden 25 today, that you paid $60 for. Under these circumstances and if you bought it at launch, you would get $6 for it.

Clearly the benefit here isn't too unload new games. But old stuff you don't play anymore or games you regret buying early, games that have plummeted in price.. at some point a few bucks for something you don't care about ain't that bad.
Not only that but GameStop would then charge 15 for the game they gave you a dollar for. Their used games are like 5 dollars less than new. They mark up used games like double or more. Ms only loses money they give you for nothing
 

eksy

Banned
Jul 21, 2012
265
0
0
The digital future is coming with or without MS giving you money for games you never play anymore.
Digital future is already here. Hyunashi's point is that it's not going to persuade physical people to commit fully to digital.

If MS wants people to go all-digital (for whatever reason), 10% is something to scoff at, in comparison to the outweighing physical benefits.
 

SephLuis

Member
Feb 25, 2015
3,951
0
265
I still do not understand how reselling is suppose to work in a digital medium.

As far as I understand a games publisher puts out unlimited number of digital liscenses in let's say PSN. Then a player purchase a license for $60. Platform owner, Sony takes a cut , say 30% and the rest goes to the publisher.

Now if the consumer wants to trade their licence back for some money, say 10% (MS case). Who is exactly paying the consumer here? The platform owner or the publisher. The publisher is not be benefiting from this deal since a digital licence costs absolutely nothing to the publisher and it has zero resell value. In this case the platform owners have to pay 10% from their own pocket. So MS or Sony are really not making money at all by doing this. So for every digital liscens sold at full price and traded back, MS is only making 30-10=20% profit from the games full price. Therfore, one can deduce that if the platform owner cut for every game sold is say 30%, the maximum percentage back the owner can have be giving up their license is 30% of the games initial price.
It's a guess of mine, but they might be counting on the fact that if they give you $6, you might be more inclined to buy another $10 or $15 product.

Though, I don't know how much extra you would have to buy in order for them to gain some money of it.

The credit also might come with a catch, like an expiration date or something.
 

Wowfunhappy

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,845
2
0
How about they give you 10% per game back and allow you to keep all your games. What difference does it make to them if you still have it on your HDD or not?
Well, um, it would entice you to simply get your 10% back for every single game you own, even ones you're still playing or still return to regularly.
 

zou

Member
Jan 6, 2006
3,098
0
1,275
Combined with my rewards discount I'd be at 20%.

Definitely something I would consider for yearly titles and games I haven't touched in ages. Hell, I could sell Titanfall and Expansions for $8 and keep playing it through EA Access. Same with Fifa, Battlefield etc.
 

LegendofLex

Member
Aug 21, 2013
9,104
0
0
How about this, Microsoft? You facilitate transactions between individuals to sell already-purchased game licenses for whatever price the seller chooses, then you, Microsoft, take a modest 10-15% cut of that to act as a middleman.
 

Logash

Member
Feb 18, 2013
2,160
0
0
Getting anything at all is interesting. They gain nothing by offering money for digital games. I don't really see how it makes sense. Lending/Gifting is more desirable imo
 

Logash

Member
Feb 18, 2013
2,160
0
0
How about this, Microsoft? You facilitate transactions between individuals to sell already-purchased game licenses for whatever price the seller chooses, then you, Microsoft, take a modest 10-15% cut of that to act as a middleman.
This makes more sense, although it might require a little more investment because of the obvious customer service problems this would cause
 

OnionPowder

Member
Jan 4, 2014
8,101
1
355
Orlando
nope, GS offers even less for some titles. under $6 for some XB1 titles.
Under $6 for games that sell for $10-$15. In the first month or so after release you can easily get back up to $30 on your games.

Over time, depending on how much you spent on it, the 10% back would eventually be more than the GameStop return. Just through the deprecation of value over time.
 

Peltz

Member
Apr 26, 2014
16,507
14
575
I find it interesting that people say no to this. It's better than 0% and Microsoft could probably not justify giving any more money just to revoke a digital license. I'm not someone who sells back games, but I don't see why people feel entitled to get more than 10%.

This isn't the same as selling a physical game. Microsoft has a limitless inventory of digital games that they could sell. They're not gaining much for their 10%
 

ramparter

Banned
Apr 18, 2012
8,459
0
455
Athens, Greece
nope, GS offers even less for some titles. under $6 for some XB1 titles.
Because their current value is lpw. Same should be for digital games, get back x% of current value, not bought value.
Also they should give you more value if you decide to have it as xbox credit.
20% cash refund,
Or 30% credit refund
 

LegendofLex

Member
Aug 21, 2013
9,104
0
0
This makes more sense, although it might require a little more investment because of the obvious customer service problems this would cause
If Amazon can handle being a middleman between a private seller and a private buyer, Microsoft can do it. This kind of scheme would even avoid the biggest pitfalls associated with the typical ecommerce private sale model:

1) It's impossible for the seller to send you damaged or counterfeit goods or make a fraudulent sale; the good is purely digital, the original owner will lose their license immediately at the time of sale, and since Microsoft controls both the store and the licenses being exchanged, the rights to the license can be fully guaranteed and honored by Microsoft, rather than relying on the seller.

2) All transactions will take place via Xbox Live, the same ecosystem where the digital games always already existed. This has potential to add huge user experience improvements when dealing with private sellers.

It also has benefits to Microsoft compared to the "we pay the original owner 10%" model:

1) Microsoft only spends money on the overhead needed to maintain the digital reselling ecosystem; they don't spend money to rebuy licenses from the original owners.

2) Microsoft makes the same cut off these sales that they do sales from other third-party sellers - possibly an even larger cut - meaning the "used game market threatens our business" issue doesn't harm them.
 

TheFinalCut

Member
Feb 22, 2015
76
0
0
How about this, Microsoft? You facilitate transactions between individuals to sell already-purchased game licenses for whatever price the seller chooses, then you, Microsoft, take a modest 10-15% cut of that to act as a middleman.
I don't think this model could ever work for digital resale. There would be no incentive to buy new because within days of release any game would have codes put up by players who chew through content. I can't imagine any publisher being on board with this.
 

LegendofLex

Member
Aug 21, 2013
9,104
0
0
I don't think this model could ever work for digital resale. There would be no incentive to buy new because within days of release any game would have codes put up by players who chew through content. I can't imagine any publisher being on board with this.
The big flaw with any kind of ownership scheme for media content is that incentives are never aligned ideally for all parties involved.

Physical sales allow for a grey market that neither the publisher nor platform holder can take advantage of.

Digital sales make it impossible for the customer to exchange or resell the product after it is purchased.

But in the digital scheme Microsoft is proposing, I don't see most people thinking it's especially worth it to resell their digital games for 10% of the purchase price/current market rate. Worth nothing: I've never sold a used game I couldn't get at least 25% for.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Jan 18, 2015
8,853
1
0
How about this, Microsoft? You facilitate transactions between individuals to sell already-purchased game licenses for whatever price the seller chooses, then you, Microsoft, take a modest 10-15% cut of that to act as a middleman.
This there is no reason to think that a model that resembles the physical model will work for consumers and businesses alike. There is literally no difference between a used digital license and a new digital license. So any system that allows users to sell their licenses to anyone at anytime, would cannibalize new sales of games.

When someone walks into a store, there decision process include, the condition of packaging material, condition of the disc itself, and the cost gap between new and used copies. This is why new and used can co-exist in a healthy market.

In the digital market, the decision will always boil down to "which one is cheapest". Publishers wouldnt stand a chance.

In your scenario, MS would be making a killing as players blow through games, and sell the license as quickly as they can, while Publishers would see significant losses in revenue. They'd probably just totally skip out on publishing their games digitally in the Xbox store...

Really, if people want to ever get anything back for their used digital games, They'll have to realize that a digital games resale value will never match that of physical counterparts for what should be obvious logistical and financial reasons. I'm actually surprised MS is considering this at all.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
There is literally no difference between a used digital license and a new digital license. So any, system that allows users to sell their licenses to anyone at anytime, would cannibalize new sales of games.

When someone walks into a store, there decision process include, the condition of packaging material, condition of the disc itself, and the cost gap between new and used copies.

In the digital market, the decision will always boild down to "which one is cheapest". Publishers wouldn't stand a chance.
Bingo; Said it far better than I did in my previous post about why it would be silly for a digital game to be presented as "used".
 

Ushay

Member
Sep 9, 2014
6,542
0
375
Combined with my rewards discount I'd be at 20%.

Definitely something I would consider for yearly titles and games I haven't touched in ages. Hell, I could sell Titanfall and Expansions for $8 and keep playing it through EA Access. Same with Fifa, Battlefield etc.
I imagine Gold members would get a larger return. Makes sense I think.
 

gus-gus

Banned
Sep 7, 2014
320
0
0
If Amazon can handle being a middleman between a private seller and a private buyer, Microsoft can do it. This kind of scheme would even avoid the biggest pitfalls associated with the typical ecommerce private sale model:

1) It's impossible for the seller to send you damaged or counterfeit goods or make a fraudulent sale; the good is purely digital, the original owner will lose their license immediately at the time of sale, and since Microsoft controls both the store and the licenses being exchanged, the rights to the license can be fully guaranteed and honored by Microsoft, rather than relying on the seller.

2) All transactions will take place via Xbox Live, the same ecosystem where the digital games always already existed. This has potential to add huge user experience improvements when dealing with private sellers.

It also has benefits to Microsoft compared to the "we pay the original owner 10%" model:

1) Microsoft only spends money on the overhead needed to maintain the digital reselling ecosystem; they don't spend money to rebuy licenses from the original owners.

2) Microsoft makes the same cut off these sales that they do sales from other third-party sellers - possibly an even larger cut - meaning the "used game market threatens our business" issue doesn't harm them.
And how much do the devs and pubs make off of this?
 

LegendofLex

Member
Aug 21, 2013
9,104
0
0
This there is no reason to think that a model that resembles the physical model will work for consumers and businesses alike.
There is no model in any space that will work for consumers and businesses alike.

I see the entire prospect of reselling a good that doesn't degrade in value for 90% less than it's worth as inherently exploitative. Either Microsoft guts customers of the value of the good, or publishers/Microsoft get gutted through the kinds of grey market behavior that already exist in the digital world.

There are no winners here, except the ones who command the revenues made from the used games market. But in at least one scenario, you get something that actually vaguely resembles the first-sale doctrine.

And how much do the devs and pubs make off of this?
Feel free to insert them into the equation, too. tbh, they already lose in the current digital marketplace since their games lose most of their value within about two years.
 

Purest 78

Member
Aug 20, 2014
2,903
1
0
Bingo; Said it far better than I did in my previous post about why it would be silly for a digital game to be presented as "used".
That is absolutely wrong if MS rebuy A license. It's 100% their property at that point. They could legally resell it at 100% profit. Not saying that would happen point is they would own the right to the license.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
Then pay me $60 for my $60 dollar Digital Game, I mean its not "used" and does not degrade.
You can already get full refunds on digital games. Just have to call customer service so they can check that you aren't trying to pull a "fast one" I guess.

I got one for AC Unity back when the game had a ton of issues before the patches came.
 

Sir TapTap

Member
Jun 17, 2014
19,093
0
425
USA
sirtaptap.com
How about they give you 10% per game back and allow you to keep all your games. What difference does it make to them if you still have it on your HDD or not?
Yeah, digital discount makes way more sense (and the only console to do it, sorta, was the Vita for first party titles and it got no particular love for it.)

It's extra embarrassing that Best Buy/amazon mean physical games are actually 20% cheaper than digital
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
That is absolutely wrong if MS rebuy A license. It's 100% their property at that point. They could legally resell it at 100% profit. Not saying that would happen point is they would own the right to the license.
Digital games don't "run out" though. It's pretty impossible to present a digital version of a game as used outside of a lower price and at that point, what would be the reason in getting a new digital game? That's what I agreed with.
 

Mithos

Member
Apr 26, 2006
6,027
346
1,370
Sweden
You can already get full refunds on digital games. Just have to call customer service so they can check that you aren't trying to pull a "fast one" I guess.

I got one for AC Unity back when the game had a ton of issues before the patches came.
But we're talking about selling your digital games you no longer want to keep, not returning broken games for a refund.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Jun 19, 2014
8,896
1
320
Realistically what is the highest percentage MS can give back? In other words, what is the cut they get from every game sale on Xbox store?