Support NeoGAF

[Rndom Grenadez]

It honestly doesn't matter. I haven't paid full price for a digital game since launch. You can install the same game on two devices with one purchase and split the cost with your friend/family member.

My brother and I always decide on splitting games we both want. He pays $30 and I pay $30.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

It's better than nothing I guess since I rarely replay games (so I seldom buy digital games other than the cheaper indie/digital only stuff), but 25-30% would be much more appealing and get me to buy more retail games digitally.

 

[LegendofLex]

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.

The only reason this scenario - where people can't resell used games - exists at all in the first place is because games aren't sold, only licensed.

So I guess the question is why are people who are interested in reselling used games buying digital licenses in the first place?

 

[gus-gus]

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.



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.

Alright you understand allowing people to set their own prices and what it will to the market.

 

[Bgamer90]

But we're talking about selling your digital games you no longer want to keep, not returning broken games for a refund.

You can get full refunds on digital games that aren't broken that you don't want to play too. I'm not sure as to what the guidelines are though. It seems like it's only possible if you never started the game.

Finishing a digital game that doesn't have any publicly known issues and then wanting a refund more than likely isn't going to work (for obvious reasons).

 

[Purest 78]

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.

My point is how would anyone know if it's a Used license or new? MS could easily resell used licenses and get all the profits. Legally I might add how would anyone know the difference? Do you think MS is willing to lose millions for no apparent reason?

 

[AndyD]

For very old games, maybe.

Would be more interesting if they would allow used sales to other people directly through a online marketplace. Have people bid on the game and see how they value it. Publisher takes a cut to make it interesting for them.

Yep. Emulate the used disc value system and it's much closer to reality. $20 for a copy after a year is about right. Now for a 6 year old game $5 might be reasonable.

 

[AndyD]

My point is how would anyone know if it's a Used license or new? MS could easily resell used licenses and get all the profits. Legally I might add how would anyone know the difference? Do you think MS is willing to lose millions for no apparent reason?

There is no such thing as a used license. Just licenses that get granted and revoked. They give you money to revoke your license. You pay them money to grant you one.

 

[Bgamer90]

The only reason this scenario - where people can't resell used games - exists at all in the first place is because games aren't sold, only licensed.

So I guess the question is why are people who are interested in reselling used games buying digital licenses in the first place?

Exactly what I'm wondering.

_____________________

My point is how would anyone know if it's a Used license or new? MS could easily resell used licenses and get all the profits. Legally I might add how would anyone know the difference? Do you think MS is willing to lose millions for no apparent reason?

If there's absolutely nothing that would visually show to a potential buyer that a game is "used" (e.g.: cheaper price), then what would be the point in even having "used" digital games?

 

[ryanofcall]

If a new gen xbox would come out and I had an xbone and it would break, and I decide to buy the new xbox. Sure.

 

[Wedzi]

This is some uncharted territory for not just games but for all digital media in general. It will be really interesting to see if anything comes of this. It would be smart to offer a sell back for in store credit than just taking money off the original purchase (sales and such). When people sell back games they are generally putting that money towards more games. This will incentivize people to continue to purchase goods from the Xbox Store but also other Microsoft account run stores as well such as Groove Music, MS Movies & TV, and the whole Windows 10 Store in general. This would make a real impact in customer retention and strengthening the MS ecosystem.

Really smart idea but they need to nail the sell back percentage and 10% isn't gonna cut it in most circumstance. Down the road, 10% is a real deal. I bet if you try to sell back your original 360 or PS3 collection where most games you payed full price for you'll be lucky to get close to 5%. For example, for in store credit and being a pro member at Gamestop, you'll net $1.65 for Skyrim and a $1.65 for the Last of Us. But for recent games you're getting screwed. Assassin's Creed Syndicate and Fallout 4 are going for $22.00 respectively as of this post.

Maybe if they did a decreasing percentage over time? Get 30% for the first five months, get 10% for the life time of the game? Would be nice if they could let us trade and gift digital licenses as well. And while your at it why not bring back the family plan and let people in my family have access to all of my MS digital goods like Apple and Amazon have right now. Getting anything at all is a huge thing and whoever jumps on this first will set a precedent for other companies who wish to do the same.

Hopefully Microsoft can get this right. They are in a real position to change the way we purchase and think of digital goods if they go through with this. Along with the Universal Windows Platform, if they can take that ecosystem and make a customer friendly digital goods exchange and rules, this will be seismic.

Of course, given MS track record and history and how much money is at stake along with all licenses and legal issues something like this would bring with it, I doubt much will come of this or it will arrive in a form that people in this forum are already very concerned about.

 

[gus-gus]

The only reason this scenario - where people can't resell used games - exists at all in the first place is because games aren't sold, only licensed.

So I guess the question is why are people who are interested in reselling used games buying digital licenses in the first place?

Because I don't have time to go to gamestop anymore, that's why I buy digital. I don't like game cases all over my house. It's messy, and not for someone my age. I can carry my entire library in a external hdd and move around. I can go to a friends house with it. At the end of the day having this option is better than not having it. Just because I want this option doesn't mean I'll start getting rid of games left in right like people who purchase physical games. My decision to remove game would probably happen over time if decide I might had my time with the game but it's finish for me. Example Battlefield 4 came out at launch with the systems, when 5 comes out I have no reason for it anymore. I'm moving on to part 5.
It lasted me a good 3 years and it was worth it, but it's time is done.

 

[Purest 78]

There is no such thing as a used license. Just licenses that get granted and revoked. They give you money to revoke your license. You pay them money to grant you one.

If A consumer can resell the License to MS, what would stop MS from doing the same?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

So I guess the question is why are people who are interested in reselling used games buying digital licenses in the first place?

I think the question is more the following from publishers:

How do we get gamers like dmaul1114 that mostly by retail so the can sell after beating to move to digital where we can make more money overall?

It's a tough sell to me as they have to beat me buying games with 20% off at Best Buy with GCU and selling after beating. And that's not easy as a Day 1 game is $50ish after discount and task, and even if it takes me a month or two to beat I usually clear 40ish selling it on Amazon when done.

That said, they wouldn't have to match it as there's a convenience factor with buying digitally and not hassling with re-selling. I'm essentially fine with ending up $30-40 out of pocket on a digital retail game if it's something I'll play for 20+ hours. So if they can make that happen, be it just reduced prices or a license buyback option, I'd buy a lot more digital games. And that doesn't seem far fetched given Steam prices/sales.

 

[LegendofLex]

I think the question is more the following from publishers:

How do we get gamers like dmaul1114 that mostly by retail so the can sell after beating to move to digital where we can make more money overall?

Well, yeah, that's fair. But I don't think 10% of the original purchase price can hold a candle to the other options available to someone who's interested in buying games, consuming them, and then reselling them. As you've mentioned, you can get 80% or more of the purchase price from a new game back by operating with existing mechanisms. Why would anyone interested in this kind of behavior be swayed by losing 70% (easily $30+ on a new game) in the digital space?

Likewise for people whose buying behaviors lead them to used games because of the cheaper price. Why would they be incentivized to participate in a digital marketplace based on the factor that matters to them (price) unless the price of the digital games matches or falls below the prices offered by the used market? (Presumably, wasn't one of the biggest reasons why a traditional used games market for digital games would harm publishers that it'd force them to respond to lower prices posted by private sellers?)

I don't think buyback options for digital games will actually do the job they're supposed to do: reduce purchase anxiety for digital games. If someone is really that price sensitive or really that interested in buying and quickly reselling games, they'll have a much less expensive/more lucrative option in physical games.

 

[Trup1aya]

Then pay me $60 for my $60 dollar Digital Game, I mean its not "used" and does not degrade.

Lol why would they do this? They can't do anything with the license the buy from you...they can't profit from it further.

You'd basically be getting all of your games for free!

Hahaha

You need to see this for what is... A small token to add incentive for digital customers to buy more digital games. It's not an attempt to bring digital in line with physical, that not logistically possible.

If A consumer can resell the License to MS, what would stop MS from doing the same?

The fact that there are an infinite number of licenses. Supply and demand doesn't exist in the digital market. What's the value difference between the "used" license MS would resell, and the new license that is typically generated when someone buys something from the Xbox store?

 

[Mael]

That's a stingy proposition.
If they wanted customer loyalty to buy on their store they should go the discount route.
Give 10% to people who buy games from the store.
Why would anyone considering selling at this price?
a couple of bucks for having the pleasure to not have the game in your digital library?
Thanks for offer!

 

[Bgamer90]

That's a stingy proposition.
If they wanted customer loyalty to buy on their store they should go the discount route.
Give 10% to people who buy games from the store.

This could be possible -- reminds me of EA Access. Would 10% off on all digital games if someone has Xbox Live Gold work/cause interest?

Why would anyone considering selling at this price?
a couple of bucks for having the pleasure to not have the game in your digital library?
Thanks for offer!

Reasons have already been stated. People who buy games digitally that know they aren't going to touch pre-2015 yearly shooters and/or sports games can get some credit instead of just having them sitting on their account to never be played ever again.

 

[Trup1aya]

That's a stingy proposition.
If they wanted customer loyalty to buy on their store they should go the discount route.
Give 10% to people who buy games from the store.
Why would anyone considering selling at this price?
a couple of bucks for having the pleasure to not have the game in your digital library?
Thanks for offer!

Because they don't play the game anymore... If it's just collecting digital dust, Might as well get a little something back for it to put towards new games...

For example, I have no interest in ever playing madden 25 ever again. Getting $6 back for the license is much better than what it is currently worth to me sitting on my hard drive.

10% isn't stingy. MS would be offering 1/3 of their cut back to customers. How many companies would offer 1/3 of their revenue, in exchange for something they can't profit from?

 

[nib95]

Because they don't play the game anymore... If it's just collecting digital dust, Might as well, get a little something back for it to put towards new games...

10% isn't stingy. MS would be offering 1/3 of their cut back to customers. How many companies would offer 1/3 of their revenue, in exchange for something they can't profit from?

Lol, this train of thought and corporate pandering is amusing to me. They're not doing it from the kindest of their hearts, they're doing it in the hopes that you take that 10% and spend even more on a new purchase, hence they get an additional 20% cut where they might not have otherwise seen one. It is stingy, especially if there's ever even a single iota of a chance the person in question may want to ever replay that game.

As I've said many times, until Microsoft, Sony or whoever else can go to Publishers and come up with a much better deal for gamers, this is Microsoft trying to jump on board with, and push forward the absolute bare minimum.

 

[LegendofLex]

10% isn't stingy. MS would be offering 1/3 of their cut back to customers. How many companies would offer 1/3 of their revenue, in exchange for something they can't profit from?

Unless this results in a near-zero change in the number of digital purchases and a considerable chunk of the audience reselling many of their digital games, they're likely to see net increases in revenue.

Simple MS would own the rights to those licenses 100%. Just as the consumer sold the rights of the license To MS. MS could resell The licences They bought At 100% profit. Unlike a normal license Where publishers receive money.

The license is an imaginary good that MS has unlimited supply of. Them revoking your license doesn't actually increase their supply of licenses.

The only way your license actually gets resold is if you are selling it to a private buyer, but that isn't what MS is doing. They're revoking your license and giving you a small cut...a cut that goes right back into your XBL account so you spend it on more digital games and give MS more digital revenue.

 

[Purest 78]

Lol why would they do this? They can't do anything with the license the buy from you...they can't profit from it further.

You'd basically be getting all of your games for free!

Hahaha

You need to see this for what is... A small token to add incentive for digital customers to buy more digital games. It's not an attempt to bring digital in line with physical, that not logistically possible.



The fact that there are an infinite number of licenses. Supply and demand doesn't exist in the digital market. What's the value difference between the "used" license MS would resell, and the new license that is typically generated when someone buys something from the Xbox store?

Simple MS would own the rights to those licenses 100%. Just as the consumer sold the rights of the license To MS. MS could resell The licences They bought At 100% profit. Unlike a normal license Where publishers receive money.

 

[Mael]

Because they don't play the game anymore... If it's just collecting digital dust, Might as well get a little something back for it to put towards new games...

10% isn't stingy. MS would be offering 1/3 of their cut back to customers. How many companies would offer 1/3 of their revenue, in exchange for something they can't profit from?

From the corporation's perspective it's generous.
From a customer perspective it's stingy and barely worth it.
You have to "resell" 3 full price games to get a significant discount toward a purchase.
there's shit in my ps3 physical library that I don't play anymore, that doesn't mean I'm ok with someone throwing me a fiver to get rid of my games.
On top of that what's the good point about removing games from your library?
It's now marginally more convenient to look at your list of games? And you got a discount that EU shops are laughing their asses off because it's so little (that you probably can't use anywhere else than in that shop so basically a coupon)?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

This could be possible -- reminds me of EA Access. Would 10% off on all digital games if someone has Xbox Live Gold work/cause interest?

It would be a start, but it would really need to be 20% to match the Best Buy/Amazon Prime 20% discount for it to really impact me.

Even though I'd still only buy digitally retail games I plan to play long-term (i.e. I bought Destiny, SFV and stuff like that digitally) since I don't care about resell there.

Moving to digital is just a tough sell to people who don't keep/collect games currently. I doubt I'd shift mostly to digital unless 1) it was the only option to keep gaming or 2) prices drop to Steam levels with regular major sales etc. The current PSN/XBL/EShop sales just don't hold a candle to Steam and 3) offer refunds like Steam so I can be more comfortable taking chances on games I'm on the fence about.

 

[Trup1aya]

Lol, this train of thought and corporate pandering is amusing to me. They're not doing it from the kindest of their hearts, they're doing it in the hopes that you take that 10% and spend even more on a new purchase, hence they get an additional 20% cut where they might nor have otherwise seen one. It is stingy, especially if there's ever even a single iota of a chance the person in question may want to ever replay that game.

As I've said many times, until Microsoft, Sony or whoever else can go to Publishers and come up with a much better deal for gamers, this is Microsoft trying to jump on board with, and push forward the absolute bare minimum.

Lol I'm not pandering, just being realistic.

There is no reason that publishers would want to participate in this. They want people to switch to digital simply because it provides better margins. So it's Naive to think that they will sacrifice their margins to get people to switch to digital. That would be defeating the purpose.

I'm quite aware that they want you to use the store credit towards more purchases. It's just like any other loyalty program on the planet. Show me where I said that this would be simply out of kindness, I'll wait..

But the facts remain, if MS alone bumped it up to 15%, they would bring their profits to zero. If publishers subsidized, they wouldn't be maximizing their earning potential. They'd also be running the risk of seeing customers buyback money going to other publishers...

If you just do the basic math, you'll see why any of your suggestions are economically feasible.

I think customers should be given the option to consider whether or not they will ever want to play a game or not. If they think not, then 10% is much better than 0%.

I've got games from last gen that I'd take 10% on in beat. Hell, I'd take 1%, because they are useless to me now...

 

[watership]

I love the outrage over a choice that no one even had before this was suggested.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Simple MS would own the rights to those licenses 100%. Just as the consumer sold the rights of the license To MS. MS could resell The licences They bought At 100% profit. Unlike a normal license Where publishers receive money.

I would hope that every publisher on Xbox One has an iron clad contractual agreement that Microsoft cannot reacquire and resell digital licenses with no compensation to the publisher.

As for your earlier questions of "how would they know," publishers could look at their digital revenue and their new player counts and see that things are not lining up, and then they could look over at the same data for PlayStation 4 and confirm the discrepancy. And then when Microsoft reports a digital revenue pie that is much bigger than all the various publishers' slices combined, it would be the death knell for the platform-holder/publisher relationships and lawyers would have a field day in the aftermath.

 

[Trup1aya]

Simple MS would own the rights to those licenses 100%. Just as the consumer sold the rights of the license To MS. MS could resell The licences They bought At 100% profit. Unlike a normal license Where publishers receive money.

Ok. Now explain why publishers would sell their games on XBL, knowing that the used license market would instant cannibalize their earning potential.

From the corporation's perspective it's generous.
From a customer perspective it's stingy and barely worth it.
You have to "resell" 3 full price games to get a significant discount toward a purchase.
there's shit in my ps3 physical library that I don't play anymore, that doesn't mean I'm ok with someone throwing me a fiver to get rid of my games.
On top of that what's the good point about removing games from your library?
It's now marginally more convenient to look at your list of games? And you got a discount that EU shops are laughing their asses off because it's so little (that you probably can't use anywhere else than in that shop so basically a coupon)?

What's wrong with giving consumers a choice over whether or not, they'd like to trade in digital game for 10% if they think they'll never want to play again. Simple math explains why going much higher that 10% isn't economically feasible. And it's unreasonable to expect a corporation to enact a loyalty program that will actually cost the money to operate.

If I went through my licenses right now, which dates back to the 360 era, and culled the games that I will never be interested in playing again, I could easily have enough to by 2 full priced games. I'd do it in a heart beat.

 

[nib95]

Lol I'm not pandering, just being realistic.

There is no reason that publishers would want to participate in this. They want people to switch to digital simply because it provides better margins. So it's Naive to think that they will sacrifice their margins to get people to switch to digital. That would be defeating the purpose.

I'm quite aware that they want you to use the store credit towards more purchases. But if MS alone bumped it up to 15%, they would bring their profits to zero. If publishers subsidized, they wouldn't be maximizing their earning potential.

If you just do the basic math, you'll see why any of your suggestions are economically feasible.

Of course there is, there's every reason Publishers would want to participate in this, because there's money to be made. One of the reasons things are a bit slow on the digital front is more to do with appeasing retailers than anything else, who still have majority marketshare (80%-90%) and who publishers are careful not to upset in any tangible way.

Microsoft is doing this for the exact reason Publishers would want to do it, for more revenue, and for resale trade to be put towards purchases that might not otherwise occur. It's tone deaf and massively naive to think otherwise, and instead think that they'd be doing this as some sort of kind gesture or from a place of nobility. It's all just business.

Publishers make far more profit from digital than they do detail, and a proper resale strategy would certainly enable more digital purchases, and much more digital revenue. That's just basic business common sense. I think it's important people shun these scraps from Microsoft and are vocal about the fact that they won't accept such a low ball offer like this, and will instead hold out for much better. We should not let Microsoft dictate precedence with this measly 10%.

 

[Purest 78]

I would hope that every publisher on Xbox One has an iron clad contractual agreement that Microsoft cannot reacquire and resell digital licenses with no compensation to the publisher.

As for your earlier questions of "how would they know," publishers could look at their digital revenue and their new player counts and see that things are not lining up, and then they could look over at the same data for PlayStation 4 and confirm the discrepancy. And then when Microsoft reports a digital revenue pie that is much bigger than all the various publishers' slices combined, it would be the death knell for the platform-holder/publisher relationships and lawyers would have a field day in the aftermath.

Obviously we're all speaking hypothetically. I'm just going by standard property rights. If MS rebuy a license wouldn't they own the rights to that license.

 

[Mithos]

Ok. Now explain why publishers would sell their games on XBL, knowing that the used license market would instant cannibalize their earning potential.

They can finally get money from the same "copy" of a game an infinite number of times now, just like they have always wanted.

You buy a game for the first time for $60 (gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d), they get payed, you sell it back to "MS", MS/Publisher sell the game again (shares the money like the first time) and gets payed AGAIN for gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d, rinse and repeat.

 

[LegendofLex]

They can finally get money from the same "copy" of a game an infinite number of times now, just like they have always wanted.

You buy a game for the first time for $60 (gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d), they get payed, you sell it back to "MS", MS/Publisher sell the game again (shares the money like the first time) and gets payed AGAIN for gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d, rinse and repeat.

They can get more money from the infinite chain of customer transactions by not letting players take a cut of the money they already spent on digital games back at all and just reducing the price to capture the same people who'd otherwise buy used, like they've been doing in the digital space anyway.

 

[Trup1aya]

Of course there is, there's every reason Publishers would want to participate in this, because there's money to be made. One of the reasons things are a bit slow on the digital front is more to do with appeasing retailers than anything else, who still have majority marketshare (80%-90%) and who publishers are careful not to upset in any tangible way.

Microsoft is doing this for the exact reason Publishers would want to do it, for more revenue, and for resale trade to be put towards purchases that might not otherwise occur. It's tone deaf and massively naive to think otherwise, and instead think that they'd be doing this as some sort of kind gesture or place of nobility. It's all just business.

Publishers make far more profit from digital than they do detail, and a proper resale strategy would certainly enable more digital purchases, and much more digital revenue. That's just basic business common sense. I think it's important people shun these scraps from Microsoft and are vocal about the fact that they won't accept such a low ball offer like this, and will instead hold out for much better. We should not let Microsoft dictate precedence with this measly 10%.

Think about what you are saying. They are making a ton of profit selling digital.

So why would they cut into their profits to encourage people to switch to digital?

What you are suggesting would bring the their margins on digital down to the levels of their margins on physical... Which would defeat the purpose of bringing people to digital.

The better business move would be to increase how attractive digital is, without reducing the margins. Failing that, continue to operate in both digital and physical.

Again, here you are with talk of 'precedence'. The precedent has already been set... And that's with consumers having no way to extract any value whatsoever out of there unwanted digital goods. What we have now is worse than 'scraps'. The scraps are an improvement.

 

[Bgamer90]

You have to "resell" 3 full price games to get a significant discount toward a purchase.
there's shit in my ps3 physical library that I don't play anymore, that doesn't mean I'm ok with someone throwing me a fiver to get rid of my games.

Then keep the games then. People who don't want to can at least have an option.

On top of that what's the good point about removing games from your library?
It's now marginally more convenient to look at your list of games? And you got a discount that EU shops are laughing their asses off because it's so little (that you probably can't use anywhere else than in that shop so basically a coupon)?

"More convenient to look at a shorter list of games"? This doesn't make sense as you can already edit/change lists of digital games to play within a console's interface so it definitely wouldn't be for that reason.

In this case the "good point" would be getting something back to use for future games instead of absolutely nothing. And yes, shops would "laugh" in comparison but this is disregarding the difference between retail and digital. Retail can offer users more in trade in value because they put used games back up for close to full price since retail stores work based on supply. Nothing "runs out" in a digital store.

Many who buy games digitally do so because they can have another person share the game as if they are buying two copies for the price of one. This is great for yearly multiplayer games as both people can play the same game at the same time. This is one actual advantage that digital has over physical that is outside of "convenience". I know many that are digital that do this and split the cost (go half and half). So if someone who's digital is already paying less to play games, then being able to give back games for a certain amount to buy more digital multiplayer games would be a good option.

Overall, it seems like there's a bit of a lack of knowledge for the positives and negatives of digital and physical as well as what people can/can't do with both forms of media in this thread. I definitely understand why people would prefer a higher rate but anything over 30% for digital just isn't going to be possible since there's no way a digital store can take what you have and put it back up as "used". If you don't like that, then just continue on buying games from retail.

 

[Purest 78]

Ok. Now explain why publishers would sell their games on XBL, knowing that the used license market would instant cannibalize their earning potential.
.

1st of all it's not officially a thing yet, nothing wrong with asking questions. You know what could be the possible negatives. MS would only lose money it just wouldn't be a smart business Decisions. 10% would not sway people who buy physical for resell purposes.

So MS could lose millions a year, for what exactly?

 

[Version 3.0]

Of course there is, there's every reason Publishers would want to participate in this, because there's money to be made. One of the reasons things are a bit slow on the digital front is more to do with appeasing retailers than anything else, who still have majority marketshare and who publishers are careful not to upset in any tangible way.

Microsoft is doing this for the exact reason Publishers would want to do it, for more revenue, and for resale trade to be put towards purchases than might not otherwise occur. It's tone deaf and massively naive to think otherwise, and instead think that they'd be doing this as some sort of kind gesture or place of nobility. It's all just business.

Publishers make far more profit from digital than they do detail, and a proper resale strategy would certainly enable more digital purchases, and much more digital revenue. That's just basic business common sense. I think it's important people shun these scraps from Microsoft and are vocal about the fact that they won't accept such a low ball offer like this, and will instead hold out for much better. We should not let Microsoft dictate precedence with this measly 10%.

Well put, but let's not downplay the importance of a major player at least having a conversation on this topic. The accepted stance until now was that it could never work and would never happen. I made a thread maybe 2 or 3 years ago proposing digital resale and some thoughts on models that could work, and it was barely even a conversation, just a complete stonewalling. I found it quite frustrating to see that from GAF, a group of enthusiast customers.

So...publisher involvement could be a plus or minus, quite frankly. It just depends on the structure. One thing is definitely true, though, and that's the fact that there is a huge market for budget games that has not been served particularly well so far by digital outlets on consoles.

 

[Trup1aya]

They can finally get money from the same "copy" of a game an infinite number of times now, just like they have always wanted.

You buy a game for the first time for $60 (gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d), they get payed, you sell it back to "MS", MS/Publisher sell the game again (shares the money like the first time) and gets payed AGAIN for gamecopy/serialnumber/license x8934d, rinse and repeat.

look at the diminishing returns. Why wouldn't the publisher just prefer to keep generating new licenses, and keep selling them for $60?

 

[Trup1aya]

1st of all it's not officially a thing yet, nothing wrong with asking questions. You know what could be the possible negatives. MS would only lose money it just wouldn't be a smart business Decisions. 10% would not sway people who buy physical for resell purposes.

So MS could lose millions a year, for what exactly?

I'm just asking questions about your questions.
I don't see a scenarion where MS loses money, because they are only offering store credit. And most people would have to fork over some of their own cash to purchase anything. MS would see reduced margins, but higher volume.

It's the publishers who would lose money, if they wanted to subsidize better return rates. What's to stop, someone from using the cash they get from an EA game, on a Ubisoft game for example. If rebates were limited to specific publishers, it would make the deal less attractive, as it would take longer people people who patronize multiple publishers buy anything. Also, what about games that are published independatly?

I don't think the 10% is intended to sway people who buy physical for resell purposes over to digital.

it's intended to incentivize people who are sitting on digital games that they don't play, to buy new digital games.

 

[Version 3.0]

They can get more money from the infinite chain of customer transactions by not letting players take a cut of the money they already spent on digital games back at all and just reducing the price to capture the same people who'd otherwise buy used, like they've been doing in the digital space anyway.

look at the diminishing returns. Why wouldn't the publisher just prefer to keep generating new licenses, and keep selling them for $60?

This would allow them to serve 2 markets at once. Basically, they'd have an infinite number of "new" copies available at full price, and a limited number of "used" copies available for less. There are all kinds of models that could be applied to keep them separate. Maybe you can only buy used copies with credit from trade-ins. Maybe trade-in money can only be spent on games from the same publisher.

It's a win-win if they can figure out a good structure. There's a large budget market that is being underserved. Put it this way: would they rather have a customer buy a "used" digital game, or buy it from Gamestop?

 

[ReBurn]

This could be possible -- reminds me of EA Access. Would 10% off on all digital games if someone has Xbox Live Gold work/cause interest?



Reasons have already been stated. People who buy games digitally that know they aren't going to touch pre-2015 yearly shooters and/or sports games can get some credit instead of just having them sitting on their account to never be played ever again.

Would for me.

 

[AndyD]

look at the diminishing returns. Why wouldn't the publisher just prefer to keep generating new licenses, and keep selling them for $60?

Because I don't believe that's how it works. MS has an agreement with the publisher that they can issue infinite licenses at set prices and give a portion to the publisher. That's why digital copies don't run out. At launch that price might be $60, then it goes to $50, $40 and so forth over time.

So even in year 8 MS can still sell you a license to Forza 2, for $10 or whatnot, and the publisher still gets a cut of that $10.

The fact that MS is paying you in MS dollars to revoke your license does not mean they re-buy it from you, it simply means that your license is gone. The next person buying one is still getting it under the publisher terms.

 

[Trup1aya]

This would allow them to serve 2 markets at once. Basically, they'd have an infinite number of "new" copies available at full price, and a limited number of "used" copies available for less. There are all kinds of models that could be applied to keep them separate. Maybe you can only buy used copies with credit from trade-ins. Maybe trade-in money can only be spent on games from the same publisher.

It's a win-win if they can figure out a good structure. There's a large budget market that is being underserved. Put it this way: would they rather have a customer buy a "used" digital game, or buy it from Gamestop?

They's be selling far fewer new copies. And the used copies would have diminishing returns.

There's no reason publishers wouldn't rather have a system where each license is sold at full price, and they get 70% every time.

Overall, consumers would be spending less money to play games, which means publishers would be making less profit.

I discussed the idea of limiting to rebate $ to publishers, and it's an even less attractive proposal, especially for people who buy independently published games.

 

[nib95]

Think about what you are saying. They are making a ton of profit selling digital.

So why would they cut into their profits to encourage people to switch to digital?

What you are suggesting would bring the their margins on digital down to the levels of their margins on physical... Which would defeat the purpose of bringing people to digital.

The better business move would be to increase how attractive digital is, without reducing the margins. Failing that, continue to operate in both digital and physical.

Again, here you are with talk of 'precedence'. The precedent has already been set... And that's with consumers having no way to extract any value whatsoever out of there unwanted digital goods. What we have now is worse than 'scraps'. The scraps are an improvement.

I don't think you've really thought this through.

They are making a tonne of profit from only 10-20% of the total marketshare. A proper resale strategy however, would not only enable them to garner a much larger percentage of that market share and thus more profit, but much more revenue with far more purchases, enabled solely by those resale trades.

The resale market essentially promotes far more video game sales than would otherwise be the case, and that is why publishers cannot and will not forever ignore it, especially when they make zero profits from the retail resale market. There are many people like me for example, who would only be purchasing 3-6 games a year instead of the 10-15+ I currently purchase, as a direct correlation to the retail resale market. The fact that I can trade in new games, towards paying for other new games, is the only reason I'm buying so many in the first place. It's the only reason impulse game purchasing is even financially viable, and that will be the exact same situation with digital.

If publishers offer a healthy digital resale alternative, not only will they not be cutting in to their profits, they'll actually be making far more, and increasing revenue in a huge way. Essentially selling far more digital games than they otherwise would have, without such a resale strategy in place. As I said above, the reason Publishers have been slow to adopt any such system, is more to appease retailers than anything else, who still hold the vast majority of marketshare and who they do not want to be aggressively competing with.

This 10% offer from Microsoft to me comes off as them trying to take advantage of the current vacuum with the lowest possible low ball offer imaginable, in the hopes that it sticks, and thus secures far greater profits in the long run, at the expense of the consumer. We can hold out for better, but it's good that the conversation is at least taking place. Publishers stand to make a tremendous amount of extra revenue by offering a decent digital resale option, so it's only a matter of time, otherwise retail (as a result of the resale economy) will just continue to be the most viable option for the majority of the market.

 

[Trup1aya]

I don't think you've really thought this through.

They are making a tonne of profit from only 10-20% of the total marketshare. A proper resale strategy however, would not only enable them to garner a much larger percentage of that market share and thus more profit, but much more revenue with far more purchases, enabled solely by those resale trades.

The resale market essentially promotes far more video game sales than would otherwise be the case, and that is why publishers cannot and will not forever ignore it, especially when they make zero profits from the retail resale market. There are many people like me for example, who would only be purchasing 3-6 games a year instead of the 10-15+ I currently purchase, as a direct correlation to the retail resale market. The fact that I can trade in new games, towards paying for other new games, is the only reason I'm buying so many in the first place. It's the only reason impulse game purchasing is even financially viable, and that will be the exact same situation with digital.

If publishers offer a healthy digital resale alternative, not only will they not be cutting in to their profits, they'll actually be making far more, and increasing revenue in a huge way. Essentially selling far more digital games than they otherwise would have, without such a resale strategy in place. As I said above, the reason Publishers have been slow to adopt any such system, is more to appease retailers than anything else, who still hold the vast majority of marketshare and who they do not want to be aggressively competing with.

This 10% offer from Microsoft to me comes off as them trying to take advantage of the current vacuum with the lowest possible low ball offer imaginable, in the hopes that it sticks, and thus secures far greater profits in the long run, at the expense of the consumer. We can hold out for better, but it's good that the conversation is at least taking place. Publishers stand to make a tremendous amount of extra revenue by offering a decent digital resale option, so it's only a matter of time.

Smh, man.

The whole purpose of switching people to digital is the better margins. If they created a resale system that brough margins in line with physical, then, the benefits that they enjoy from having higher margins goes away.

In other words, getting people to switch from physical to digital, by making digital margins equal physical margins, means that there is no change in profits...

It's simple math really.

 

[Version 3.0]

They's be selling far fewer new copies. And the used copies would have diminishing returns.

There's no reason publishers wouldn't rather have a system where each license is sold at full price, and they get 70% every time.

Overall, consumers would be spending less money to play games, which means publishers would be making less profit.

I discussed the idea of limiting to rebate $ to publishers, and it's an even less attractive proposal, especially for people who buy independently published games.

If what you say were actually true, then no digital storefronts would ever offer sales. Lower prices attract more purchases, and more customers. There's a reason Gamestop has been the #1 new game retailer for so long, and that reason is their trade-in program. You seem to think that you can just force people who use that model to stop, and just pay full price. That's naive. It's a big market, and without effort to serve it on the digital side, it's only going to be lost. Serving it on the digital side is a good idea, though admittedly much trickier. Maybe trade-ins is not the best way; it may be that timely sales would work better. But it's good that it's being explored.

About the publishers: yes, I said it depends on the implementation. Big publishers who release many games would obviously have different preferences than small ones. Maybe the best model wouldn't involve any; the Gamestop model doesn't (which they whined about for years).

 

[Version 3.0]

Smh, man.

The whole purpose of switching people to digital is the better margins. If they created a resale system that brough margins in line with physical, then, the benefits that they enjoy from having higher margins goes away.

In other words, getting people to switch from physical to digital, by making digital margins equal physical margins, means that there is no change in profits...

It's simple math really.

It's not so simple as that. Any good retailer knows that volume can be more important than margin. That's doubly true for a product with no manufacturing, shipping, storage or breakage cost.

 

[Purest 78]

I'm just asking questions about your questions.
I don't see a scenarion where MS loses money, because they are only offering store credit. And most people would have to fork over some of their own cash to purchase anything. MS would see reduced margins, but higher volume.

It's the publishers who would lose money, if they wanted to subsidize better return rates. What's to stop, someone from using the cash they get from an EA game, on a Ubisoft game for example. If rebates were limited to specific publishers, it would make the deal less attractive, as it would take longer people people who patronize multiple publishers buy anything. Also, what about games that are published independatly?

I don't think the 10% is intended to sway people who buy physical for resell purposes over to digital.

it's intended to incentivize people who are sitting on digital games that they don't play, to buy new digital games.

Store Credit = less money made therefore losing profit. Let's say this program started Tomorrow for every X1 owner. Millions of people clear out Digital games They don't play. That's could equal millions of dollars lost in end profits. So I ask what would be the point for MS, what would they gain?

I just don't believe corporations do things to be nice. It's always about the Money/profits.

 

[nib95]

Smh, man.

The whole purpose of switching people to digital is the better margins. If they created a resale system that brough margins in line with physical, then, the benefits that they enjoy from having higher margins goes away.

In other words, getting people to switch from physical to digital, by making digital margins equal physical margins, means that there is no change in profits...

It's simple math really.

It really isn't. I don't know why you can't understand such a simple concept. It's baffling. Why do you think Microsoft would even be offering this 10% back? Not to line your pockets, but in the hopes that you'd spend it on more digital games!

The margins wouldn't be in line with retail if they brought in a resale/trade in option, because the margins on digital sales are by virtue greater. Publishers make greater margins on digital sales than they do retail sales, as there's less revenue lost on tertiary elements like distribution, cost of manufacture, cost of returns etc.

If Publishers adopted the trade in voucher option that I spoke about a few pages ago, all they're doing is offering people a small portion of the money back to go towards the purchase of more digital games, enabling a greater number of purchases than otherwise would have been made.

Basically, without resale or trade in options, many people buy far less games than they otherwise would. It's really as simple as that. Obviously it makes sense that publishers would be willing to give back a portion of their profits on a persons last purchase, if it guarantee's them a full profit on that person's next purchase, a purchase which might not have even taken place were it not for the trade in value on the last. That's why such a system for digital is in the best interests of Publishers. They stand to make far more revenue as a result, instead of currently losing it to the retail used game market.

 

[Mael]

What's wrong with giving consumers a choice over whether or not, they'd like to trade in digital game for 10% if they think they'll never want to play again. Simple math explains why going much higher that 10% isn't economically feasible. And it's unreasonable to expect a corporation to enact a loyalty program that will actually cost the money to operate.

If I went through my licenses right now, which dates back to the 360 era, and culled the games that I will never be interested in playing again, I could easily have enough to by 2 full priced games. I'd do it in a heart beat.

So what you're saying that it's good for people who are already on board the digital train?
I'd argue that a 10% across the board discount is a better plan to increase your store usage than convoluted retrofitting rights that doesn't exist in the 1rst place.

It really isn't. I don't know why you can't understand such a simple concept. It's baffling. Why do you think Microsoft would even be offering this 10% back? Not to line your pockets, but in the hopes that you'd spend it on more digital games!

The margins wouldn't be in line with retail if they brought in a resale/trade in option, because the margins on digital sales are by virtue greater. Publishers make greater margins on digital sales than they do retail sales, as there's less revenue lost on tertiary elements like distribution, cost of manufacture, cost of returns etc.

If Publishers adopted the trade in voucher option that I spoke about a few pages ago, all they're doing is offering people a small portion of the money back to go towards the purchase of more digital games, enabling a greater number of purchases than otherwise would have been made.

Basically, without resale or trade in options, many people buy far less games than they otherwise would. It's really as simple as that. That's why such a system for digital is in the best interests of Publishers. They stand to make far more revenue as a result, instead of currently losing it to the retail used game market.

very good post.

 

[Trup1aya]

So what you're saying that it's good for people who are already on board the digital train?
I'd argue that a 10% across the board discount is a better plan to increase your store usage than convoluted retrofitting rights that doesn't exist in the 1rst place.

And I'd agree with you as a consumer.

But I don't see any reason why a publisher would be supportive of that idea. From where they sit, they are selling you the experience; not the license, not the disk. So they wouldn't want to depreciate the value of their product based on the medium it's distributed on. Infact, they'd rather fully capitolize on the opportunity to operate in an environment that has fewer middle men. They also don't want to forget that brick and mortar retailers play a huge role in advertising, and they wouldn't want to be the first to step on their toes my offering a lower MRSP elsewhere.