Microsoft Digs Bigger Hole Over Used Games

To expand on my earlier post. There was a rumor that MS had essentially gone to retailers dealing with used games with a deal; 'you get to exist, but in return you have to sell used games at retail price minus some epsilon, and you get to keep some other epsilon of that sum, the rest goes back to us.'

Now, on the surface (and I'm sure it's all in the details) this sounds a lot like the Agency model that Apple is now in "deep shit" with the Department of Justice over, in a price-fixing case where the sitting judge just recently stated in a pretrial hearing:

"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that,"

To spell out my speculation; If Microsoft has indeed entered into a similar deal to make retailers their and game publisher's agents, and this happens... it could explain why they're a) not willing to talk specifics at this point and b) No one seems to be on the same page.

I don't buy used games. Never have, and never will.

But when I started my first job at 16, I was still living with my parents (who didn't ask for rent when I was in high school) so I had a lot of disposable income. This was right around the Dreamcast's release, so I ended up with a giant library of games (200+) which included imports, and I also had a lot of accessories for it.

When I wanted to buy an Xbox a few years later, I didn't have the same amount of disposable income/irresponsibility, so I ended up selling the system and games at a significant loss.

I decided I would never let that happen again, so I only ever kept around five games in my possession at any one time, trading them in when I was done. I think the original Halo, Morrowind, and PGR2 may have been the only games that stayed with me for the entire life of the system.

As a side-note, due to this experience, I don't own any physical media now, and choose to rent Blu-rays. (streaming quality doesn't cut it)

So I would always trade in games as soon as I was done with them, as that got me about 2/3 of what I paid back, if it was within the first week or two of release. If I put that on a gift card rather than take out cash, I was able to keep the full amount indefinitely - though I would always buy something else long before it expired.

As a result of being able to do this, I ended up buying and playing significantly more games than I ever did, and I was far more willing to take a risk on games I was unsure about. That game only scored 6/10 but I really like the look of it? Well I can always trade it in next week.

So my ability to trade in games seems like it worked out in favor of developers.

If I did not have that option, and had to pay full price for games, I wouldn't be taking any risks at all, and would probably only buy four or five games a year, rather than the 50+ I was buying.

∙

I don't really care about multiplayer or DLC expansions any more, so the introduction of the online pass was no incentive for me. I actually just stopped entering the codes, so that the person that bought my copy used would have one if they wanted it.

Frankly, I felt that with the online pass being priced at $10 and being included with the disc meant that I was being overcharged by $10 every time I bought a game and didn't use the code - so it discouraged me from buying any games which included one.

∙

I used to care about multiplayer when I had a group of friends that would regularly go on once or twice a week at a scheduled time - a couple of hours of PGR2 every Sunday night after Top Gear for two years straight was amazing… (a few of us even broke the in-game clock, we had played it so much)

But with the 360, there was never really a multiplayer that grabbed us all in the same way - the netcode in PGR3 was disastrous, with random collisions/spin-outs all the time, when we mostly tried to avoid "dirty" racing tactics - so trying to play that online was just an exercise in frustration.

We had been playing weekly games of PGR2 online ever since it was released, up to the release of the 360, and overnight it just killed the fun of multiplayer for us.

We would keep picking up new games to try, but only a couple of us would ever get into any one game, so it never stuck. The other games we played a lot of on the original Xbox were Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, and the 360 versions of those were the final nails in the coffin.

After those, one or two people in the group decided that they didn't want to continue paying for Gold, which meant that we would lose someone either the first time their yearly renewal came up, or the second time around, and I haven't played multiplayer since then.

Even if there was another game as good as PGR2 was (PGR6 or not) many of us now have families and don't have the opportunity to play regularly scheduled games together these days, and we've lost contact with a few from the group.

∙

As for why I don't care about DLC content, my position is that if it was good enough to be worth playing, it would be a part of the main game, or sold as stand-alone content.

While some content was interesting, such as the Shivering Isles expansion for Oblivion, the majority is not worth buying.

∙

So if Microsoft is set on killing the used game market, and continuing to sell games at full price, I think they have a disaster on their hands. I for one, will not be purchasing any console that does this, as it will significantly reduce the number of games that I purchase, and make me wary of taking a $60 risk. (actually, games are closer to $90 here)

If they want to kill the used market and move to Steam-like pricing, where I can get codes for games at 2/3 off within a few weeks of release (equivalent to what I would get for trading them in) and there are frequent discounts & 75%-off sales, then I don't think it will be an issue, and may end up working out for them in the long run.

But I really doubt Microsoft are going to be the ones to do that. They want control, and they want you to be paying $60 for your games.

I get Patrick, because it's his job and all, and I get industry fascination...

At this point, people are getting worked up and invested though in PR and the machinations of a billion dollar company.

WAIT AND SEE. I don't get this flailing. The reactions to the Xbox One conference have been so puzzling, I feel like I am, to use the tired joke, taking crazy pills.

Sessler and Gies are saying on twitter right now that the thing isn't anything anti consumer, it's basically the PC system with more freedom as the disc can be re used, it's just tied to an account. Then probably (my assumption) when it is sold used the publishers get their cut. This is a way better, healthier system for the industry.

@baltimore: The "fee" being something between a used game store and Microsoft I think makes a lot of sense. Publishers and developers should get paid for their games. Anything to stop companies from closing or not taking risks is a good thing.

If SONY does it too... I don't know if I will get ANY new console. I DO like the features that has been so far for the PS4, and totally hated everything about the EX-BOX.

May be time to ignore this whole farse... forget about consoles and go for PC.

@artisanbreads: Go back and compare it to the reaction Sony got for their nothing of a conference too. It is hilarious how much shit MS is getting here for actually showing something.

Hell the only thing of merit at the PS4 event was Watch_Dogs and I'm certainly not getting that on a console.

00's post is a rare glimpse at the other half of the used games symbiosis, for me.

I never trade in. I love to collect and replay games. And I collect both new and used, since sometimes I want to stick to a tight budget or try a game that's outside my usual taste without spending a lot, and other times I want to be playing games that are in the zeitgeist as soon as they're available.

Both of us are enabled to buy more new games than we otherwise would, because of each other. The used game market cannot exist without both types of person. And yet there are a lot of people out there who act like used games are as bad as piracy.

I really hope Sony is able to get their shit together and bury MS on this

Not surprised.

@thatlad: If you want to build a gaming rig right now that can handel just about anything you're looking at around $1,000. Now that price can fluctuate depending on prices of components and what you throw into it. Then again, how much would you save yourself over the course of this generation with Steam sales.

I haven't bought used games for modern-day active consoles (PS3, Wii, 360) and I oppose this with the prices I've heard for re-activations, likely going to cost more than buying the game new within its first month. Naturally it remains to be seen if it's optional for publishers to run with or not and what they decide to do..

This lets developers kill rentals, something which has been dead in Europe (except a few countries, Belgium?) and also kill GameStop's criminal business. Ya'll some lucky motherfuckers to have rentals going on, frankly. Would be nice to see something returned to the gamers for the money being made outta this.

Sorry to cut against the grain, bros, but I have to side with Microsoft on this. I felt like the media (and the public by extension) is overreaching when it has been made clear that the policy decisions haven't been finalized regarding used/traded games.

The media dug this hole, Microsoft is not in it, and yet we're all pissing into it with reckless abandon. It's funny to me because in 6 months, we'll bury the hole and go buy our new video games as if it was never a problem.

I also happen to think that no one influences these decisions more than the developers themselves. The people making games wants this. At least, their management does.

I have to agree. Sony's was fine too, but to by comparison think it was amazing and this was the worst thing ever? People like Killzone that much?

The thing is Sony provided zero, ZERO, clarity about used games. They could have the exact same, or a worse, system for all we know.

Whatever happens, you think Microsoft would have a super restricting system and Sony wouldn't? You think they aren't on the same page, or at least on a very similar one, in regards to used games? People at Microsoft, and Sony, are not idiots.

People just have no patience and love to get outraged I guess? That's all I've gotten out of this Xbox conference. Frankly the comments have been embarrassing to read. I lurk NeoGAF at work and I haven't been able to bring myself to for the last couple days because it's literally embarrassing for me to read, I can't take it.

You should cut against the grain all day on this. People are losing their shit and I can't wait until we find out Sony has the same system as Microsoft, whatever that specifically is. Going to be hilarious. Although people will probably act like nothing happened because they have the attention spans of flies and I will never get my satisfaction.

But I'll be able to laugh with myself at them.

BURN

But yeah, what the fuck Microsoft?

I understand that this is the future of gaming, I have no problem with that at all. The whole model clearly works, the convenience and service is well regarded.

My reason for being against Sony & Microsoft lies in their reputations and my own experiences of their offerings. Simply put they've been ripping us off for years, go on the stores now and look at the prices of the games. It's cheaper to buy physical copy in most cases as MS/Sony charge full price despite their margins being wholly different. They are saving money on logisitics & costs, they also cut out the middle man so gain more profit there.

The difference with Valve being they are an open market, capitalism runs free with developers able to compete on prices and most parties do well out of it. Valve also have a reputation for not being pricks.

I might be drunk but I am going to miss your reporting Partrick, I am worried that this site will lose something with you moving away. I love the Giantbomb crew and have since the old days but they truely are losing someone special with you. Good luck sir.

Okay I can see that. This is completely optimistic, but if there is no longer a difference between a digital or physical license of a game once it's registered to my account, and it's still cheaper to buy a game off of Amazon and register it than from the digital store, I'll do that. I think I bought most of my Steam games from Amazon last year and not from Steam itself for this reason. Even better if Amazon can sell digital keys for console games and not have to wait on shipping. Hopefully they'd match the price in the official store to remain competitive and relevant. And yes, they have a lot to prove in that regard.

Short and on point, with a twist of poison. I like it!

@baltimore: It depends how many games you buy, I have probably bought at least 100+ games for my PS3. Now I imagine if this whole system comes in play for PS4/XBONE then they'll try to keep prices high, if not higher than ever before. Say it's £50, I only have to save £7 over 60 games to make a gaming PC an interesting proposition.

Bear in mind though, I was only saying I'd have to sit down and seriously consider the math.

you got that right

I'm still trying to figure out why the talking head for the company is named "Major Nelson". I mean, seriously. He seems to be the spokesperson for your Xbox division, Microsoft. Let him use his adult name.

Change is coming with used games. If they're going to make the first play, I would love to see them just come out and say it. If there is room for change say that too but say it like you believe it. I'm genuinely interested to hear the details when they finally come out.

Microsoft is probably just trying to hold off as long as possible before the console launch so that people not paying attention will get suckered into paying four hundred bucks for a console that won't let you play used games without a fee. I don't blame them; they too seem to know that if this were common knowledge, they might as well back out of the next generation now.

The point is that Sony said one thing and that was they were not talking about it yet, but assured used games will work on their system. MS had multiple people say multiple things which they have tried to clarify is wrong, but the question remains. People are poking and prodding more because MS opened themselves up a little to that question. Like said in the article, MS finds itself backpedaling.

Yes, a little more patience would be good. But again, it was MS opening themselves up to the question by giving answers in a non-unified manner. Now they will be under more scrutiny, because of what a couple of MS employees said and people are latching onto any information they can get.

Also the point of the Sony conference was not the games itself, but technical stuff that games could do on the PS4 that would lure in developers to develop for them. Showing a developer like Jonathan Blow, who was very outspoken against MS, at the conference shows that Sony is very interested in smaller developers whereas there have been rumors that MS is ignoring the indie teams. PS4 conference aimed at developers to regain support and be mostly about the gaming audience. XBOne conference aimed at a broader audience.

I bet next time i need a background check to get a game, right?

Right now my 360 is my gaming console and my PS3 is my blu-ray movie player.

Because of this per-owned game mess and the Xbox One's built in spy device this time next year I'll still be using my PS3 to watch movies but I'll be playing games on my PS4.

@finstern: Sony came out right after their reveal and said they had no plans to restrict used games.

I imagine being the community guy for a company is among the worst jobs in the industry, at least in moments like these. I'm aware of a few people such as Hryb, and usually their have an easy gig - just relay the company's message. However, when the message is nonexistent, they're basically being thrown under the bus. Being the scapegoat of a sort is pretty insulting. If you have nothing to say, don't say it. Whenever PR releases statements along the lines of, "X is important to us," it's pretty obvious it's not important enough to clarify.

Pour one out for the not-yet-dead Hryb.

Patience would be good... end of it for me. I don't feel the need to prod Microsoft and especially while championing Sony (who again, didn't clarify their used game stance at all and probably has the exact same system).

Yes, Microsoft didn't handle this well in contradicting itself... but that's it. Unless you are fascinated by PR I don't see what the point of any of this outrage is. Both systems come out on the same day. By the release, I will know what features both have, and I will make my choice from there. That's it. The rest of this is just odd.

Having actually gone to the blog and read the post, it's almost humorous:

"Our clarification is that you're all wrong. Thank you for your time."

For people that say - stop whining about used game policies because they are not set yet; it is important that the console makers and game publishers know what stance that gamers are taking before the policies are set in stone. If we don't make our opinions heard now, it would be too late to change the policies later.

At least now they can implement policies that will be beneficial for gamers, publishers, developers, and even console makers.

They'll support the 360 for at least 5 more years, same with Sony. Sony supported the PS2 for a very long time and MS will have to do as much since they both know that there are people like you who invested a whole lot into their console. They'll keep releasing newer and cheaper versions of their consoles, because the 360 sales and PS3 sales are still somewhat strong for being this late in the cycle. Eventually they'll stop, but not any time soon.

The loss of backwards compatibility does indeed suck and is unfortunate.

There's no way Microsoft would take a leap like this without Sony also doing something similar. It would hurt them so much to be the only ones doing this.

@viking_funeral:

I don't think you're giving Microsoft enough credit here. They don't just copy they're competitors' features and policies.

Look at the paid subscription for online play. Look at achievements. Sony didn't have either of those but that didn't stop Microsoft using them.

I don't think Microsoft cares what Sony's policy on per-owned games are. They believe they are in the right and they'll do what they want. Simple as that.

@baltimore: Not much personally, because I rent games currently for $3.50 over 5 days. This probably won't last with possibly no used games for either of the new consoles though :(

I'm glad Patrick is doing his best to bring the loss of consumer rights to the forefront both here and on Twitter, but it's going to be an impossible to win battle...MS (and likely Sony) will just force it through whether anyone likes it or not, and only another company stepping up to challenge them will change it (and that's about as long a shot as you can get). Compounding the problem is some of the guys in the journalism sector (even ones I'd normally have some respect for, like McElroy) actually seem to be more than fine with how things are presented as they are right now.

MS needs to have an absolutely incredible E3 for me to be even mildly interested in the console, and if the last few years of E3 have been any indication, they won't. I know the last few years have been running on fumes thanks to a Kinect focus and the ending of a console cycle, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that Microsoft has just flat out lost touch with what their most dedicated supporters (ie people buying the console in the first 12 months) actually want.

@finstern: that's very possible. there's an article from engadget where some industry insiders said that places that will take xb1 trades would have to connect to a microsoft service to remove any record of the games being registered to a previous console and when the store sells the used copy, ms and the publisher get a cut. whether or not users who pick up a used game have to pay a fee as well is still up in the air.

on the other hand, sony has flat out said it's a publisher call, which i find FAR more dangerous than one company laying a flat fee across the board. granted this could create competition among the publishers to see who can charge the least amount for used games, but i'm skeptical about either outcome really being GOOD for consumers.

either way, everyone knows if you want to support game developers, buy the game new. since the dawn of steam, there's no such thing as a used pc game, everything is digital and it works well.

yeah, it's cowardly of them to try to shove the blame off on the media for Microsoft's poor and incomplete message.

Patrick, I'm very interested in whatever you turn up on the "digital license transfer on death" research. My reading of various EULAs seems to indicate digital licenses are strictly single-user only. There is no mechanism or legal avenue to transfer the license to another person under any circumstance.

Frankly the who digital revolution seems like a power/cash grab by publishers. It would be good to seem some sanity return to the deal. What happened to the Right of First Sale? EULAs shouldn't be able to circumvent that without giving up something in exchange - that is how contracts are supposed to work. Meeting of the minds and both parties agreeing to terms.

Here's the thing...if it's going to be like steam, then I have no problem with it. There's no such thing as used pc games, and nobody complains about it there. The difference is the frequency and volume of deals on steam that I don't think Microsoft is at all interested in adopting. The would of employed it already on 360 if they were interested in it.

People rent/buy used console games to save money. PC gamers buy steam sales to save money. If Microsoft wants to play Valve's game, then they have to go all the way with it. Otherwise they can't compete for my money.

All of this really makes me wonder what Sony has up their sleeve. A lot of us have been praising Sony's approach to next gen, but I wouldn't be so hasty until we learn more details.

@jsnyder82: because he is a caricature, and not a real human being, and shouldn't be considered as such.

@nightriff: What the hell do you THINK?!?!?

The only digging I'm seeing is all these reports touting cynical speculation and paranoid concerns as hard facts when Microsoft hasn't actually said much of anything.

That is, aside from stepping in to try and squash all the rampant bullshit spreading like wildfire thanks to this bandwagon anxious to fill in any and every gap with the worst possible scenario.

I mean, Christ. Give them a little credit and back off until they actually fill in those gaps themselves. They're obviously not out to lose money and piss off everyone.

This is why companies like Sony, Blizzard, Valve, Apple, etc. don't say shit until every detail is hammered out. Of course by then you usually just have to deal with their decisions, like them or not.

Honestly, Playstation already does something similar to Microsoft on an optional basis. If you're a PS+ member you get all these free games, but only get to keep playing them while you're a PS+ member. That requires some DRM and tracking of your account and games to enforce. People don't complain because PS+ is a pretty great deal, just like Steam.

I wouldn't be surprised if they push that further for digital games - digital purchases are cheaper or subscription based, you can link them to your account, have quick access, reinstall at will, maybe even play off the cloud later on. All the benefits of Steam. But for discs things stay as they were. That seems like the best way to move forward in terms of having a Steam-like digital library for people who want it without leaving behind the people who don't want the associated DRM or who buy used.

Nice link, thanks for posting it. That is pretty draconian stuff IMO, and I think the consumer reaction will just get worse as more information on how the system will work gets released.

Personally I've been relatively PC-focused this generation; not having time to keep up with the latest releases means that I'm not bothered by waiting for Steam sales etc. [I do have a Wii and I'm probably one of the few that still plays it, and occasional access to roommates' PS3 / X360 has meant I don't feel like I missed anything major]. This system sounds very similar to Steamworks (if you buy a Steamworks game at retail and link it to your account, you can't transfer it to someone else even though you bought a physical disc). So far I think most people are OK with that deal because 1) there aren't a huge number of popular, retail Steamworks games (that number is growing though) and 2) by the time people are looking to pick up a used copy, chances are that Steam is offering or has offered a significantly reduced price. It is definitely my second least favourite part of Steam though (the first being that I can't play two different games on two different machines at the same time).

Bringing the same model to console games sounds crazy to me. It will definitely be disruptive to the status quo considering how big the used game / trade-in market currently is (IIRC Gamestop basically owes their existence to it). Not to mention the spectre of potentially losing the ability to play your games because of a computer error / hackers / evil game store employee / overzealous XBox Live mod.

Sony has no need to advertise anymore, they can just let Microsoft do it for them

@artraider said:

This is the best summary I've seen of what they presented at their conference. Their best use case for the multitasking is not wanting to wait the <2 minutes it takes to find a game.

I would've liked to hear more about the gameplay sharing stuff, but apparently I blinked and missed it. Maybe he wanted to show us how to change channels again.

@tenaciousdave: yeah,I was thinking the same thing. Pretty sure they say the reaction and got pretty nervous about their plans changes.

@fmr1977: major nelson is a corporate stooge, and you feel sorry for him for being told what to say? that's his fukin job. i just wish he wasn't so transparent and annoying to listen to.