Op-Ed: The Xbox One will kill used games and control second-hand sales, and that’s great news (Really!)

Ben Kuchera of the PA Report states

Microsoft stepped in a load of dog shit when news of fees to play used games and account-based permissions began to hit the press, and the lack of a cohesive message in this area has hurt the public’s perception of the upcoming Xbox One. The idea of the used game, at least as we understand it, may be coming to a close.

The surprising thing? That could be great news.

Link to post.

If the tech works out the way Ben imagines, it would be a game changer literally. I agree with Ben that the price of games won't necessarily change, but outlets like Gamestop would have to find other ways to do business. Who is going to pay for a disc and then turn around and pay a second time to play it?

"we can't make money off used games? Guess we gotta pressure publishers to make pre-order bonuses an even bigger deal and charge more for pre-ordering"

Ugh. You'r right and I hate it so much that you'r right. But we all know that GameStop is going to go out of business sooner or later. Hopefully they won't fuck us too hard while going down.

Couldn't disagree more. This also feels like a 'up dem page views!!!' article.

It's great news that I won't be able to loan a game to a friend, just as I can loan them a book or a movie?

[edit] I only posted this once, and it took a long time to post and then apparently posted twice, with another post in between no less.

This is such a great perspective, because we all know that the only people who ever make money off selling used games is GameStop. It's not like there's millions of other ways I can sell my games that I no longer want for whatever reason I so choose that I can go to and get way more money (Amazon, Best Buy, mom and pop stores, selling it myself on eBay or myriad other places, game trading services like Goozex) and that this isn't problematic because it ultimately takes away my right to the thing I paid money for and being able to do whatever I want with it. Thanks Ben, you're really thinking for the little guy here.

It amazes me how many people who literally write about games for a living are so much more ignorant about how these things work than consumers are. As iAmJohn said people who trade in games then use that money to buy *gasp* more video games! All this is going to do is make games sell less, not more.

Edit: Also Ben Kuchera is an asshole and nobody should support him. Don't read his news stories.

Sounds like Kuchera is being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Consumers having less control over the products they buy is not a good thing and no amount of corporate spin is going to change that.

Seriously, imagine this scenario, but used for cars. Say you buy a new car for $15,000 and use it for 10 years. At the end of that period you decide to sell this older, less fancy product for $4,000. Now imagine this scenario coupled with the world Microsoft and the mega publishers want us to live in. You sell the car and the next owner goes to turn the key only to have a message pop up on the dash saying that they need to send a check to Toyota/Ford/GM/whatever in order to use it.

Would people stand for that? No, of course not. Because it is crazy.

@iamjohn: You never had the right to the thing, only a license to it. That's what separates digital goods from physical ones like books.

Other sites are speculating that you may be able to transfer the license to friend so that you could lend your games. This would likely mean that you would lose the ability to play the game while your friend plays.

Edit: The used car argument does not hold because it is a physical good. Games are delivered on discs or cartridges, but the actual game is not a physical good.

I don't think this is going to go how they imagine it's going to go.

@supergg2k: At the end of the day there shouldn't be much of a difference. There only is because consumers allow themselves to be rolled. And the backlash we are seeing now seems to indicate to me that maybe people are tired of giving up control over the things they buy.

@jimbo:

Yep.

According to Phil Harrison that is still possible, but there is obviously a lot of information they are going to have to properly clarify in the near future.

The new Kinect will detect how many people are watching a movie, and ask if you to buy more user-licenses if it is too many.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

Microsoft has filed for a Kinect-related patent, and it’s a doozy of an application. The abstract describes a camera-based system that would monitor the number of viewers in a room and check to see if the number of occupants exceeded a certain threshold set by the content provider.

The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.

For people playing catchup:

Kinect 2.0 comes with all next-gen Xboxs

must be connected for the console to even to even boot

Always listening, even when the console is powered down

MS Finance director told stockholders it could be used to listen to conversations or detect products in a room, and then automatically tailor ads to that individual

Track IR to see in the dark, and see through thin objects

Is able to detect if it is covered up or obstructed

Always on

Always listening

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

I just read that 70% of Gamestop's business is new hardware and games. How much profit they make off each new game is a mystery though.

I think they knew it'd be like this at first. I would bet that they're predicting that over a year or two people will just put up with it and then stop complaining about it all together. Kind of like horse armor and $60 games caused an uproar.

That's bullshit. If you sell me a game that I download over the internet, that's fine. It can be forever tied to my account, and that account might be the only thing I'd be able to sell to ever see any money from those purchases again.

If I own a physical disc, that plastic is mine, along with all the data that comes with it. And I don't give a fuck if massive game companies don't agree with that, or tell me that I'm only buying a "license," or manipulate traditional property law until it suits their needs.

And fuck Ben Kuchera for going along with this shit, and for suggesting that taking away consumer rights is good thing. I will now avoid his corner of PA, just like I avoid Kotaku and any other site that promotes shitty journalism.

Don't ever change, Ben Kuchera. You spectacular idiot.

The one thing I don't think a lot of people are considering is that it's pretty likely that Sony is going to eventually reveal a similar system for handling used games. I just can't believe that this is something MS thought up on their own. The Xbox One's DRM schemes have to at least partially be a result of publisher pressure, and I have to think that Sony probably had the same heat applied to them. Also, if you look at the steady trend on the PC towards things like Steam and away from traditional brick and mortar retail and physical releases, I don't think the direction Microsoft is going in really seems all that crazy.

Assuming the play field is leveled by Sony having a similar approach to used games, I can really see myself agreeing with Kuchera's assessment of the possible benefits.

It's weird to me that Ben Kuchera seems to be choosing to speak "truth" to consumers rather than speaking truth to power.

Edited to add scare quotes.

Yeah, I'm afraid Sony is gonna sheepishly admit to all the same bullshit that microsoft is doing at E3. Currently Sony appears to be the more consumer friendly and pro-gamer company, but that could be just them with-holding information and letting microsoft take the initial wave of hate

But you're absolutely right, i would not be surprised at all if Sony is doing the exact same thing and we just haven't heard about it yet. However if they DON'T then the PS4 is the clear choice from a consumer and gamer perspective. But I'm waiting till E3. All these kneejerk reactions don't help anyone.

The clear benefit to buying a console over a PC is almost completely destroyed at this point. I can't imagine anyone with a clear mind being happy with this outcome.

I failed to see the part about it being good news? If you don't like gamestop don't shop at gamestop, you don't need bullshit restrictions from console manufacturers to make you do that.

Well, I remember hearing that it is less than $5. I am going to say it's around $3, but I am not completely sure. Obviously, they make full profit when selling a used item. There's also the game guarantee they sell now, that's around $3. So, if they sell a guarantee with each new game they get around $6.

The "good news" was that this is going to mean more money for developers and publishers, who will then use that money to innovate. As we all know, when you ostracize a large percentage of your market by pricing the product out of their reach and eliminating low-cost options this obviously leads to more sales and more profit. And of course publishers are just champing at the bit to be innovative, they love trying new things. This is really good for you guys, you guys.

Sony does not have to follow suit. There are two outcomes here. First, they do, and piss even more people off and hardware sales decline for both systems, this starts accelerated end of console gaming with more people moving to PC. Overall game sales will decline even further than the hardware sales. At least in the first few years. Which make all parties involve rethink the situation.

Or they do not. Yeah publishers are more than likely wanting it. But they can not just put their games on one console. Sales wont support it. Especially if more units of the other hardware are selling because of it. They will lose sales, giving their games a harder time to break even or turn a profit. This is really a give and take situation. You have to publish your games to the large install base, plain and simple. So if Sony says we wont do it, you can either put your games on our system, or have a huge sales hit. What do you think most publishers will eventually end up doing? You got it, both systems. Yes some consumers will still buy the xbone, but sales wont be what they used to be, and any publisher that tries to hold back on ps4 will eventually have to switch back.

I think Sony coming out at E3 and boldly saying we are not doing what they are doing will be a huge step forward in them taking back the market they gained with the PS1/2.

However, as others have said, the thing that has me concerned about them not doing that, is the EA online pass thing.

People will put up with it, but it's more in the long term I think they'll suffer for it. Eventually they will kill game retail with this, and I think gaming loses a lot of its lustre and perceived worth if it becomes this thing which exists only in a virtual market. There's something about buying a physical product that you own and can sell if you want to (even if you have no intention of doing so) which gives it a greater feeling of worth. It's a social event when a big game is released in stores across the country; it's exciting and makes people from a wider audience take notice.

iOS and Steam have proven that games can be successful in this license format, but typically by reducing games to these throw-away things which are sold for next to nothing. Only a handful of the very biggest brand games manage to escape this race to the bottom. I don't think current console game pricing holds up at all once it shifts to a primarily digital market, and that shift is inevitable once they are done killing retail.

You mean because I used to sell two used games to give me enough money to buy a new $60 game, I was hurting that companies sales? And now that I can not sell my used games, I will be forced to play them longer and not buy as many new games, I will be helping their bottom line, by spending even less money than before? I guess this really is a win win for everyone huh.

Well you selling two games means two people will buy the used versions of that game instead of buying it new. So sure they'll get YOUR money, but they're losing out on two other sales because of that.

I want to say that since the advent of the modern EULA, the idea that you completely owned the rights to the content was a weird happenstance of certain commerce law and apathy on the part of both consumers and distributors to enforce the EULA. But if I remember correctly, games for decades have always been licenses on the physical disc that technically have your rights signed away as soon as you purchase them at the counter.

The so called consumer rights people are championing are all in place for no other reason than to supply a low-cost market alternative. The principle means nothing if it has no appreciable benefit to the economy and its consumers. The issue here is that we have no idea what will happen. Will the pricing situation be elastic enough to adapt to the downgrade in used game use? Will people just find new ways to exploit the system? A bit of both? Hard to say. That's why I'm more inclined to wait and see.

Also, I don't see how complaining on message boards is supposed to affect commerce law directly because last time I checked, these arguments rarely turn the tide in such massive force that people in large enough number to matter affect some change in the law. Moral entrepreneurship takes a lot of work and a dedicated organization structure. If you guys really feel passionate about this subject, then focus your efforts on associating or helping out the ECA do its thing.

I think it is interesting that in Europe they seem to have protected consumer rights on this when it comes to software and licenses.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228762/EU_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online

But we some how struggle with this concept here in the States. I feel the decision (so far) from Microsoft is very anti consumer and hope they change it.

Exactly. The fewer games that you can afford to buy, the more games you will buy. That's just simple videogame industry math.

@rebgav:

Yeah, because we all know that the record sales numbers of COD 4 lead to innovation in subsequent iterations. You guys.

(I know you were kidding by the way).

@clonedzero: Personally not sure if the sale of two used games always equate to two new game sales. In some of these cases the purchase of used games is due to price or sales of used content from stores. Personally I take advantage of the buy 2 get one free from GameStop or BestBuy on occasion to pick up old games that I wasn't willing to buy new at its current price.

Should be able to have friends or similar loan your digital games. There could be like a time restriction, like say on PSN you 'give away' your game license to your aunt for 30 minutes. After the 30 minutes expire, the license returns to you and your cool aunt can make a decision to buy or not. It's not optimal but it's something.

Also potentially use the part Sony talked about where a friend can jump in and play sections of a game for you - this also sounds like a nice way to solve the whole borrowing of games concept. Like "Wow, Aunt Zelda, you have to try this part of the game. You'd be ever so impressed!" if you know that the intro of the game would normally make her not want to play it. Just stream that part of the game to her and she'll be all like "Damn nephew, this shit is sweet! I will purchase this!" and everyone's happy.

Why is it that Gamestop is always the go-to place for everything ant-used games? Doesn't everyone understand that it's not just Microsoft selling used games? There's other places, like Craigslist, Amazon, and eBay.

And why are we treating everyone selling their stuff second-hand like they're pirates?

@clonedzero: Maybe if we make Ranger Mode a pre-order bonus...

You are deluding yourself, there is nothing great about that.

You aren't thinking outside the box. The popularity of Call of Duty 4 caused all publishers to innovate by taking games which were not Call of Duty and making them just like Call of Duty... but with a twist! And it's that sort of creative force which is being held back every time someone trades in a copy of Call of Duty to buy the new Call of Duty. And if anyone can walk into a store and buy a second-hand Call of Duty then how is a publisher supposed to make a profit on their off-brand Call of Duty? If this carries on the Call of Duty industry will be unsustainable. Call of Duty.

@rebgav:

Ohhhhhhhhh, ok, I gotcha.

In my travels today I found another blog post from dubious quality which sums up what a lot of people on this thread feel.

Link to post

Let's look at how this will probably work, in spite of all of Microsoft's bullshit denials.

There will be a "fee". You can call it a licensing charge, or an activation fee, or whatever perfume you want to put on the pig, but we no longer own what we buy. Or we own it, but we have no right to resell it, because all the purchaser is getting for their money is an inert piece of plastic that must be activated with a third party to be playable.

The most flexible way for Microsoft to do this is to set a floor and a ceiling for the fee, then let publishers charge what they want inside those parameters. Microsoft collects the money when the game is "activated", and everybody (but us) gets their cut. Plus, Microsoft can always claim it's at the "discretion of the publisher"

Credit Bill Harris, Dubious Quality

I've read several Phil Harrison interviews in the past few days, and I've seen him suggest nothing of the sort. Any chance you or anyone else has a link?

Holy crap, you aren't kidding: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=564253

I think Ben Kuchera's tone is too optimistic, but he's right about how these policies could wind up benefiting both the industry and the majority of consumers. If we get Steam-like pricing plus the ability to trade in our "used" games in a Microsoft-run ecosystem, that would be a positive development, in my opinion. However, I think much of people's skepticism is warranted. If we end up with Games on Demand-style pricing on Microsoft's online store, with four-year-old games being sold for $40 with little to no hope of a decent discount, then this will be a nightmare. With no significant piracy threat, Microsoft and game publishers may very well feel that there's no pressure to aggressively price games like Steam, as they've never seemed to consider Steam a credible competitor. If they continue to address all the hysteria surrounding these policies at E3, I'll take that as a good sign. If they keep mum about it, then I'll be worried.

This is the interview I was referring too, it's still very vague, but it makes it seem like less of a big deal than we have been lead to believe it will be!

And where in that interview did he even suggest that Microsoft would allow customers to loan games to their friends? Because he said it will be "user friendly?" Is there an actual part in the interview that you can quote for me?

Harrison: Once you put the disc into your machine, you never need it again. If you want to keep it, that’s great. You can do that. But you can also download the game. You don’t actually have to have a physical disc after that point, but you can then share that disc with your friends which is basically a great way of distributing the content to other people.

That just means that once you buy a copy, you can give the disc to a friend so they can buy their own copy without downloading. There is no way on EARTH that MS will allow people to install games that they didn't buy. That's not loaning a game. It's making an absolute joke of property rights.

I dunno, this is basically how every game with an online pass already works and those didn't exactly to bring used sales to a halt. Sure it pissed a lot of people off but buying a used game + online pass will still be cheaper than buying the game new at full price. Also since used games are sold with a huge margin for profits, if people stop buying used games, retailers will just drop their prices in order to attract customers.

@spaceinsomniac:

"Wired: What’s going on with used games? What about borrowed games? There’s a lot of speculation today. Can you clear some of that up? For example, we have multiple Xboxes in my house and trade games all the time. If we have multiple Xbox One consoles, can we still do that?

Harrison: Absolutely, just like you can today. You take the disc, install “the bits” on every machine you have in your house from the same disc, and anybody in your household can play that game. You have exactly the same restrictions that you have today, as in only one of you can play that game at a time because you only have one disc. But anybody in that house… well, the Xbox Live account… it goes for both the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One, and any user inside that house."

Uhhhh, this is the part. I'm reading it as you can install it all you want, but the game can only be played from one location (machine) at a time.

I'm posting this in every single one of these ridiculous used game threads, just so I can go back and laugh when the details of this are revealed.

Short version: Nothing's changing from the way it works on 360. NOTHING. They had to add an online key now that you have the ability to play games from the HDD without a disc, but it literally won't change a damn thing about trade ins, swaps among friends or resales.

Long version: Each game comes with a key printed on the disc or the manual. Game installs to hard drive and goes online, registering the key to your console and Live ID. You play it without the disc in the drive as much as you want, thanks to a once per day online check of the key (or maybe even none if you're playing it on the same console you initially registered it to).

Then comes a day when you're sick of the game and want to trade it in at GameStop or to a friend. You go the game library on your Xbox and bring up the "game info" screen (Y button), and right below "uninstall game" is an option that says "release license". You press it and read the boilerplate warning ("This game may not be played again without authenticating the key online!"), press OK, and drive off to Gamestop or your buddy's house. The server side client now knows this game is going to a new home, and its next owner can register the same exact key, install the game and play it without paying a fee because it's now unplayable from your HDD.

I'll bet 5 space bucks this is exactly how Xbox One will work, and will laugh hysterically over all this freaking out and hysteria when I'm proven right. Literally all they're doing is replacing the current sharing protection (requiring the DVD in the tray) with a code that only one person can own at a time, the bonus being you can change from game to game without dropping back to the dashboard and switching discs.

Why in this country are we so hell bent on sucking the dicks of corporations at every turn? Did we suddenly forget that we should fight for our individual rights? Why do corporations deserve more rights to screw me out of my money? They make enough profit without aggressive anti-consumer measures. I'm sick and tired of seeing people defend these decisions. Ben Kuchera is a total asshat and a poor excuse for a game journalist. Shame on him for trying to get consumers to bend over and take it up the ass from game companies!