Microsoft Digs Bigger Hole Over Used Games

People are confused because they think Microsoft is trying to please consumers. Guess what?? They're not

@sagalla: I find it hard believe a business is actively trying to harm its user base.

@scroll: You should try doing some research into the pharmaceutical industry

It sounds like MS is approaching this with "preferred" used game partners (Gamestop, Best Buy, etc.) and when you trade a game in, it will be deactivated from your account via some use of the Microsoft Azure architecture (this is what will run the used games database). Then Gamestop or whoever can sell the game for whatever they want, no further activation needed since the presence of this game "in the cloud" will be wiped from the original owner's console.

What it will do is prevent lending. If a friend borrows my copy, "the cloud" will see that this copy is installed on my system and he will be offered the opportunity to "buy" the game for the full price, however he will have a digital asset and then be unable to further trade his game.

Wow. . . . so much Microsoft hate in here.

I love these messages. I am not an advocate for a transition to completely digital game downloads. I don’t like storing a bunch of discs either, but they are FAR superior to owning “nothing.”

Lots of people (including some Giant Bomb staff) have been complaining (for how long now?) that Microsoft and Sony need to just transition to a completely digital marketplace, and then when they appear to be making steps to do so – these same people start complaining about the major flaw with that system of transaction.

Namely: you can’t really re-sell “digital nothing.”

Guess what?!?

That is the nature of the beast !!

This is what you guys have been advocating for and now you have it.

Good job. It seems pretty ridiculous for all of you to complain about this. This is what you wanted in the first place and MS/Sony literally has NO REASON to allow ANYONE to re-sell ANYTHING on their marketplace.

So tough . . . guess what people, businesses like to make money.

@grandizer: I would disagree - you can resell digital assets, they just need to setup a system to do it - however, it means cutting out the Gamestop's of the world. The systems would be very simple - I download a digital asset that is tied to my console/account. When I no longer want it, create an online marketplace where I can sell it to whoever wants to buy it at the price I set - could be $10, could be $50. Once the game sells, the publisher gets a cut. The problem is that this creates a virtual currency and eventually most transactions would be made with the virtual currency garnered from previous sales and that virtual currency has no real value to publishers.

@drneffy:

"Nothing is impossible for those who do not have to do it."

For example: "Just make an online marketplace for used digital content."

There is literally NO REASON for MS or Sony to do any such thing. In fact, they make MORE money by not allowing such a thing. So, maybe they will just to placate all of us. . . but from a finacial standpoint there is no reason for them to commit manpower, time, and money to do ing so.

Want to know the honest truth? The GB staff is out of touch with the normal people that play games. Their friends and colleagues are probably all for digital game downloads and not needing a disk or physical thing to play games.

You know what everyone else thinks? Go to any Xbox One related article or video and take a look at the comments. Why do you think people are so mad? It's because they think this is bull shit and they want no part of any of this.

@sagalla: Yes because they are completely comparable.

Well, great. I'm glad they felt the need to tell the media they're wrong and not correct them.

@scroll: You said 'a business wouldn't harm it's customers' in general terms so I gave you an example.

Anyway everyone seems to think that Microsoft doesn't get what people want. Of course they do. I don't think they will sell this new box at a loss. They can put it out in the market knowing it's going to do poorly and then roll their Xbox brand onto PCs, tablets, phones, you name it - and stand to do better in the long run

@sagalla: And that's an overly dramatic example to use.

@scroll: My bad, take some ritalin and chill out, man :)

@grandizer: I see what you're saying - as long as they discount games as time goes on (a la Steam) you are right, there is no reason to setup an online marketplace. But thus far, they have been unwilling to do that. There are games out there available for download that are 2-3 years old (even sports games) that are selling for full price - for example NHL 12 is $59.99 when you can find NHL 13 for cheaper than that at many retailers and NHL 12 sells for around $15-20 used. That is free money they are leaving on the table.

"Try a little honesty next time?"

--This is way over the top. I don't see how they're being 'dishonest'.

we simply dont own anything we buy, its a rental agreement till they see fit to disable the product

Why feel bad for him? He is a total shill through and through. After he went on his podcast and defended those avatars that are not used at all now sooooo hard to the point of telling everyone they were going to spend hours dressing up their avatar and spend tons of money in the store on them, I was just about done. The nail in the coffin for me for him/their PR was when he defended their outrageous stand alone upgradable hdds as being actually pretty cheap.

I hope MS tanks for this. If their RRoD wasn't enough, the Xbox hasn't really done anything for consumers since like 2009.

I agree 100% with Patrick. Microsoft screwed up on the messaging. The conflicting interviews they've given, those mistakes don't fall on anyone else but the people at Microsoft. And they should have known how murky the waters were on this issue. Being completely clear was going to be necessary if pissing less people off.

It's gotten away from them. Really, I don't think there's anything they can do to change the tide on this until E3, where they'll have the spotlight and can be as clear as they want to be on it. For now, they're just going to have to take the hits. They keep trying to "clarify", but it just seems like they're freaking out a little behind the scenes and scrambling to get their shit straight.

@clarkj1981: Because they're blaming others for their mismanagement of the messaging on where used games will stand with the Xbox One. They're saying that others are being "inaccurate", while they've provided conflicting interviews. They keep changing their tune, and saying their trying to clarify but don't clarify anything.

They're being dishonest. It's to cover their mistakes, but they're still being dishonest.

What it comes down to is you are renting games for the XBox One for the full price of a game. Microsoft you are a Greedy Disgrace to the American Race.I refuse and will NOT give Microsoft one more penny of my hard earned money.This is a prime example of the rich getting richer. "Microsoft Definition Greed "

I think that this doesn't really seem like something they could over look. I feel that they have some news that we do not want to hear, and are hiding that behind some misdirection. Or maybe I am giving them too much credit and they really didn't think people would want the kind of answers they are hiding/unsure of. However, that does seem kind of silly, seeing as there have been rumors and crap addressing some of this stuff. No matter how true or false those rumors were, they got people thinking and asking questions now.

~x Bone

It's not impossible, but Sony's already said that their console can be used 100% offline. Whatever Sony's stance is on used games, it won't be as restrictive as Microsoft's.

@sagalla: I'm not the one looking for confrontation.

The phrase "carefully unexplained" comes to mind.

@drneffy said:

Basically if that's how it will work (I have a feeling we won't really know the details until much later), then it's converting every "used" copy out there into a new copy because digital means scratches and other downgrades in used are irrelevant. Unless the disc is completely unreadable, then it should basically be a basic activation process saying "hey, you have a disc, this game isn't tied to your account, pay us for it? yeah do that".

Amidst all discussion, no one has (yet) to dig into the history of used games from the PC side to see how this has been in practice for ages and ages. There was PC gaming and used gaming before Steam deals and such, I wonder what the data from that history will tell us because console-only used markets have worked pretty much the same for many years as they do now.

Also keep in mind the rental business was something that console manufacturers attempted to control and restrict to cut down on what the crew were talking about on the Bombcast weeks ago. At some point the idea of a used game is irrelevant because the discrete data on a disc untied to anything will be irrelevant but so far we are in an immature market for this stuff on consoles and people are naturally hesitant as a result.

I think the real story here is less about the policy and more about the messaging. I bet you one thing, if MS never mentioned anything about it and left it as a question, it would have worked out for them in the end if they decided to announce it later more clearly.

Not buying their shiny new box for a long while to come anyways. Reasons:

1. Prices at launch tend to be stupidly high.
2. Launch model flaws (RROD debacle).
3. Games scarce and pricy at launch.
4. HUGE backlog of 360 games on my shelf, both used and some still wrapped ;)

I don't see the problem with used games. If someone finds a game at a cheaper price and it was used before, so what? This is nothing but industry greed.

The RROD is the biggest fear I have with a new Xbox.

Whatever position Microsoft backpedals itself into on used games in the end, it's pretty clear that they're attempting to restrict our rights as consumers. We have the right to trade, sell or lend legitimately purchased copyrighted materials. I can lend you a book, sell him a CD or trade DVDs with that guy. It applies to video games as well, that's why gamestop et al exist. They facilitate our ability to sell the copyrighted games we've bought.

The scenario Klepek mentioned with turning in licences for points (they announced they're removing points, by the way)? Hell no, that's not acceptable to me. If I want to sell the stuff I bought for cash I damn well have the right to do so. The Azure service thing Microsoft mentioned retailers will have to use to be able to buy used games? Again, unfuckingacceptable. If I want to sell my game to the kid down the street, I have the right to fucking do so.

They are attempting to turn the purchase of a product, which is both the beginning and end of a consumers relationship with the seller, into the purchase of the rights to use their product, which will leave you reliant on their continued support of the product as well as their permission to take actions with the shit you buy that you already have the right to take. Don't accept this as a reasonable change.

Funny thing is, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if they hadn't initiated it. They had to tell us at some point, but they could have deflected until they had a coherent policy in place. Saying nothing would have been better than speculating and contradicting themselves.

Xbox go home.

MS is just trying to get rid of the middle men (gamestop, bestbuy, ebay, amazon.) I don't have a problem with it since some games that these stores sale for $29.99 are not even worth $10. That being said, they shouldn't open their mouths until they have all the specifics.

Considering this is an obvious push towards consoles being digital only in the long run.... Thanks Steam fanboys, you fucked us all.

That's so sad. I'm halfway through this article and the far better solution was immediately obvious that would make everyone feel better:

Go to your Xbox One dashboard account settings or an xbox.com web interface, opt to "trade in" your account license for a game, and then be given a numeric code or QR image for the game you can then take to a participating reseller (that is to say, Gamestop, and to a lesser extent Best Buy and Amazon) for store credit. They can scan your code at the register and run a check to see if it hasn't been redeemed, then it redeems to the store inventory.

They can also monetize / commoditize trades between people in a similar fashion, by permitting account-level exchanges (i.e. gift "Xx420GaMeRxX" my license for CoD5, or hold it in escrow while he submits a trade for Viva Pinata 3) with a small transactional fee of $1-$5 to avoid frequent trading and lost sales, and justified by keeping all trades and sales valid and safe between two parties (instead of a shady guy in a back alley selling random sequences of numbers as "games" and people getting taken). Alternatively or additionally, make it so a particular license can only be resold or traded once or twice per license, giving legitimate value to non-used "new" license sales. Or make it so traded/used games have multiplayer/access to DLC disabled until that small fee is paid (replacing Project Ten Dollar), but that's a bit more shady.

Key to this is finalizing all sales, trades, and trade-ins at the console dashboard. This would make it completely unnecessary to require a daily check in.

That allows Gamestop to stay in business and keep selling X1 games, but also drives out mom & pop used game shops. Microsoft can get their taste by requiring resellers to pay for access to the Azure network, and percentages of each resold inventory license to the respective publisher.

It will also require they put out license "check" software/apps that allow you as a customer to query the status of a given license (instead of just locations to redeem licenses). Other than that, it should maintain the status quo while giving license holders the cut of resale profits they've always wanted.

I'd actually be ok with that scenario. It addresses my only real criticism of the Steam system. That said, if PS4 rejects this entirely and goes back to what we've been doing, then so long Xbox One. Some conservatives stockpile weapons for fear the goverment will collapse, I'd rather stockpile versatile hard copies of games for fear that company networks will collapse.

Microsoft is digging a hole with their communication failures. And Sony is capitalizing on it wholly.

After their massive back peddling the solution finally given if even accurate given all this sound like a nice trade-off. But that solution comes with not always online but almost-always online. I actually wish there was a have our cake and eat it too solution to installing games and not needing the disc on these new systems that don't require stringent online policies or preventing used sales.

I agree with this. People are blowing this shit so far out of proportion it's ridiculous. The "gaming press" and personalities like the 8-4 guys are also contributing to the problem by not doing proper research, parroting things they've "heard" and indulging in hyperbole.

You were ALWAYS buying JUST A LICENSE to play videogame. Always. This has never changed. You do not own a videogame and you will never own a videogame (unless you make one yourself). You will only ever own a license.

Articles like these are why i'm glad Patrick is at least moving out of the GB office, hopefully he won't be on as often. Sony has been even more shady about their used games approach, yet no article about them. But what else should I expect from Patrick "one side of the story" Klepick.

@markjw: If you said that ten years ago you would of gotten laughed at. Back when Box Copies mattered, it really was more than just a license. There was indeed a sense of Ownership.

Lol you can't be serious. There have been ZERO rumours about Sony doing anything like this while we've been hearing for months about how Microsoft was going to attempt this always online DRM and used games squashing. Shuhei Yoshida has already said that they had never considered it and that they are leaving it up to the publishers. And while that leaves wiggle room for Sony, their situation isn't remotely similar when Phil Harrison, vice president of business for Microsoft and Matt Booty, the General Manager of Redmond Games Studios have been shooting themselves in the foot and validating the rumours that have been circulating and then having Major Nelson accuse the press for misleading the community.

Patrick has been doing great work and this is just another article in a long line of great ones. It's not like Patrick hasn't been harsh on Sony before, unless you're conveniently forgetting how he continued to bring up the hacking and letter writing campaign with regards to Sony updating their EULA a year or so back.

@wrenchninja: All that Sony has said "yea you can play used games". That's being real descriptive, Microsoft could have said the same thing. At least Microsoft has told you what to expect Sony is just going to drop this bomb as late as possible so Microsoft gets all the bad press. Sony is going to do the same as Microsoft because this is a huge push from Devs and Publishers.

Also, that Sony article makes my point perfectly about Patrick. I'm not saying that he is one sided towards Microsoft, i'm saying ALL his articles are one sided. When he writes an article he harps on that point big time, but always forgets the other side of the discussion.

Also I don't know if Patrick has a hard time reading but the press release by Major Nelson was pretty clear, just about as clear as Sony, but yet not article about Sony digging a bigger hole?

Sounds like it such a big deal that there afraid to say anything that really has any meaning to mean. M$ might want to just abandon.

That doesn't mean anything. Under the law you are able to sell or destroy anything you buy. It's the "First Sale Doctrine." Video game companies can say whatever they like, but the law is the law.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01854.htm

"The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, gifting, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Stopping people from buying second hand games will not make money appear in their wallets by magic. the only thing you achieve is that consumer will play less games!

When I was a kid I only got two new games a year; one for Christmas and one for my birthday. We used to coordinate with my friends which games we would get and with a group of 10 people exchanging games we got to play 20 games a year. If you charge me the price of a new game to play my friends game on my console that would leave me with my 2 stupid games every year! If I was a kid with limited budget today I would go for a 3DS!

Microsoft seems to focus on the US market (it's hard to imagine all that TV stuff working around the world) while Sony is more after a worldwide market. Online DRM is not a good proposition in many countries around the world and since that is the way MS is planning to regulate second hand games I don't think Sony will fall for that. (I am assuming that if the Xbox One needs to connect only once every few days it won't be streaming anything but just checking for DRM like making sure that your games serial code has been locked)!

I love how people heap praise on Steam every day yet through a shit fit when Microsoft does the same exact thing. Oh and before someone mentions it - yes, Steam does have sales, but that's just a matter of competition. The principle remains the same. Yet I never see a single article complaining about Valve not allowing you to trade used games. I call hypocrisy.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this before but the whole idea that used sales are sales not going to the publisher/developer is erroneous at best. The person who bought the used game was probably not going to buy the new game anyway. Also, it's not like used games reproduce more used games. For every used game sold, a new copy was purchased that created said used copy. The publisher got the money they were going to get for that game when it was first purchased. There can never be more used games than sold new games (barring stealing which is hardly common enough to cause a dent).

Regardless of the whole "It's usually only $5 cheaper anyway" rhetoric, $5 is $5. That's a gallon of gas, a fast food meal, a pack of cigarettes (if you don't live in NY) or whatever else the value is to the purchaser of the used game. Not only that, but if you're buying used from Gamestop there is a very good chance to have the "Power Up" card or whatever it's called these days, which makes the game 10% cheaper than retail which could be up to $10. Do that 5 times and you've saved enough for another used game (6 and you can buy a new game).

I certainly do appreciate Patrick's stance here, because it's one I agree with and have said outloud several times to anyone who would listen. What I want to know is why has every single journalist who has reported on this as a negative or at all, not asked "Why" as a follow up?

Why is Microsoft instituting a fee? Why will they not say what their policy is? Why do we have to wait for a later date before they clear up what is obviously an issue?

This opinion wasn't unheard of before Tuesday. This information has leaked time and again, since months ago. They knew gamers were pissed at the very IDEA that this was going to be implemented, and yet while they knew they were implementing this thing that THEY KNEW WAS GOING TO PISS PEOPLE OFF, and the still don't have an answer prepared? I don't think I've ever seen anything like this in all my 30 plus years of gaming.

I will be attending E3 as press this year and if this isn't cleared up before then, I will definitely be asking everyone I can "why?"