Update: Xbox One To Take Cut With Every Pre-Owned Sale

[Zeraki]

Remember when console gaming meant you could pop your cartridge/disc into the machine and it just worked, no strings attached? You know, one of the major advantages consoles have had over PC for years?

Yeah... that was awesome.

If you can't even loan your Xbox games to your friends without them having to log into your account(which I'm going to assume can only be logged in from one system at a time) what's the point?

I wonder how this is going to affect rentals.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

snip

snip

If you read the articles it very evidently states that publishers get a cut of all used sales under the system. I really wish more people would read all of the source articles, especially when the Escapist has been sensationalizing many of their articles as of late.

And the "Used Game Fee" that you speak of is this. You're purchasing the key from the retailer, along with the disk.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

The publisher gets a cut of used game sales.

While it's true larger publisher's like EA really don't need to be making more money than they already are off of micro-transactions and DLC, smaller publishers could very well thrive under the new system which, hopefully, would mean for money for the studios that develop our favorite games as well.

Developers aren't publishers. When a used game is sold, the retailer, microsoft and the publisher will make money. The developer of the game won't make squat. You said hopefully, I know. But it won't happen.

I understand they're two separate entities, but game developers are paid by publishers for each sale the game brings in. Now, beforehand publishers wouldn't make any profit off of used game sales, but now that they do, it would logically (and hopefully this will actually happen) make sense for the game developer to receive a small portion of that money.

 

[Jumplion]

snip

snip

If you read the articles it very evidently states that publishers get a cut of all used sales under the system. I really wish more people would read all of the source articles, especially when the Escapist has been sensationalizing many of their articles as of late.

And the "Used Game Fee" that you speak of is this. You're purchasing the key from the retailer, along with the disk.

It does say that the publishers, along with Microsoft, get the rest of the cut. How much the publisher will actually get remains to be seen. Regardless, this does not invalidate my main point that this does not neccessarily help smaller publishers as the practices that the Xbone already does will shrink the already small market that it's going to get.

There is also a bigger risk of the system screwing up, where if the game isn't removed from the original owner's list due to some mishap, the person buying the used game will end up paying twice just to play the game unless they return it. A small thing from some people's perspective, sure, but it is an unnecessary annoyance that will most likely happen if/when the Azure system fails due to human error or complete crashes due to some hacktivist people pissed off at MS.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

I love how Microsoft has their head stuck so far up it's own ass that it now thinks the sky is brown. Everything about the Xbone reveal felt like they didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

Oh well. At least we still have the alternatives.

 

[neppakyo]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. So I guess I can say "GOOD."

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm looking forward to the XB1 since I hit all the checkmarks of their target demographic.

You poor, poor bastard. Don't forget to smile and say hi to your xbone as it passively records you, and charges you for going over the limits of people in the room.

Oh, and crap games too. The 360 for the last year or so has released shit for games, and will continue that way for the xbone.

I'm a PC gamer, but the PS4 is looking interesting to me. Xbone not at all.

I understand they're two separate entities, but game developers are paid by publishers for each sale the game brings in. Now, beforehand publishers wouldn't make any profit off of used game sales, but now that they do, it would logically (and hopefully this will actually happen) make sense for the game developer to receive a small portion of that money.

The developer doesn't get "paid" like that, basically they have a set budget for wages and everything needed to create the title paid out by the publisher. Once the game is released, the developer doesn't see a dime.

 

[SecondPrize]

The publisher gets a cut of used game sales.

While it's true larger publisher's like EA really don't need to be making more money than they already are off of micro-transactions and DLC, smaller publishers could very well thrive under the new system which, hopefully, would mean for money for the studios that develop our favorite games as well.

Developers aren't publishers. When a used game is sold, the retailer, microsoft and the publisher will make money. The developer of the game won't make squat. You said hopefully, I know. But it won't happen.

I understand they're two separate entities, but game developers are paid by publishers for each sale the game brings in. Now, beforehand publishers wouldn't make any profit off of used game sales, but now that they do, it would logically (and hopefully this will actually happen) make sense for the game developer to receive a small portion of that money.

Devs have contracts with publishers and don't make more than they were able to negotiate. If one is able to hold on to their IP, they'd get royalties per sale but from what I understand this is a thing that doesn't often happen, if ever. Now, I don't know how/whether used sales are counted so maybe if this leads to developer access to the numbers they can negotiate a better contract for their next project. Maybe.

 

[medv4380]

snip

snip

Thanks, I like to actually read the articles myself as everyone puts a spin on things, whether it's intentional or not. See, that's where it's confusing. MCV didn't quote their pricing information from GameDeals but from their own independent source, although unnamed, where they stated that it was indeed a flexible price that would cap out at 35 EURO or $45.

It's 35 British Pounds not 35 Euros. Which mean prices stay as high as they've been, and probably higher.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Wow. I keep trying to say that this is the stupidest thing they could do, but it seems that with every passing day Microsoft just keep coming up with the most retarded thing I've ever heard!

Looking forward to tomorrow Microsoft!

 

[elilupe]

I seriously hope this is the point where gamers will finally make a full stop and start to fight back against these incalculably horrible companies. I have never boycotted any system or company or whatever before, but this is going to be the moment when I do.

 

[Serrenitei]

I can see this going to court in the US due to the First-sale Doctrine and Microsoft losing.

I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately it's not. The courts have no precedent for games, and technically First Sale Doctrine only applies to products not services or licenses. Most games put a ToS that consider that you are buying a "license" to the game, not the game itself, and First Sale Doctrine has no good precedent for situations like this.

The same situation applies in those games that bill themselves as services (note: the license/service isn't mutually exclusive, most ToS contain verbiage for both -- the license for the client software, the service for actually being able to play).

Now, what's unclear is whether games can conceivably bill themselves are services/licenses instead of products and THAT will be the deciding factor in the court room. The only standing precedent (currently in appeal) is the sale of 'used' MP3s, which a lower court found was not legal, but of course is being appealed.

Microsoft will likely go under the "service" route, claiming that the Xbox One provides services, requiring a daily internet check in, and that you get some 'benefit' out of that, likely in the form of software updates. The other, less tasty parts of the service are what you agree to use the 'service,' the used game provision being one. Basically, when this goes to court, it will be on the onus of the plaintiffs (read: gamers) to show that games are actually discrete products and First Sale doctrine applies, OR say that license/service agreements can also apply under First Sale Doctrine.

To be blunt, the First Sale Doctrine wasn't written to accommodate this kind of situation. It's that lack of accommodation that publishers and console creators are trying to exploit to increase profits.

 

[RandV80]

Yeah this is absolutely hilarious. At E3 I'm half expecting Vince McMahon to jump out on stage at some point revealing himself to be the lead designer of the Xbone!

Now what I want to know with all this talk about who gets a cut of what, forgetting for a minute how hilarious it is that Microsoft decided to not only give it to publishers but also sit themselves at the used game profits buffet, what exactly is going to be left over for the used game seller? Now typically you've never gotten much trading in a new game, but while Gamestop used game prices are high they do give the sellers good value if you're trading in a recently released AAA game. For all the talk that goes back and forth with used games, it all begins with the customer willingly trading in his game for cash or credit. From the sounds of it not only are Microsoft and the publishers tag teaming to take a cut for themselves out of the retailers profit, it looks like they'll also be taking it out of the seller as well.

Are gamers still going to go through the effort of selling back their games for increasingly diminished returns? That would actually be kind of hilarious. Since rather than simply blocking used game sales MS has come up with this convoluted plan to get a cut for themselves, so imagine them spending all this money to profit from the used game market and instead they just end up inadvertently killing it themselves.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Interesting concept. I like how you can buy used and everyone gets a piece. But, as usual they have messed it up. Retailers will not be happy with their cut, MS should get nothing and, if anything, the developers should get a bigger cut of profits. Now i dont know who these "approved" gamestores are. I can only think its Gamestop in USA and Game in the UK, because they have stores everywhere and would make it convenient for customers instead of looking all over Florida for that one little store you never heard of.

I guess they could go through amazon? So i guess i like the idea MS came up with but they implemented it wrong. By all means let us sell games and allow the developers to take a cut - im fine with that. An if this was all it was then id be happy. But make it a mandatory 90% of new retail price is stupid - especially if its a piece of crap game like a movie tie in or ACM and Homefront. No one will buy it.

Poor MS, you almost had a solution for this. So close. Just keep the used game market as it is, but have it that developers get a cut off the selling price. Whether its 10% off £35 or £10, they should be happy they are getting something. Also just have games avaliable to download like steam for cheaper. That way developers get their full cut and i get a game cheaper than retail on release day and everyone is happy.

 

[Zeraki]

Yeah this is absolutely hilarious. At E3 I'm half expecting Vince McMahon to jump out on stage at some point revealing himself to be the lead designer of the Xbone!

All the while J.R. is yelling "Oh my god, it's Vince McMahon, Oh my god! The industry will never be the same again!"
I haven't watched wrestling in years, but that's hilarious. This really does feel like a bad WWE story line at times. And Microsoft is the Heel.

This is really turning into one hell of a slobberknocker.

 

[Altorin]

The publisher gets a cut of used game sales.

While it's true larger publisher's like EA really don't need to be making more money than they already are off of micro-transactions and DLC, smaller publishers could very well thrive under the new system which, hopefully, would mean for money for the studios that develop our favorite games as well.

Developers aren't publishers. When a used game is sold, the retailer, microsoft and the publisher will make money. The developer of the game won't make squat. You said hopefully, I know. But it won't happen.

I understand they're two separate entities, but game developers are paid by publishers for each sale the game brings in. Now, beforehand publishers wouldn't make any profit off of used game sales, but now that they do, it would logically (and hopefully this will actually happen) make sense for the game developer to receive a small portion of that money.

no they're not.

Game developers tend to be paid a salary while they're working on a game.

They can be fired when their studio shuts down because a game didn't sell well enough, and on rare occasions they might get bonuses if the game sells like ballbreakers, but don't count on that at all.

The only benefit developers will see from this is that the publishers that employ them will have some idea of the overall scope of their games success and MAYBE they won't close down studios whose games don't have instant appeal..

MAYBE

if they're nice.

Publishers are nice right?

 

[mogamer]

LoL why do people care if gamestop gets bent over on this deal? Its not like they havent been ripping people off for years themselves. Who buys used that much anyway?

What about people or stores who aren't in the system? This takes away trading, borrowing and renting games and will hurt the few "mom & pop" stores left. This is purely anti-consumer and I won't be participating in this. If MS wants console buyers to put up with the anti-consumer methods of pc games, then they should also give console buyers the same benefits that pc gamers get. Such as getting rid of the pay wall that is XBL Gold or being able to buy downloadable content from multiple sources and not just Xbox marketplace.

We know nothing about the Steambox, or even if one will ever exist. But it's sure looking better all the time.

 

[Serrenitei]

re: Who get's what money -

So if we assume all costs at current market - $60 for a brand new game, 10% below that is $54. So for each sale that means that reseller get's approximately $5.40. The remaining $48.60 go to Microsoft for ... reasons and the publisher. It's not clear who would make out better between MS and publisher, but I get the feeling MS would probably take the lions share here, and the publisher is grateful to get anything from a used game sale.

I think its fair to assume that the big publishers (Activision, EA, etc) have already signed on and endorsed this policy. MS wouldn't design such a policy without consulting and getting buy-in from the big guys. I feel like the developers are still going to be the one's getting shafted here. Even if they get royalties, I'm curious how many have contracts that applies to used sales. So is the publisher really going to give a cut of their profits from used sales back to the devs if they aren't contractually obligated to?

I'm not sure. Really, I think in the current model the only ones really coming out good are Microsoft and the publishers. Everyone else pretty much gets the shaft.

 

[mogamer]

That really does not make much sense. The vast majority of PC games do not support used sales at all.

Yes, but pc games go on sale pretty quickly compared to console games. And in a year's time, you can find the pc version of a game on sale cheaper than a used console version of that game. Will MS sell a AAA for 75% off during a Holiday Sale? I really doubt it.