The rumor mill on used games boils down to this:
Microsoft is requiring gamers to copy the files on the DVD to their Xbox One hard drives, so that access to games is instant. This is pretty routine for PC games, makes a lot of sense if they want the system to be truly "instant". However, it creates a problem if more than one game is installed, because, obviously, the user can't have the DVD in the disc drive. That creates the potential for the same game to be installed on more than one machine. The gaming press speculated initially (see MCV article over a month ago) that this meant sales of used games would be blocked altogether (rumor #1), and that was initially reinforced by Phil Harrison's interview with Kotaku. I think that the copy to the hard drive requires Microsoft to periodically validate that the same file doesn't work in two places at once; however, the "solution" to this "problem" could be as innocent as deactivating the first install when the disc is copied to the second hard drive. The conclusion that copying to the hard drive the first time will preclude a second copy isn't necessarily the only outcome, and deactivating the first install would serve the same purpose, allowing the resale and second install of the original disc.
At the Xbox One reveal, Microsoft said more than once that used games wouldn't be blocked. The rumor than morphed into a discussion of a transfer fee (rumor #2) imposed on the consumer. Microsoft equivocated, and sort of denied, then confirmed, then denied this. At the end, I think someone (maybe Major Nelson) used terms like "enabled" when talking about used games and "no present intention" when talking about transfer fees imposed on consumers.
Then the rumor mill got ridiculous.
Rumor #3 morphed the transfer fee from being imposed on the consumer to being imposed on the retailer, citing "retail sources" and a "retail employee", both apparently in the UK who each claimed that "key retailers" had been "briefed" by Microsoft about its plans to impose a transfer fee on them instead of consumers. I understand that the UK is an important market for Microsoft, but it is dwarfed by the U.S. The largest games retailer in the U.S. is GameStop; that company had an earnings conference call with analysts the day before rumor #3 surfaced in the UK. During its conference call, GameStop management repeatedly praised Microsoft as a valued partner, and said that any announcements about used game policy were Microsoft's to make, not GameStop's. My personal impression was that GameStop management was upbeat, and not downcast, about the potential for the Xbox One launch, so that is inconsistent with the view that rumor #3 is true.
I would now like to offer both a business lesson and a history lesson: Facebook decided to charge a 30% fee on currency purchased for Facebook games only after Zynga had grown games to over a $1 billion annual business. Assuming that Facebook behaved rationally, they allowed Zynga to create a giant business without impediment, then, once it was large, they imposed the "Facebook tax". Zynga was powerless to object, as it depended on Facebook for the vast majority of its revenue.
I know pose this question: IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee on retailers for sales of used Xbox One games, why would they brief key retailers on their intentions six months before the console launch, and 18 months before the Xbox One used games business became meaningful???
In my view, IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee of any kind, it would wait until the installed base for Xbox One was large, until gamers and retail were "addicted" to the console and its software. They could pull a Facebook, and spring the new "tax" on retailers in 2015, and they would not have foregone much revenue at all. While I don't personally believe that Microsoft is Machiavellian at all, I think that from a business perspective, this makes much more sense than briefing retailers six months before launch so that retailers could decide to boycott the device or could attempt to influence consumers to buy the PS4 instead.
Just my two cents, but in my view, Rumor #3 is so idiotic as to deserve ridicule.
