Support NeoGAF

[dragonyeuw]

The way to incentivize publishers is making them profit off the sale in some way. First, the language needs to be specific. No we do not 'own' the licenses so we cannot 'sell' them, but on the flipside we also don't 'own' the digital files that the game key card unlocks for download, you own the box and the worthless bit of plastic that signs into the eshop and grants access to the same game you'd get if you were buying the game straight digitally. So it feels like a half step of 'ownership' that's bestowed upon GKC customers, but stopping sort of allowing the same DRM rights to someone just logging into the eshop and buying it direct off Nintendo's server. Maybe you can 'transfer' your license to another eshop customer and the credit moves from their account to yours but the publisher and Nintendo get a cut, and maybe the game can only be a certain percentage lower than what they're currently advertising it for. Case in point, Octopath Traveller II is currently on sale for $23.99 on eshop, I can list my 'copy'( license) for $20. I get a buyer, $10 credit goes to my account, Nintendo/Square get and split $10. Easy money for them just allowing a transfer license, and I get some credit that will get spent on something else in the eshop. Whatever solution that possibly exists, it will still heavily favor the publishers via conditional terms of 'transfer', but at least the customer will be able to get 'something' back for a game they no longer use.

Also, I think it was mentioned above but the idea of reselling your licenses was something I think Microsoft was trying to do back with the Xbox One reveal? They just fucked up the messaging( par for the course) and were about a decade too early. If a company came out in 2025 offering some kind of license transfer, they'd have the benefit of seeing how the market has adapted to a digital landscape and I think people would be way more accepting, considering it's something being asked for but to this point we've never been able to figure out a way that the publishers would allow it where it makes sense( cents) for them.

 

[reinking]

I think it serves us best just to be more selective about what we buy and look at the value prop on a case-by-case basis. The 2 hour no-questions-asked refund policy is good enough for me. Expanding the used market that much would easily kill off an already staggered industry. How many billions have pubs and platform holders lost to the Gamestop pre-owned machine? Surely they've done the math internally and have zero interest in helping grow that business. It would just further push gaming down the Netflix disposable product model that we're seeing on Gamepass.

This implies companies did not benefit from the used market. I would argue companies like Electronics Boutique and GameStop provided growth and promoted new release sales through trade-ins. $80-$100 (US) price tags with no options to trade-in or having a feeling of ownership have me a little concerned about growth in the console gaming sector. Enthusiasts will either pay for it or move to PC. I would expect more casuals to move to mobile. A lot of them are probably playing games on their phones already. As publishers, they may not care. Counter point, PC went all digital years ago and it seems to be picking up Steam.

 

[The_Observer]

I think it doesn't make sense at all. Digital is infinitely reproducible. Why let anyone resell something there is infinite new copies of? Just allowing people to undercut you. Makes about as much sense as reselling Netflix

This. I'm like what the hell is going on with people in this thread, this doesn't make sense at all. There is no difference between "new" and "used" digital games. Why would any company let you do that? They already have sales to provide cheaper options. If they could they would make physical resell illegal too.

 

[Sentenza]

Green Man Gaming was a digital store created pretty much with this exact premise in mind.
Putting aside that only a limited selection of publishers allowed the feature to work as intended, it turned out that the option dimply wasn't as valuable as many would think it would be.

You get a game on sale for 10 bucks, and even in case you aren't someone who buys games and intends to keep them (as I am) you find yourself with a license that resells for a fraction of that price.
Here you are, you gave away four of your past purchases for a fat total of 5 bucks in your "store credit".

You start wondering if it's even worth to use that store to begin with.
Especially since your games need to be direct downloads and to not activate on any other service (otherwise deactivating your license would get a bit messy) so you are stuck with a copy of questionable value to begin with, while otherwise you could have had the same game on your Steam or GoG library, adding to your collection.
People decided it wasn't that appealing, which is how GMG almost went out of business a couple of times already.
These days they basically shelved the feature and they are key resellers like hundreds of others.

 

[Kataploom]

That makes no sense from an economic perspective since digital copies have literally infinite offer, I don't think this should be a "right" per se, just understand the nature of the product and go with it or go physical.

But I'd advocate for something that makes more sense to balance out users and companies rights:
- All digital accounts should be transferable, no questions ask, so users could sell their accounts instead
- All digital accounts should be inheritable automatically
- No digital purchase should EVER be taken away from the account's library under any circumstance, even due to licenses expiring on content or whatever
- All content delivered to users should be accessible and shouldn't be taken away due to licensing issues (like those tracks removed from games because of licensing years after release).

And BTW, this is why I roll my eyes whenever someone says "in GOG you actually own your games"... If you can't sell them individually and your own will, they're still licenses and barely any different than any other digital store.

 

[existensmaximum]

I know, it's retarded. Mind-blowing, even. If you buy a digital product or license you should always be able to sell it to someone else.

 

[mitch1971]

The reason is simple. Because people buy them already without the need for the company to allow them to be resold.

 

[simpatico]

This implies companies did not benefit from the used market. I would argue companies like Electronics Boutique and GameStop provided growth and promoted new release sales through trade-ins. $80-$100 (US) price tags with no options to trade-in or having a feeling of ownership have me a little concerned about growth in the console gaming sector. Enthusiasts will either pay for it or move to PC. I would expect more casuals to move to mobile. A lot of them are probably playing games on their phones already. As publishers, they may not care. Counter point, PC went all digital years ago and it seems to be picking up Steam.

Valid, but maybe retail could afford Steam sale type of discounts if they weren't losing customers to the used market. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I'd be that there isn't a publisher who wouldn't end the used market today if given the choice.

 

[cireza]

I also don't see how this benefits developers.

It doesn't. But every once in a while, the consumer can also have something that benefits him

What makes a digital copy drop in value.

The fact that you want to sell it, so it has to be the cheapest of all the ones available. But as you say, there is no reason for the price to drop a ton... so the publisher can still get sales, or can push a discount and undercut the second hand prices.

Then there is the issue of how this would even work.

Sounds unbelievably simple to me now that internet is mandatory for everything anyway. Have you never refunded a game ? There is no difficulty in taking away a game from you, it already works.

 

[Filben]

What do you think could be a solution?

They already have the means to revoke any digital licence. Nintendo already have the infrastructure to swap licenses between users within the family group. They could expand the system so any user that is visible within the PlayStation/Xbox/Nintendo network can be given a license. Since you need to be online for this transaction they can simultaneously revoke your access and the deal is done.

The difficult part though is selling this idea to the publishers. What do they gain from it? In fact, they will lose money from it when people just buy used licenses.

So they would need to implement a payment system for the license transfer so they can earn their cut from every deal done. But this requires more intricate distribution logistics. For what? A few percentages off of some cheap second hand deals while you could just ask the full price for a second license? Not going to happen. Also because people have no direct leverage. A few reddit posts or on hardcore boards or YouTube videos isn't enough to put publishers under pressure to implement such a solution.

Your only way to bypass this is buying physical copies. And to avoid physical games vanishing in two or three generations people need to buy those instead of the digital equivalent. That's the only leverage you have.

 

[IDKFA]

It doesn't. But every once in a while, the consumer can also have something that benefits him

The industry is going through a rough time at the moment. Developers losing more money isn't the answer.

The fact that you want to sell it, so it has to be the cheapest of all the ones available. But as you say, there is no reason for the price to drop a ton... so the publisher can still get sales, or can push a discount and undercut the second hand prices.

Sales for games are temporary. Publishers can't keep games in deep sale to undercut a second hand digital market.

Sounds unbelievably simple to me now that internet is mandatory for everything anyway. Have you never refunded a game ? There is no difficulty in taking away a game from you, it already works.

A refund is totally different.

What you're talking about is a person buying a game, finishing it, then competing with the publisher to sell it.

What about the stores like Steam or Epic? Currently they take a cut of games sold. Are they taking a cut of the second hand games sold as well? If not, they'd also lose money. Why would they allow people to sell games on their store fronts without charge?

There are way too many hurdles for this to work. Publishers, digital store fronts and small independent developers would all lose money if this became a reality.

 

[poppabk]

The reason is simple. Because people buy them already without the need for the company to allow them to be resold.

That is the implicit concession.
We will allow you to purchase games from the comfort of your couch and will keep your games on our servers and allow you to download them at any time without charge. You can no longer sell them.
Most have taken that deal happily.

 

[Edder1]

.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

How would you even do this for PC when you can easily copy paste?

 

[Steve Holt]

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

People have give up their options and freedom in the search of more comfort. That list of games? It was en we yours.


Not even in the all mighty Steam you can inherit accounts, less sell them.

 

[Superkewl]

I can only speak for myself, but my reason is that I simply don't care. I have been all digital since 2010 and I have had no issues.

 

[Knightime_X]

Easier to buy a game for 30 and save yourself 40 instead of buying a game for 70 only to get back like 5-25.
If you know how to save, selling used quickly becomes pointless.
Unless you're super hard up for a few extra bucks.

Another thing to consider is even IF you can sell your game, you're in direct competition with 10s of thousands to even millions of other sellers.
Because it'll be localized online in like a resell site or something.
Be your luck 40,000 people skipped you because a few sellers undersold you by a few dollars.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Bring back Xbox One. Lol.

 

[bitbydeath]

Because if Sony or Steam implemented this they'd be immediately bombarded with hundreds if not thousands of resell requests, and that's just from one person.

 

[TwiztidElf]

Can't believe it took to page 2 for someone to say "You can't sell what you don't own."