Xbox One Used Game Fee (was forum=152)Follow

So now that the **** has stopped spraying out of the fan momentarily, and we are all getting a nice breeze by the rapid backpedal being done by both companies (Sony apparently had plans to follow suit that are now over source), where are we going from here, do you think?

Will the big two companies try to kill off used games and backwards compatibility, or will they actually smarten up some?

Of course. This forum post.

Sh*t may have stopped spraying out of the fan, but it's still coming from the fans.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 4:37pm by TirithRR

It's not that simple though. They make money by people buying their console, and subsequently buying games for it. The more people who buy the console, the wider the range of their potential profits.

Right now, gamers only generally buy big-name titles that they really want, because a $60 price point is just too expensive for the others. Greatest Hits titles will fall to a more reasonable price in time, yeah, but it's not a super fast process.

But the appeal of a gaming console isn't just big-name titles, it's the full package. Up until now, that has included cheaper, used titles to supplement your gaming library.

If I have to pony up $300, I'm going to feel very differently about doing so in a world where I'm only looking at owning 7 big budget games that year compared to a world where I would own 10-15. That makes me far more likely to purchase the console in the first place, and 7 titles' worth of publishing fees is certainly better than 0.

It's a balancing act. And I don't know what the answer is. EA has been using their online passes, but now that's going out the window. And those were essentially just DLC packs.

But I also feel very confident about one thing - used games aren't even on a list of publishers' true woes. They're the red herring here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of used games sales are on titles that the consumer would not have purchased at full price anyway, meaning the publisher doesn't actually lose any money there. In fact, I'd argue they gain it in the long run. That player purchasing the used game is a potential new fan of your studio or series. Used games are a way of extending your advertising into an audience you weren't appropriately reaching before (and because you weren't getting them to buy your games, they weren't making you money anyway).

Now, if it was the case that all of these gamers WOULD buy enough big-budget titles before their price dropped officially, without used games, it would be a different story. But I don't believe that it would be enough.

Which, if anything, is what I'd argue is something the console market seriously needs to be looking into. If Microsoft had begun their no-used presentation with a discussion of the PC gaming market, and pledged to offer the same opportunity to console gamers (and, in so doing, assure players that they wouldn't be missing used games anyway), then this would have been a very different scenario.

I doubt they have to offer sales to the extent of PC gaming, but it's in their best interest to do something. I don't think the market is at a sustainable price point. Particularly not where smaller studios are concerned (and not when smaller studios can only generally work on indie games, because publishing on the consoles is far too painful).

As for the actual console market, my only point there is that any gamer already playing used games is going to consider it a strong strike against the console for them to be unavailable. In some percentage of sales, that's going to cost them all new game sales, instead of winning them some sales in conjunction with used games.

So either used games are an actual problem, in which case publishers are losing a lot of money, and stand to lose FAR more by alienating those players completely. Or used games aren't really a problem, and they stand to lose a lot of money by completely alienating their fanbase by coming off as the major corporation that doesn't give two ***** about the quality of life of their fan base where it doesn't make them money.

Because here's the thing. Used games aren't pirating. It's also a practice that's been firmly upheld legally under the first sale doctrine. Trying to cast that entire industry, and the people making use of it, as leachers... is obviously going to **** off your fanbase. And pissing off your fanbase at precisely the time you want them to be as excited as possible is not really a good plan.

On the contrary, I would argue that you are placing limitations on the group without sufficient reason to do so.

For one thing, there's a meaningful difference between console gamers and gamers who play on consoles. The first group is the significant minority, and were always going to purchase a console, regardless of how worthless the generation leap was. They probably already knew which of the next generation they'd be purchasing (if not both) long before any rumors or specs about the next generation even came out.

But we're moving into a market where there are far, far more options. The gap between your average pc and a gaming console is closing quite rapidly. A $400 laptop is already capable of playing just about anything on the market at more than passable levels, and the next generation of cpus are showing an even greater increase in integrated graphics. The barrier to move to pc gaming has literally never been lower.

For the graphics-obsessed, that might not be a selling point. But I'd wager the majority of gamers who just happen to use consoles aren't caring all that much what's under the hood. And PC gaming has never before been so accessible. Particularly not with MMOs like WoW introducing so many new players to the system.

I'd also argue that more console gamers are likely purchasing their own systems than ever before, as the market has aged up with time. Most gamers aren't high school kids anymore, they're people in their 20s and 30s. Not because there are fewer high school gamers, but because former high school gamers grew up.

Plus, the notion of gaming has changed a fair bit recently. Gamers who are looking for a way to pass time are going to be more open to the idea of just using their standard devices for the task, because their standard devices (phones and tablets) are doing it increasingly well. And that market is growing fairly quickly.

Is there a decent population who won't care? Of course. Call of Duty is going to sell a LOT of consoles to gamers who don't even have particularly intentions to play anything else. As will Madden (etc.) games. That's a relatively guaranteed market.

It's also not one I imagine overlaps with the used game market at all. The used game market is filled with gamers trying to keep an eye on their budget. Those gamers are going to have to make a decision if they want to join the next console generation. And considering the options available, I'd be surprised if a decent bulk of them didn't pass it up.

If they've bought a pc in the past two years, chances are it can play most games on the market at low settings at playable frame rates.

If they're going to buy a new console, they can DEFINITELY get a PC at the same price point, or lower, that will play games at acceptable graphics levels/framerates (particularly since intel's next gen budget chip line will have launched by then).

If they aren't early adopters, as most gamers aren't (because you get a sub-par product for a higher price), the quality of the pc will go higher. If they aren't looking for a laptop, the quality goes higher. All without ever spending more than you'd spend on the console.

And remember that more and more gamers are becoming aware of how cheaply you can game on the PC.

If none of them would even consider pc gaming, then they're pretty clearly in the minority console gaming demographic that was going to buy the console anyway. They are not indicative of the general audience anyway. I feel the need to point this out, since you tossed out the age/gender like it meant something. Just because they fall into groups with higher rates of gamers doesn't make them representative of the group at large.

And to be frank, I'd VERY MUCH argue that a small sample size in which having a computer is noteworthy is not going to offer us any valuable insights into the gaming population at large.

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's a bell curve between "Casual, Because it just works" and "Consoles-4-eva!". If anything, I think it's more of an inverted bell curve with the extremes making up the majority of console players and people who make an informed, impartial weighing of their console vs PC options the definite minority. I think most console players are either opposed to PC gaming (actively or passively), want console exclusives or want to play with friends/family who are also console gamers.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 10:17am by Jophiel

That's quite possible. I suppose we'll see. If Microsoft doesn't do a 180 on these policies, that is.

I agree with their take.

The thing is that there's competition with Steam for direct distribution. Without similar competition for Sony/MSoft, I don't really see why they'd have the same kind of deep discount sales.

I assume it's a factor but, more so, consumers are just used to an initial MSRP that's largely consistent across platforms and likely in the $40-$50 range. If publishers have us used to dropping $49.99 for a game at release, they're never going to say "Just kidding, it's actually just $39.99 now since it's on Steam!"

I'd guess that the physical costs for the game are a pretty small part of the overall cost anyway and the savings aren't really significant for a new title vs game development and marketing costs. For older titles, the price can drop because they don't have to press physical discs for a game with limited sales appeal. But, for the new stuff, they'd be cranking out the discs and boxes no matter what.

Looks like Microsoft is responding to a lot of the feedback they have received over the past few weeks:
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/main


I don't know if all of this was originally intended and everything just blew up or if this includes a lot new policies.


Few important points from the article:
The X1 will need to connect online once every 24 hours.
There will be no fee for transferring/selling games imposed by Microsoft, but other publishers may do so.
You can log into your account on up to 10 X1's and play your games on all of them.
You can control the privacy and voice settings of the Kinect (not that this means much anymore with Verizon in the news and consoles getting hacked)

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 6:30pm by xypin