IMO if a store wants to comepte with steam. THis is the killer feature that could push a lot of users to spend money there
Thats the feature that would also keep publishers from releasing their games on that store.
IMO if a store wants to comepte with steam. THis is the killer feature that could push a lot of users to spend money there
I dont get whats the problem? The faster we get rid of second hand market the better. Devs/pubs get the money from every transaction of their product like they should.
They offer different power outputs and battery ranges via softwareI remember that story about Tesla locking out performance with a software update, but the car in question was never supposed to have it unlocked in the first place
I will defend the original Xbox One plan to death. It's the stupid, idiotic hill I'm completely prepared to die on. Being able to essentially convert disk games into digital titles and easily family share with 9 other users would have ruled. But then again, I'm a digital only gamer who already doesn't resell games, so it was all upside for me.
I'd rather no video games than digital only with no ownership so I'm fine with thatThen enjoy developers not making video games because they can't make any money.
Hope it was worth it.
I was gonna say the same thing.You can't sell what you don't own and you don't own digital games. You own a non-transferrable license to play said digital games.
It sucks, yeah, but at least the option is still there for physical (for the most part)
There was a lot of good stuff in the original plan that got kneecapped due to piracy concerns and effort needed that would go towards money not being made.I will defend the original Xbox One plan to death. It's the stupid, idiotic hill I'm completely prepared to die on. Being able to essentially convert disk games into digital titles and easily family share with 9 other users would have ruled. But then again, I'm a digital only gamer who already doesn't resell games, so it was all upside for me.
I'm not saying that physical and digital are the same. I'm saying that if people are charged the same for 2 versions, IMO, it is fair to have similar rights.Physical games and digital are not the same is the sticking point. Your idea about day 1 dlc or whatever doesn't work either, because the moment you let them sell games you have to let them sell that day 1 dlc the same way.
The nature of digital distribution means there is no difference between new and 'used' copies, which is not the case for physical. In addition, the same nature means that there would be absolutely no new sales period after the very first day because there would always be used copies for sale that cut out the game developers entirely. In the same way, used copies of physical games would be in at least some state of wear, have a good chance of needing longer tobe delivered if you e.g. buy off eBay Vs a new copy from a big company new.
Not everyone is an Activision, it would be disastrous for all indie companies if they had to rely on a market with this kind of digital reselling.
Wouldn't devs probably be opposed though? Sales of their game would then have to compete with people trading the same copies around for probably less money. Feels like it would go against the idea of wanting devs to get more money / a higher cut.
they would yes. But i'm a costumer hence my opinion should be seen on that perspective. I still think that having devs get a cut of each re-sale + adding some restrictions on when and how many times a game could be sold I think there could be a deal struck that could be heavily benefiting costumers while still giving some fair income to devs.Thats the feature that would also keep publishers from releasing their games on that store.
I wonder if it is. If it is solved, IMO, it will be the store that has the chance to push steam out of its market leader.Honestly, if NFTs can allow the original buyer to get a continual cut of any future sales...this is a solvable problem.
Isn't this possible already since the PS3 generation?would be cool if you could share games too. like a temporary license transfer or something
movies anywhere let's you do this with your digital movie library, so there is some precedent for a digital collection allowing something like this
I do actually think that this is the type of problem that a Blockchain could solve.
But an infinitely transferable digital license for a video game would likely be very expensive. Way more than the single use non transferable licences we typically buy today.
I dunno, complaining that you can't sell what is clearly advertised as a single use non transferable licences doesn't make sense to me. We're under no misunderstanding when buying these licenses. I don't see any legal basis for demanding to change the terms after the transaction has completed.
If I'm a first-party publisher and my game has sold 1mil digital copies for $60 each, I've made $6 mil.
In this scenario, if my game has sold 1 mil digital copies but even just one copy out of every 10 (which is a super low estimate considering there is zero downside to buying a used digital game vs a new one) is sold secondhand, I'm losing out on 600,000.
There is literally zero incentive to do this from a publisher standpoint.
You're rather naively assuming everyone that will buy and sell games for the second-hand market will just decide to go to buying full price when most buy and sell second-hand games either cannot afford to buy or do not see games as being worth $60.
In reality, you will find that both sides just sits back and wait for the game to drop in price.
No, you'll find that every single person who was buying digitally before is now buying the digital "second hand" copies that are inevitably abundant in nature almost immediately, accessible to everyone, and cheaper than the versions that cost more as "new" despite being identical. From a consumer standpoint you'd have to be an idiot otherwise.
You can't sell what you don't own and you don't own digital games. You own a non-transferrable license to play said digital games.
It sucks, yeah, but at least the option is still there for physical (for the most part)
that's just account sharing, no?
Ah you meant gifting it instead of just sharing, yeah that isn't possible. Still sharing is an alternative for that but yeah it would be nice if you friend didn't need to have your account on his console and you can just flat out gift the game.that's just account sharing, no?
I mean that if i'm never gonna play halo mcc again, I should be able to "gift" it to a friend that doesn't own it. It will never happen in the current state of things, but would be really useful
Don Mattrick is that you?I dont get whats the problem? The faster we get rid of second hand market the better. Devs/pubs get the money from every transaction of their product like they should.
Don't go there, before you know it we'll have limited numbers of digital games and NFTs
If when you buy a digital asset you get a digital key that is the ID for that item that you and only you own then something could be done about that.When a game stops being sold through official channels, the secondhand market becomes the only way to get it. Which means if a digital-only game gets delisted, it becomes legally unobtainable. Something should be done about that.
It does make you realize the difference between software that is usually consumable (games, media, etc) which people often use for a limited amount of time before getting bored and moving on versus software that is a long-term purchase like an operating system or productivity apps. Obviously, subscription services for media is pretty much the default now (still pretty new for games) but it would be nice if the market wasn't completely controlled by a few major distributors and customers could choose to resell like they would just a decade ago.
The other solution is remotely "renting" out your hardware/library to others. Rather than paying Google, MS, etc to use their cloud streaming, you have an app that lets you pay a little less to remotely play a game on somebody else's computer while they're not using it. That's pretty much impossible to track and recovers the value of both the hardware and software.
Robot Cache aims to do this with a crypto currency but I am not sure if that is too volatile to be successful. It needs to be a stable thing.
I'm really confused by what you're saying in your post.You're rather naively assuming everyone that will buy and sell games for the second-hand market will just decide to go to buying full price when most buy and sell second-hand games either cannot afford to buy or do not see games as being worth $60.
In reality, you will find that both sides just sits back and wait for the game to drop in price.
It'll be really interesting if it winds up being like NFTs where that cut is only in play if it's resold via a supported marketplace.I wonder if it is. If it is solved, IMO, it will be the store that has the chance to push steam out of its market leader.
I'm really confused by what you're saying in your post.
As others have said, if digital games can be sold secondhand and work and function exactly as brand new games, why would anyone ever pay MSRP or directly to a publisher even again, aside from the launch-day buyers? There is no economic advantage for publishers here. And it would irreparably harm game development, as developers see even less return on investment. We'd be living in a world full of GaaS and microtransactions unlocking crucial pieces of gameplay. Game devs say -now- that it's incredibly expensive to develop, why would they still take that risk if their bottom line is cut into?
In my example, I'm saying people like me who are nearly 100% digital will be fine to wait a couple of days to a week to get the same digital copy for cheaper (even if it'd only be by 5-10 bucks). Publishers would lose out on most of my purchases and I'm a pretty big spender. I can't be the only one.In your example, you're assuming that all the people who buy and sell second-hand games will suddenly change and pay full MSRP now we have gone fully digital.
People who buy and sell second-hand games are the kind of people looking for a bargain. As we go all-digital they will just look for other bargains, be it wait few months or more for a sale or appear in a bundle, go to key sellers, hunt for vouchers, use friends log in, and so on. They are not going to convert into the kind of people that are going to pay full MSRP as you assumed in your example.
Sure, I am not saying it HAS to be Robot Cache but something similar that works better.Robot Cache is non-sensensical scam though, getting 25% of whatever you sell for is ridiculous.
Since you need to wait 3 months to sell, games likely 50% discounted then, so basically that's a $7.5 discount.
I'm sure you can get such preorder discount, even without giving up any game.