Xbox One What if games are cheaper because of the 'used game' charge?

[cliverederson]

I mentioned this in a thread, but I'd like to pose this question to a larger audience because I find it interesting. Let's say, just for fun, that a new Xbox One game costs $49.99, but to install the game on a new account (any install after the initial account you install it on) they charge $19.99. Would the $10 reduction in initial cost make it worth the trade-off for not being able to sell/loan out/give away your game? I sincerely doubt this scenario will happen, but if they're going to profit from a new market of 2nd-hand games, I think it could be a fairer way to treat it. I'm curious how you guys would feel about it.

 

[purpleguardian]

I doubt they would do that. If it is all about money anyway because they won't have used games. I think that... Why would they charge $20 when they don't want anyone buying used games in the first place? I don't know. I don't really like the idea of not having any used games for the system. $49.99 Is a lot of money in these days. Plus the cost of the console itself. Plus 8 new franchises? It's becoming pretty expensive to be a gamer now if you add it up.

 

[Dr23]

I consider the possibility of this happening to be right around 0%. There's zero chance the games are any cheaper than $60. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if prices actually went up given they're all for the next generation of systems. Let's not forget that at one time games were never more than $50, but then $60 (or $59.99, same difference) became the standard.

The fee for used games is just a ploy to get additional revenue. Amazingly, these developers feel that even though you bought the game they should still have some rights to it if you decide to sell it. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. If I bought it at the price you established, I should be free to do whatever I want with it - play it, burn it, sell it on Ebay. It's absurd that people will have to plunk out an additional fee to play a used game. Talk about greed.

 

[cliverederson]

Yeah, I agree with you Dr23. Their model should be we're making a game to sell for $60 dollars. That's the end of the line, if a $60 sale isn't enough, then don't do it. They're seeing that second-hand market that Gamestop and stuff builds most of their business on and they want a piece. I was just curious if there could be a way that makes this idea palatable to people. I also agree there is a 0% chance of this happening, it's just fun to think about.

 

[lindbergh]

A reduction of $10 in the price would be great but if it would be in exchange for paying a fee of $19.99 to play used games, then that would be a rip-off! If you would buy a Blu-ray movie for maybe $10 and you sell it to a friend, do the producers charge extra because the movie would be watched a second time by somebody else? Who would ever want that? It's ridiculous. Thankfully, the Wii U does not do that, and hopefully, the PS4 would not do it too.

 

[Claptrap]

Yeaaaaaah... I really doubt it. I really doubt games will be cheaper. Hell, with the increase of graphical quality for the next-gen, I'm sure that games are now even more expensive to make. Higher budget = higher price. So I really doubt that they will lower prices anytime soon.

 

[cliverederson]

Yeaaaaaah... I really doubt it. I really doubt games will be cheaper. Hell, with the increase of graphical quality for the next-gen, I'm sure that games are now even more expensive to make. Higher budget = higher price. So I really doubt that they will lower prices anytime soon.

That's not necessarily true, technology gets better all around, computers can render faster, etc. Just because games improve doesn't necessarily mean they're more expensive to make. But.. you're probably right, haha. But new games have been around $60 for the a long time now though, and graphics and complexity are always getting more advanced.

 

[cliverederson]

A reduction of $10 in the price would be great but if it would be in exchange for paying a fee of $19.99 to play used games, then that would be a rip-off! If you would buy a Blu-ray movie for maybe $10 and you sell it to a friend, do the producers charge extra because the movie would be watched a second time by somebody else? Who would ever want that? It's ridiculous. Thankfully, the Wii U does not do that, and hopefully, the PS4 would not do it too.

@lindbergh You know, now that I think about it this model couldn't work. Used games selling for cheaper have the built in drawback of someone else has to not have the game anymore. If you could buy a brand new game for $60 then let you friend install it 10 minutes later for $20, that isn't fair at all. Unless it checks for the disk every time. Or I guess if they do the pricing by connecting to Microsoft to get the current price. "You'd like to purchase GTA V for your account? Price is xx" then they could control it over time. So at launch it'd be 59.99 but 2 years later, maybe its 34.99. etc.

Ugh, I don't know. This just proves what a pain in the ass it'd be if they do implement this.

 

[BlackSolaris]

Ah, if they reduce the price, is just that they can charge more for "new content" DLC (also known as "part of the game that we took away from the original release so we can charge it for more later").

 

[Dubs420]

I think if games are cheaper, which I actually really doubt, then like BlackSolaris said, they will just put a price tag on DLC that is higher than it is currently. Microsoft knows how to make their profits stretch far!

 

[Claptrap]

That's not necessarily true, technology gets better all around, computers can render faster, etc. Just because games improve doesn't necessarily mean they're more expensive to make. But.. you're probably right, haha. But new games have been around $60 for the a long time now though, and graphics and complexity are always getting more advanced.

Technology improve, which means they have to upgrade their hardware. Coding becomes more complex and the code for games ends up being bigger, which makes bug-fixing harder. Those are some examples I can think of.

It shows that games must be getting more expensive to make, in my opinion, because companies seem to be trying to maximize profits through any means necessary. Sequels instead of new IPs, reusing old assets, DLC, "online passes", etc, etc...

 

[ksam911]

Yeah that is definitely some optimistic thinking there. I am sure they did not premeditate reducing costs of new games by charging for new ones. Games will remain at the price they are now, and I would wager that the price tags go up rather than down in the unforeseeable future.

 

[cliverederson]

Yeah, I'm sure this won't happen. It seems like, at least based on the mobile game market, the move is lower the initial cost of games, then to nickel and dime people a little along the way. So ideally for them, you end up spending more in the long run, but just in smaller increments so you don't have to maul over spending a larger amount like $60. I find the mobile gaming market to be very annoying though.

 

[JasonPL]

I'd like to hope, but let's get real here.

What does Microsoft have to gain from this?

What does Developers have to gain from this?

It'd be really nice, but unless they go for a steam model where games go on sale periodically I don't think it will work.

 

[Mortontfrh]

I find that to be a highly unlikely solution. I mean I would personally enjoy that as I don't really trade games at all, so it would just be a net gain for me.

 

[cossectansin]

Honestly it is the DRM and the ability to track a game's owner day by day that would make game's cheaper. Think about how Steam is able to sell games at such a discount. Imagine if Microsoft just came out right now and said, "As a gamer you will see a lot of steep discounts on older/unwanted games" That might get people to not second guess why they are leaning the way they are.

 

[HickJ]

Games won't even become cheaper until the market starts to demand it by zipping up their wallets. Also someone in the gaming industry themselves has to push for price drops. Won't happen considering these employees and developers probably already feel they're being paid too little as it is.

 

[BitesizeCrayons]

Basically, I'd see it as silver lining in very dark clouds. More than anything, I like the thought of devs getting paid for their work, but they already are with the current system. This is one of the most fundamental areas in which the PS4 is winning me over so far.

 

[HickJ]

Same here. I just hope Sony doesn't turn on us and start acting crazy with their ideas and tries to copy Microsoft. Although I don't think Sony is that stupid, still....they are a conglomerate.

 

[Nitsua]

You must not have gamed (or don't remember) the 16-bit and 64-bit eras where a number of games easily reached $90 or more.
Games have stayed a steady price for quite awhile now and they look to be staying $60 with how MS and SONY are pricing their games atm. Used sales are still going to be a thing with the One (albeit only at select retailers) and I believe the sales we are currently seeing on the 360 right now will move to the One and in a more regular fashion since everything will be available digitally and developers can stop complaining about used sales hurting their bottom line since they will get a cut on the One.

As It was was, it was the other companies that brought the game prices to $60 from $50 since all of MS's launch titles were $50 and didn't go above that for a number of months until the publisher's kept with the $60 price. Even on PC it is they who are raising the price to $60 all around. I don't think we will have another price hike until next-next-gen... but, I believe more sales will happen this coming gen than the current one.