Selling an xbox one with digital games

Looking to sell digital download for 'Battlefield 1 Early Enlister Deluxe Edition' Xbox One. I already own the game and I bought the new Xbox One S battlefield edition which came with the digital download code.(Clearly don't need 2 of the
same game lol). Would sell for around $40 since the basic version of the game is selling for $50 still.

The only way to get your disc game working on the "All digital" edition of the Xbox One is to purchase the game digitally.

It's not possible to "convert" a disc game to a digital game. Otherwise you could buy a disc, convert it to digital, and sell the disc to someone else who would then convert to digital, sell the disc and so on, until the whole world has the game digitally,
and only one disc was sold.

So the only way to get a digital copy of your disc based game would be to buy the game digitally again.

Private Douks

You should be able to sell a digital downloaded game on when you have finished with it.

To date, no court has upheld a consumer right to have a secondary market for game licenses. The closest anyone has gotten is the Oracle case which said that Oracle software packages could be resold. That case does not extend to
entertainment products. There was a lawsuit filed in the EU to force Amazon to support a secondary market for Kindle books. It lost. There's a lawsuit in Germany to force Valve to support a secondary market for Steam games. It's still in court.

The technology is not rocket science, but the powers that be don't want to make the facility available.

A digital secondary market continually draws on the resources of the publisher. It's not a "powers that be" thing, it's an economic thing. Digital goods never wear out, but the infrastructure to support redownload and activation
have a recurring cost. Hard drives wear out. Servers require power and replacing. Network bandwidth is not free. Network monitoring is not free. Enabling a secondary market without finding a way to cover those recurring costs is a losing proposition. No publisher
would go for it, and indeed none should as it's a bad business decision.

Interesting that digital downloads are more expensive than the actual games in the shops too!!

That's true on console because there's no alternate market for licenses right now. If publishers started selling digital codes in stores, then brick and mortar or online retailers could compete with MS and Sony's own marketplaces.
It's unlikely this will happen because publishers LIKE their prices to stay high. It's not MS that forces them to stay at $59.99.

On the PC, Steam codes are available from several other sources - Green Man Gaming and Amazon being two big ones. One can shop around. That helps keep Steam's prices reasonable, or at least provides an alternate source for Steam
codes for those willing to shop around. It also helps that there is no functional difference between a PC game sold at retail and a PC game sold on Steam. The retail game just allows one to avoid download wait time, however the disc isn't required. More than
one PC game I've bought at retail I've never used the disc for, I've just put in the code and downloaded it from Steam.

It's the lack of uniform features that publishers like on the console front. They don't care if physical copies sell for less. There's less overhead on their part to support them. You break the disk? Your problem. You lose the
disk? Your problem. That doesn't happen with digital. As long as your account is in good standing you can download that game to as many consoles as you like and the publisher has to keep the game available forever. This lack of feature parity is part of why
MS and Sony marketplace prices remain high. There are benefits to digital that disc does not have (can't lose it, never have to swap a disc) and they're trading on that.

If the only differentiating feature was that physical titles could be resold and given once, then the backend resources for the titles becomes identical. Indeed, it's better for the publisher if you go digital since you can't
trade in the title (there was no secondary market provision for digital titles in the original DRM model). That would cause prices on the marketplace to fall over time, just like Steam's do, because it's in their vested interest to prevent the secondary market
that the discs enable. But because consumers insist on clinging to their existing concept of "ownership" and offline gaming, we all lost out.

>

>

>

Icestorm, I agree whole heartedly with everything that you have said save for one thing. We didn't all lose out. Offline gaming is something that people deserve to be able to enjoy. I have a console connected at all times, but when I have to leave the
state for work, etc, I will take my other "travel console" with me to play at night when hotels require a browser login or just for use as a DVD player. I also know many who do not have internet at their homes and love their xbox and games. I'm not saying
that companies can cater to everyone, because they just can't. I am, however, saying that it would be a shame for these people and myself to spend their money somewhere else and MS lose out on more sales than they already have to Sony. I love the MS exclusives
and would hate for their console gaming products to take a dive because they end of losing enough market support.

[quote user="ocelot20"]I have a feeling games are tied to a console.[/quote]They are tied to their "Home" console. If the purchasing gamertag changes their Home console, the games will stop working on your console.

@Basquealisk - the "have to maintain a gold account" is only for the free Games for Gold. Hence I don't see how "buy" comes into it. It's a service - if you remain a member you get to play Games for Gold free....if your membership lapses then so does the
service. It is NOT rocket science.

Isn't it ironic that the people who complained about the original MS DRM offering managed to get MS to u-turn and rid of the ability to sell digital copies - and now they are very same people saying "see, you can't sell digital copies and therefore that
was why DRM is bad".