Ryan Sharpe from Get-Well Gamers Foundation posted a statement on Facebook condemning the way Microsoft plans to handle pre-owned titles. We have extensively detailed the confusion on that topic here. Sharpe says that this idea of a fee on used games is an alarming trend that bothers him so much the he has decided that he will not include Xbox One systems and games in the inventory of games for the 180 hospitals in its network.
Get-Well Gamers delivers video game systems and games to children's hospitals, which gives young patients something fun to do while being treated for serious medical conditions.
Sharpe emphasized to GamePolitics that he is not complaining about the fee on pre-owned games detailed by Microsoft yesterday out of spite or malice, but out of a genuine concern for how it will impact his organization's ability to give sick children games with "no-strings-attached."
You can read Sharpe's full statement below:
"Normally I don't pay much attention to announcements like this XBox thing, but the 'Pre-owned fee' has me livid. In a stroke, Microsoft has removed themselves from the Foundation's inventory for as long as this policy is in place. In our annual survey, the Foundation's network hospitals have on average less than one dollar per patient per year budgeted for any form of non-medical therapy and treatment. So now, if I send a hospital an XBox One with twenty games, it's going to cost them (at, charitably, .99 each) 19.80 just to play the games I've sent them for free?
And that's just for *one* system! Some of our member hospitals have dozens of systems spread around multiple wards! I can hear it now: "Sorry Jimmy, you can't play this game. Only the Oncology ward has it unlocked. Ridiculous. What a load of tripe. So yeah, no XBox One support from the Get-Well Gamers Foundation, it seems. Anyone who donates them to us, they'll have to be sold so we can buy games that can be played on more than one system. Good grief."
Sharpe makes a valid point. What happens when various charities that collect games for good causes have to deal with a licensing scheme that will charge whoever ends up with the game a fee? To the person (or facility, or organization) using that game it won't likely seem very charitable. This is something Microsoft needs to adequately address with some clear language. So far they have not done a very good job of explaining it.