The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit. Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around. So it's an irrational response but an understandable emotional response. It's a final marker of an era that realistically ended more than a decade ago. That video games are not an island: an enclosed experience of just you, the game, the console, the controller, the TV, and a bunch of wires connecting it all together. When we were kids, you had this little disc that exploded out into a world that was all your own to explore and experience. Now it's not all your own. When you bought a PlayStation 2 and some games, your relationship with Sony could end at any time and nothing would change in your day-to-day gaming experience. But today, buying a console is an ongoing relationship with the manufacturer every microsecond you play a game. And most people don't want to admit that. And ending disc production forces us to admit that old era has been dead and gone. More frighteningly, we helped it along every step of the way by overwhelmingly preferring digital downloads and always-on online games.
> The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit. Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.
On the contrary. It's been a very long process of boiling the frog.
I bought a physical release of Spore in 2008 and the game allowed itself to be installed a couple of times. Few years later I bought a single player RPG game for which I still own the CD but I'm not able to play it because I tied it to an online service and lost my credentials. All the games I own on Steam can be gone in one second and my children probably won't be able to get access to them even if they don't require online accounts, for which very many does.
There's a huge disconnect between online games that require servers to be played on - in which case it's sad but understandable that one day these will be gone and unplayable - and vast majority of games that are single player that still require players to be online and have credentials to some 3rd party applications.
GOG is the only vendor that actually lets you to own your games.
Steam is the only company that play fair with their customers, but I can easily see the future in which Gabe passes out and Tencent buys the company.
> But today, buying a console is an ongoing relationship with the manufacturer every microsecond you play a game.
We are fully aware of that, and that's precisely what we are opposed to.
I can buy an old PS2 with collection of games, plug it to a monitor and have fun with no hassle and without an internet connection. 10 years from now PS5 will be a dead brick, even with a bag full of games.
Steam's policy is that an already published game can only be delisted, allowing old owners to still play the game. I still own the original versions of Skyrim (before Anniversary edition, definitive edition, and all other *ditions), and I can still download it and play it, even though that version is not available for purchase in the store anymore.
Xbox and PSN don't have such luxuries AFAIK, after a game is removed from the store you cannot keep downloading and playing them.
PC is the last bastion for gaming freedom, a place to patch your game to use community servers. And for better or worse, piracy and emulation is always an option for the games that have any restrictions
The GTA case is because js technically an update from Rockstar, not specifically Steam's fault here. There are always to downgrade a game, but true, it is not as easy as GoG.
Steams policy means that Marvel Heroes, a game that was shutdown and its developer closed, can still be downloaded by prior owners and used on the private servers.
Kind of interesting but I also had a game on GOG that got delisted and had to get a refund because it got removed.
> Steam's policy is that an already published game can only be delisted, allowing old owners to still play the game. I still own the original versions of Skyrim (before Anniversary edition, definitive edition, and all other *ditions), and I can still download it and play it, even though that version is not available for purchase in the store anymore.
No. Their policy is:
> This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
And their disclaimer disavows any rights you have to use the software or for it not to become broken.
And they prohibit transferring your account or licenses in any fashion, which means they are at best only going to become void when you pass.
I'm not talking about licenses or owning the game, I'm talking about if a publisher removes a game for whatever reason, you don't immediately lose access to that game, you can play it forever after. That is their current de facto policy, with probably a few exceptions.
The discussion on wether you truly own a licensed game is a different thing from what I said.
With the exception of a few (regrettable) "game key" cards, physical Switch 1/2 games are usually playable offline with just the game card and the console.
This is part of the appeal of Nintendo consoles - you don't need to connect them to the internet, and they are still terrific for local multiplayer.
On the Switch 2 the game key card only needs the internet to download the game initially. Once it’s downloaded the GKC authorizes the license totally offline and you can play offline like any other cartridge. You’d only need internet for online features like any other game.
If you have another Switch with the game already on it you can even download the game from that Switch using the “match version” feature and then play with the GKC to authorize the license, no internet required.
That's what I do at home. We have few switches (2 and 1) and a stack of games. Whenever someone wants to play something they get the card and play and return it afterwards for others to enjoy. No internet needed except for initial switch 2 setup when you turn it on for the first time.
I remember half life 2 sucked -- you bought a physical game disk in the store... and you had to create a steam account to play it. I thought they were jerks at the time because before that a physical disk was what you needed to play your game.
What they did was set a bad example, and then the floodgates opened for all the rest to pull that nonsense.
Other big companies set bad examples too. All the fashionable but flawed Apple UI designs get copied by everyone else. For example Tesla has a similar iphone/ipad UI in their cars -- but they are moving vehicles and you don't want to be swiping on a screen to defrost your windshield.
I really wish companies would step up and set GOOD examples and follow through.
[1] In November 2004, Half-Life 2 was the first high-profile game to be offered digitally on Steam, requiring installation of the Steam client for retail copies. During this time users faced problems attempting to play; part of legal issues that Valve had with Vivendi, who claimed that physical copies it published could not be activated as to it the game had not been released. The Steam requirement was met with concerns about software ownership and requirements, as well as problems with overloaded servers - demonstrated previously by the Counter-Strike rollout.
>The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.
I can see where you're coming from, but having recently replayed my childhood copy of MGS, all I can say is don't ask me for Meryl's codec number.
> Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.
I disagree. They are using that as an excuse, when in reality they simply desire more control. When Sony releases their sales numbers they never compare physical and digital sales of games that are offering both, but rather compare physical sales to everything digital including DLC and digital-only games to make the percentage of digital sales seem higher. You can't ever get a real comparison when there are options for both. Since it is true that physical sales are declining, they feel that they can do so without significant push back. Disc sales are still significant, and even besides the big companies there are tons of smaller companies that would gladly continue to order discs for indie games, limited editions, collectors, etc.
That said, I think you are quite correct about the "ongoing relationship with the manufacturer". This is just another step in the direction of seizing total control over things that people once considered that they owned.
Just going off vibes, I think if Sony could sell a physical media from now until the end of time they would. This is a company that engineered a tiny optical drive and little DVDs encased in cartridges that slot in for their portable game system. Whenever you read about a format war, one side is almost always Sony. This is also a company that like took a full month to recover their online services. My point is I think Sony is a follower and not a leader in this space. If they could print discs and license the tech to deal with them from now until the end of time they would.
The through-line there is not a love for optical technology, but a desire for control. UMDs and MiniDiscs and the like existed because Sony thought that they could impose a monopoly on the market. On the contrary, after so many losing bets, you would think they'd be tired of trying, and looking for another way to get the same end (lock-in).
Most PS5 games still have the entire game on the disc and can be played offline. Sony also dumps DLC and microtransactions sales into the "proof" of digital being higher on top of digital only games. And they completely ignore used games. From what I heard for a lot of games that have both a digital and disc option it was closer to 60-40.
I'm still perfectly happy with my solo racing games on PS2, not that I play them much anymore (or I would have bought ought a PS3 4 or 5.)
I never understood why I should prefer driving against some punks that spend their evening crashing into the other players on purpose or wait for online races to start.
I think you misunderstand. The disc was the practical tie-down and compromise that allowed gamers to stomach what was happening. Whether or not gamers actually took advantage of the opportunity, the fact that there was a disc out there that they could physically pick up and buy meant that console game publishers (and, by extension, non-indie PC game publishers) couldn't descend into the depths of perma-Early Access-dom, or sell you a "game" that was really a pre-order.
If physical releases actually go away, that dystopia comes to bear. Console publishers think that this is a step in the direction of further control over their library, which is laughable. They're killing the compromise, the other side of which was, "Gamers will mostly respect console DRM and not flood the zone with "Explicitly Fuck You" piracy." These companies are about to learn a hard lesson.
I don't buy this a bit. Pirates weren't holding back until they got really upset about something. There will be absolutely no punishment for this change, because it is a minor change for the people who stuck them through the PS2->PS3 transition (and far beyond), and the people who were raised in a world where you didn't own things.
If some secret torrent of piracy is somehow unleashed, they'll just unleash a secret torrent of lobbying to increase penalties and investigation, and a secret torrent of partnerships with and cross-ownership of ISPs to unleash a secret torrent of surveillance.
I'm pretty sure I was the only one who dropped consoles entirely when they told me that the PS3 was going to have to be online. All my PS2 stuff still works, and I bought a couple more to make sure I'd always have parts. Pretty much everybody else liked gaming more than they liked their professed belief systems.
This won't even be an adjustment. Maybe they could give you a cardboard disk with a QR code on it that you can slide into fake little slot, in a very pretty box that says "Collectors Edition" on it. Or a DVD with a single encrypted text file on it that has your license number.
>Pirates weren't holding back until they got really upset about something.
They weren't pirates until now. This is radicalizing hubris.
>If some secret torrent of piracy is somehow unleashed, they'll just unleash a secret torrent of lobbying to increase penalties and investigation, and a secret torrent of partnerships with and cross-ownership of ISPs to unleash a secret torrent of surveillance.
This has never worked. On the contrary, for most of the history of rewriteable media in most of the world, bootlegging has been the norm, and IP owners are powerless to stop it save providing a more convenient alternative.
>Or a DVD with a single encrypted text file on it that has your license number.
This could have been an option before they made their power grab. It's too late now. They've killed the goodwill and "face" that made the prior paradigm digestible, and exposed the strategy to too many people who wouldn't have faced it earlier.
Discs don’t matter. The whole “bring back discs” thing is pointless. They’re gone. Period.
Rights matter. If we had the same rights with digital purchases we had with old physical games the disc thing would be a much much smaller issue. Would many care outside true collectors?
Don’t confuse the two. If you do, and you complain loudly enough, you’ll get the monkey’s paw version of discs. All the downsides of both, no upside at all.
It cannot be a "pretend" manifestation, when a physical disc that requires nothing more than an official piece of hardware to use continues to work 100 years into the future (assuming the physical hardware survives that long.) Those are the "rights" that are being fought for in this instance.
I'm interested to understand the self-denial and mental gymnastics you're using to make the claim: physically owning something that cannot be taken away from you is just pretending that you physically own something that cannot be taken away from you.
The wedding ring on my finger cannot be taken away from me by the person who made it. It's mine. I can wear it for the next 50 years or I can throw it to a river. Those are my rights as the owner of the physical medium.
You can keep your coaster for 500 years. Thats not want you wanted when you bought it.
What if the full game isn’t on the disc? How are you going to play it in five years when the servers are gone and you can’t download the rest.
What if the game isn’t on the disc at all? What if it’s basically a magic unlock code and then the whole thing gets downloaded. Like Nintendo’s game key cards.
No one can ever take away your right to stick your disc into the console. And it will always do whatever it did if you did that when the console was not connected to the Internet.
Today you can’t always play the game in that situation. Which means that having the thing in your hand already isn’t good enough.
Digital download makes that fact obvious. People think discs are still in PS1/2 days where they're always enough. Thats gone.
Discs do matter in one way. I don't think I have ever seen a digital "purchase" of any significance which I could resell or gift at a later time. Some "in game" things are resellable, but only within the game's ecosystem. All digital games, music, movies, ebooks, audio books, etc are not (AFAIK).
So if I get tired of my DVD movie collection, I could sell it or give it to my kids. If I ever decide I'm too old for the retro game cartridges I have, they could go to future grandkids. But my GOG games or Bandcamp music is stuck with me forever (legally speaking). Nobody would know if I "gave" them to my kids, but there certainly is no way to resell them.
Now this is still a rights issue, but physical media makes this easy (outside of keys/DRM as you point out) You always have the right to hand on a physical object.
Sure, but the context of the article is the recent kerfuffle over Sony deciding not to continue producing disc copies of games. It would not be difficult for them to keep producing disc games but still restrict them in the same way as digital games (e.g. requiring you to authenticate to the PlayStation servers with an account the first time you put the disc in, and then refusing to allow that copy of the game to work for any other account in the future). That might sound extremely, because it is, but let's keep in mind this is a company that made the CDs people bought install rootkits to try to avoid letting people burn copies.
The point that I read the parent commenter as making is that if the loud outcry in favor of discs go so loud that they were forced to spend effort with continued manufacturing of physical discs, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption they might try to do something like what I described, because at least they get some of what they're trying to go for with the digital-only strategy even if it's not all of it. Focusing on the discs themselves is a distraction from the actual issue.
It’s trivial to sell media or software on a disc such that the disc itself is not equivalent to a license to use the media or software on it. I don’t know of video games do this yet, but this was the case for a prominent PC operating system for decades.
It's a proof of purchase that can be transferred without approval by (or knowledge of) the original seller. There is literally no equivalent possible with digital sales, unless you accept flawless, pervasive DRM everywhere.
It doesn't have to be a disc. It almost certainly does need to be physical.
Discs matter because centralized digital distribution is what is eroding your rights. The medium's the message.
It's the malleability and ephemerality of digital content that has enabled not just restricting people's rights, but destroying the authenticity of media by arbitrarily replacing its content. The reason Amazon could delete 1984 from your Kindle, is its digital nature. Nobody, except you, can delete a book from your shelf or change its content.
> For years now, the testers at DoesItPlay have been documenting this trend, testing thousands of physical game releases to see which ones live up to the promise of full “plug and play” functionality without an Internet connection. Thus far, a full 27 percent of the physical releases they’ve tested require some sort of download to fix game-breaking bugs or obtain core game content that is not stored on the physical release itself. That ratio balloons to 34 percent for tested PS5 games and 50 percent for those on the Xbox Series X.
yes but that's exactly my point, if all you get is a code in a box and you rely on online services to download the game that's the dependence you need to get away from.
That example is my case for full, offline, physical copies of a piece of media I can plug and play into my console without an internet connection.
It's not about the digitalness, it's about the hardware that enforces the rights management. You can stick every Super Nintendo game ever made on to a not-very-large SD card. It's completely digital. No one anywhere can control what you do with them. It's honestly more "yours" in that form than the corresponding rather enormous pile of cartridges.
Turning things into big piles of numbers isn't what takes them from you. It's the hardware and ecosystem that limits what you can do with the numbers. The reason Amazon could delete that book isn't that the numbers were particularly deletable somehow, it's that people were using systems that let someone else control them.
> You can stick every Super Nintendo game ever made on to a not-very-large SD card. It's completely digital. No one anywhere can control what you do with them. It's honestly more "yours" in that form than the corresponding rather enormous pile of cartridges.
And further, see how much effort companies spend on trying to prevent people from putting games onto computers like that and using emulation to play them. There's a pretty solid argument that copying games from older physical media like that to purely digital copies actually preserves them, because it's a lot harder for someone to construct a bunch of mechanically functional SNES consoles than it is to distribute copies of an emulator.
The point is you have no rights digital or physical. That’s the problem.
Disc are not magic totems. There is nothing promising you the disc you will work in 10 years, 10 months, 10 days. Nothing ensuring that you can resell it for >$0. They could trivially make the disc hold a one-time redemption for the game.
If you buy a physical used copy of Anthem can you play it? Nope. They could do that with single player games.
What’s the resale value of, effectively, a coaster? Can you lend it to a friend? Your current rights are about the coaster. Not the software.
You happen to have abilities with physical discs because of tradition. You’re not guaranteed those. Digital makes that obvious.
> Disc are not magic totems. There is nothing promising you the disc you will work in 10 years, 10 months, 10 days. Nothing ensuring that you can resell it for >$0. They could trivially make the disc hold a one-time redemption for the game.
I think the funniest thing about all of this to me is that we're literally talking about the company that put rootkits on their CDs to try to stop the content from being used in a way they didn't like. They might literally have the worst track record in history when it comes to predatory consumer behavior related to discs, and people are trying to get them to keep making them.
If gog.com went away tomorrow, downloaded games and installers should be copyable to another PC relatively easily (so far this has worked 100% for me at least).
I'm not sure how easy it will be to copy downloaded games to another PS3 once Sony pulls the plug on the PSN store (and likely PSN login) for PS3 next year.
I have one game, (Lego Lord of the Rings) which won't launch, but it was an impulse purchase on sale, and I am no longer on vacation and stuck at my mother-in-law's, so haven't investigated beyond an unanswered (last I checked) forum post.
This is just straight up false. Laws don't cease to exist because of a liquidation. Legal rights absolutely matter in the event of a liquidation, and will be part of any liquidation process.
For example, if there was a law that the entire source code (including server code) should be immediately put into public domain if the game maker is unable to meet their obligation of serving up the game due to liquidation, then the release of the source code would be a legally sanctioned part of the liquidation process.
This is just straight up false. Apparently you don't understand bankruptcy law. Courts will prioritize the interests of creditors first.
And the notion of a law requiring source code to be released in the public domain is so stupid. The source code is an asset which can potentially be sold to benefit creditors. And often the source code contains IP owned by third parties who wouldn't allow a release anyway.
The law is what the people say it is. As the previous generation that created this system dies their successors can repeal eternal copyright laws and institute consumer protections again. e.g. we can demand source escrow to receive copyright (with a short grace period for current copyright holders to register/set up escrow), drastically shorten the period, demand copyrighted material continue to be made available or you lose your monopoly, etc. Or just abolish the whole system, which might completely lose its purpose if AI continues to improve. Actually companies might be doing this themselves on accident by using AI to generate assets, making them ineligible for copyright.
All it takes is for young people to decide that they actually don't think they should have to pay a subscription to e.g. listen to music that came out when their dead great grandparents were kids or that they should have no rights to own anything ever.
The same people whose student loans couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy could I'm sure consider the idea that companies' obligations to them can't be either.
Not a great article, but a very real phenomenon. I recently picked up a banned Nintendo Switch Lite for cheap -- meaning it can't download games or updates off Nintendo's servers, but it can still play cartridge games. And while most games function, there are more often than not critical fixes or significant content updates missing. The console exists in a strange sort of limbo where everything is playable but not in its best form.
The problem with Sony killing physical games (and the wider culture of digital purchases) is, unfortunately, a long-term one. Nobody will be seriously affected right now, as long as Sony's update servers are up and both digital and physical are supported. But 10, 20 years from now, both from a game preservation standpoint and from a consumer protection standpoint, this will be disastrous, when many games will still be charging outrageous prices (without the soft check of reselling/trading) or even no longer exist.
What games? One thing I do appreciate about the Switch is that most first party games come fully playable on cartridge. I bought Splatoon Raiders the other day on the way to the train station for a long ride; I popped it in and started playing, never had any internet. It occurred to me later that I probably couldn't have done this for a third party title.
There's a spreadsheet [0] tracking Switch games where you can see which ones have 'complete' versions on carts. It's roughly 1/4 for both first party and third party titles, though first party games are more likely to have cartridges released in a later run with updates included, while third party games are more likely to just have no updates.
(Splatoon Raiders was released a week ago so I don't think that's a good example to use for games without updates. Even it has an update already, albeit a non-critical one)
> Splatoon Raiders was released a week ago so I don't think that's a good example to use for games without updates.
...I don't really see why. The question isn't whether a game has updates available, it's whether the un-updated version feels like a complete experience vs a compromised one.
I'm not sure how to read the spreadsheet in that context.
> The question isn't whether a game has updates available, it's whether the un-updated version feels like a complete experience vs a compromised one.
Exactly -- a game released a week ago is unlikely to have updates that could make it feel like a compromised experience.
Take, say, Terraria. I had a blast playing it ten years ago, despite having a fraction of the content and polish it does now. Nonetheless, if that version was all I had access to today, it would feel like a compromised experience.
Updates matter significantly more for some games than others. Sandbox games like Terraria and Minecraft often lie at one end, while at the other end you'll often find first-party Nintendo games, which typically receive a handful of bug fixes at most. Of course, how much playing a 'lesser' version bothers you personally varies greatly too.
The spreadsheet just shows which games have fully updated versions available on cartridge.
Hardcover books often contain typos. The Kindle versions of these books will sometimes get updated to fix these typos. These updates make the reading experience better for Kindle customers, but they do not reduce the reading experience for hardcover customers. Your hardcover book will remain just as good as it was at the time it was published.
Now, Terraria received much more significant updates. I think a game like Terraria is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of physical games.
It seems we're largely on the same page. I would point out though, sometimes those seemingly minor tweaks can be pretty important; they're not always at the level of typos in a book.
One that affected me personally was in Pokemon XY, where if you saved in the wrong spot it would corrupt your entire save. As a kid it was a pretty memorable experience to lose ~20 hours of playtime on my Christmas present because I assumed the updates weren't important. Granted, day-one bugs that major in first party Nintendo games are rare, but it's not a given that they're irrelevant either. It can go either way.
This made me think of how we have to manually block certain devices (usually smart TVs) so they don’t “phone home” and show us ads and so forth. I see your switch being banned as a sort of mixed blessing. It’s liberating in a way. I wonder if there’s some way to use a proxy to self host the software patches. We had something similar on the PS3 homebrew scene.
I've looked into it, and there doesn't seem to be any existing solution. You can transfer updates from one Switch to another, though, so if you have two Switches that opens up some options.
The PS3 is a relic from an era where consoles being connected to the internet was still a relatively new concept, and security was a lot more lax. Newer consoles like the Switch are far more locked down, everything is signed/encrypted/verified/etc so any tinkering of that sort is impossible without a kernel code execution exploit.
The only option for a banned Switch Lite is installing a modchip (there are people who will do it for you for a fee, well worth it imo).
I'm fairly sure it's one of the reasons both MS and Sony went with AMD hardware from 2013 onwards, they can make use of the security/virtualization features their server platform has.
To provide a basic level of consumer protection, governments should:
1. Recognize that paying for a game implies ownership. Developers must not employ methods that remove purchased games from online stores or become otherwise unplayable.
2. Recognize the legality of cracking games to make them playable.
To put it in the classic anti-piracy "You wouldn't steal a car, would you?" terminology, we need to tell developers, "No, you can't sell us a car and then steal it. Yes, we have the right to built tools to take it back if you try."
I think item 1 will be most provable. Sony says "you can have X experience for Y dollars". You pay Y dollars. 10 years elapse. Sony says X is no longer available. Sony has absorbed Y dollars but your X is gone and you cannot access it. This is the new model.
Got bitten by the deceptive nature of Nintendo "game key trash". Purchased a game online without reading carefully the description. Sent it back and bought a SteamDeck.
I can't recall if the seller even put the correct visuals: game key trash have a banner telling that they are plastic waste and you should instead give all the money to nintendo by using eshop.
Game Key cards have a banner on the box explaining what they are and marking them. They are IMO superior to a digital purchase in all but convenience. You can still sell, gift, loan them, require no Nintendo account to use either. And after the download to the console they work just fine offline.
Valve and Steam Works games happily sold literal trash that were useless to anyone but the first person who redeemed the key. They destroyed the second hand PC market selling codes in a box with potential time saver installers. And they still needed online activation.
Nintendo is the worst. Another example: Wii virtual console purchases don't carry over. They're selling people the exact same Mario ROMs dozens of times in a display of absolute rent seeking. Playstation recently got caught remotely deleting people's "purchased" movies too.
I too bought a Steam Deck and haven't looked back. It's still a normal computer even if Steam itself goes to shit, but all signs point to it steadfastly refusing to do that. Here's to hoping Gaben never dies.
The Switch has one particular feature that doesn't get enough talk: basically any game update can be sent to another Switch peer-to-peer. I'm pretty sure it even works with Game Key Cards, since they're just a rebrand of an annoyance that the Switch 1 had since launch.
You could, at least hypothetically, put every physical cartridge in a Switch or Switch 2 and download all the updates to those games, and just have an offline mirror of Nintendo's entire update CDN. More likely someone should make a homebrew app that archives update data by using this weird peer-to-peer update protocol, but I have no idea what encryption would need to be broken to make that work. But it would be a legitimate boon to game preservation to have something where someone with a bone-stock Switch and a game can just download the update they need and be done with it.
Steam does this for installation with machines on the local network! It will discover them and get the data from those machines instead of downloading from the wider internet. I’m not sure if it works for updates but it might!
Get a Mig Flash, rip your games, support the emulator communities, etc.
It's so easy for DRM'd games to become lost forever as the rights transfer around, and the hosting or support costs stop being worth it for publishers.
I don't understand how we are running into a future where I cannot buy the equivalent of "PS2 + 5 games" on a second-hand shop. That has been the main way to play games for a lot of people: buy a previous gen pack (with N games included) when the richer neighbour was upgrading to the next gen console.
How's that going to work out today or in newer generations?
The young people today are so used to just paying a subscription, it’s really sad. On the upside there is a movement in buying older physical media among the youth but I think it’s more of a fad.
Fascinating listener comment, from a librarian to ATP, about the special legal exceptions with which libraries were equipped to have a chance against copyright and DRM tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u11ar0649Y4&t=373s (timestamped deep-link)
For an FPGA project I'm working on that requires a host software program on the host computer, I've been looking into finding a way to burn the host software or source code to the fpga itself. So you'd just plug in the USB port and it would automatically open a filesystem and let you copy over the source code or even binary blob for the software so it would work in the future.
The point the article is making is that people assume that a game having physical media means its fully functional - but that's often not the case. Most games made recently rely on access to centralized servers to make the game playable in a concrete way. Emulation will help - but unlike previous generations having physical media won't be enough.
The majority of gamers do not care because the games being released today aren't worth saving. They are all symptoms of the same root cause. Quality went down immensely in the 2010s.
This has happened to other media, and it was inevitable that it would happen to games. What eras of movies or music do you think of when you consider those collections? Why would gaming be different?
yeah the backlash against sony is focusing on the wrong detail, disks don't mean ownership and digital doesn't mean you can't own it
the disks themselves are largely a relic already, not enough storage for some games... and I don't recall a game I've played recently that didn't require a download on first play
it would be nice to have some regulation that at least requires games to have some sort of labelling that indicates a minimum length of support for online functionality requirements
Stop discounting consumer choice. The market had physical/digital library parity for about 10+ years. PC first and now we are at the end of the decade of console digital choice and.. The market has spoken.
I don't think this is a defense of digital-only sales so much as a reality check that even physical game sales have been consumer-hostile for a long time.
reply