Support NeoGAF

Marty Chinn · Feb 13, 2017

FarFromAnyGame said:
Seriously? and when the disc collection burns?

I've had way more hard drives fail than the number of times my house burned down. Heck, I've had way more hard drives fail than the number of games in my library that simply stopped working. Hard drive failures will happen over time from usage and are quite common. Discs and cartridges that simply stop working tend to not happen from normal usage.

Fisty said:
This isn't a good counter. Shutting down servers for games affects both physical and digital. So far, people that have bought digital games have not had them forcibly removed from their library unless they break ToS, even if games get delisted from the digital store you can still download them. None of those "industry players" that aren't around existed during the digital era.

The point is, any one of those companies can just bow out and move on in a short time frame. Again, Sega seems like it was around forever, but it really was only around 15 years. You can bet that there would be no way they would keep those servers running had they done digital distribution back then. We're still in the early days of digital distribution so we've yet to see the major fallout take place.

And the fact digital marketplaces can continue to sell games long after hardware life cycle ends means there's no real reason to shut down the store. The only example of a store getting shut down is OG Xbox, and while it was pretty scummy, they weren't selling full games (I wouldn't buy digital content from them regardless, so w.e)

Keeping servers online is a costly thing to do. Keeping servers around for dead hardware that you're burning money through is something businesses aren't going to do, especially if they leave the industry all together. Heck, we've lost things like OnLive, Games for Windows Live, and PlayStation Mobile. Notice two of them are from Microsoft and Sony who are still around but still shut down access. So you're wrong that it was only the OG Xbox.

So for those reasons, I would say it's likely I will be playing my digital copy of Bloodborne on PS7, hopefully your disc copy won't be scratched or have disc rot by then. And hey... if Sony does decide to shut down the PS3 store in 2027, then I can pick up physical copies of all those digital games I bought for like $2 each

I keep my collection in good condition and through around 3000 games, not a single one is unplayble from a scratch or disc rot. Plus you better hope that Bloodborne doesn't shoot up in price like say Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy 3. Not to mention, I can't pass digital copies on to other people.

ShadowFox08 · Feb 13, 2017

McGruber21 said:
To each his own, but I find this idea that the convenience of saving a few seconds makes digital worthwhile to be laughable. The appeal of digital games really just feels like a result of society as a whole getting lazier, and perhaps valuing things a lot less now that we have a million other things to turn our attention to at any moment. I'll keep buying all physical games until I can't because I like owning games and not renting them, I also like for my purchases to have value.

It actually really is a hassle for many. Sure 10 seconds isn't all that big of deal , but its could be the thing that just demotivates you from playing that game..It's really more of an out of sight, out of mind thing. Not everyone can freely multi task with games. And it would be all that much of a pain juggling between more than 2 games back and forth for the people that turns people off. Having everything at once without having to change anything is a big deal. But its not just about that either, its also about taking it with you on the go, and not having to worry about taking up physical space.. which not everyone has the luxury in their homes.

Moze · Feb 13, 2017

Why would disc swapping be an issue? Who is playing multiple games during each gaming session?

I thought most people just played one game at a time?

I certainly understand why someone would want a digital version of a fighting or sports game to be able to quickly jump in for an online match but who is jumping from single player game to single player game during a single session?

Memorabilia · Feb 13, 2017

renzolama said:
Well, there's the example of Steam...

Publishers will compete with one another on price given the opportunity to do so. Maximizing profit very rarely means "continuing to raise price forever on everything," I think you might have a bit of bias against publishers and console manufacturers (or maybe just against people who champion digital content) clouding your understanding of economics.

Lol Come again? I'm a trained economist and (in what feels like a "former life" nowadays) worked at a Fortune 500 investment bank. Steam isn't an equivalent comparison for a number of reasons, chief among them is the fact that the console platforms have a super obvious *virtual monopoly* on sales pipelines and lock that shit down, which is why there are generally no XBL / PSN Humble Bundles, Bundlestars, etc...or other *legitimate* sources selling game keys that activate on the console platforms. If you eliminate those options on Steam or Sony/Microsoft suddenly decide to allow those options then your comparison and argument would hold water. Since that is just fantasy talk at this point, it doesn't. Try again.

Kagoshima_Luke · Feb 13, 2017

I never understand the convenience argument. What does changing the disc add to the game swap process... 10 seconds? Yet people except 30+ second load times and such without a second thought.

ShadowFox08 said:
It actually really is a hassle for many. Sure 10 seconds isn't all that big of deal , but its could be the thing that just demotivates you from playing that game..It's really more of an out of sight, out of mind thing. Not everyone can freely multi task with games. And it would be all that much of a pain juggling between more than 2 games back and forth for the people that turns people off. Having everything at once without having to change anything is a big deal. But its not just about that either, its also about taking it with you on the go, and not having to worry about taking up physical space.. which not everyone has the luxury in their homes.

If an extra 10 seconds demotivates you from playing a game, you probably didn't want to play that game much to begin with.

Terrell · Feb 13, 2017

Marty Chinn said:
It's not quite equally terrible. If you lose something physical, you can find a way to get it back. If they cut off something digital, you may not have any way to get it back.

I lost my copy of Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn in one of my moves. Yeah, I can get it back... if I pay double what I paid for it new at retail on eBay.

Were it available digitally, I'd still have it.

The argument cuts both ways.

Memorabilia said:
Comparing the potential loss of paid for digital content due to a potential future server shut-down *as a direct result of corporate mandated profit motive* with... natural disasters is a new one...I mean, seriously? "Acts of God" or environmental distress are nothing like a board of directors hypothetically deciding to declare bankruptcy and screwing existing digital owners. This is quite possibly the most creative and absurd justification I've heard yet. Lol Sheesh.

You still lose something at the end of the day. And I never said they were completely analogous, that was you. I made it quite clear that the main differences were that corporate bankruptcy is rarer than an "act of God", as you call it, and also that the primary difference is that one scenario gives an entity you can quantifiably vilify for your loss. Marty added another, but buying everything again isn't always a saving grace, either.

Again, the point was to highlight the foolishness of thinking buying physical shields you from losing your games as some have argued. "It's yours"... yeah, until it's not.

Memorabilia said:
Let's say all physical forms of media distribution go the way of the dodo tomorrow. Do people honestly believe digital platform providers with a monopoly lock on their platform game sales (PSN and XBL) will, out of the goodness of their hearts, suddenly adopt the more reasonable pricing strategies of the physical distributors? Or do you think it might be possible that without any sort of price competition from physical at all that the currently meager digital sales on both console platforms will actually get worse? Given how the real world works I think I know the answer, but I'm genuinely curious why some people seem to think that removing physical media games will somehow improve the digital pricing structure instead of making it worse than it already is?

They don't have a monopoly, though, by your own admission that more than one exists. PSN and XBL and Nintendo eShop will compete against each other, and all 3 of them will compete against Steam, vying for people's money, which itself competes with other online distribution methods on PC. The fall of physical media wouldn't end competition. In fact, if margins increase and they have no worry about pissing off retailers, competition will likely be more heated than it is now as each platform vies for the title of the best platform due to offering the best value.

The monopoly argument holds no water.

Devilgunman · Feb 13, 2017

After I had to move a couple times, I knew I was done with collecting physical copies. It's such a pain in the ass to pack them all in boxes and carry to a new place and put them on shelf again. Right now my collections are still in the boxes is a storage and I don't think I will bother unpacking them again.

People worry about games someday might be delisted but for me that's not a problem at all. By that time I would most likely move on to a new console and barely look back to the current gen. If one day I want to play an old game, I'm sure I can easily find a second hand copy from eBay. If I can still find an Atari 2600 game today, I'm sure I can find a PS4 game 20 yrs later.

comshoplesce · Feb 13, 2017

Digital only when price is much lover then retail. Retail is almost (90%) of the time cheaper then digital + preowned later a lot cheaper + resell value.

Also digtail games on your account can be hacked/stolen.

Laziness? Is this really a thing? I mean come on, what an excuse. Space for holding 5-10 cover games is also not a big of a issue, is it?

Anyone please make a studiy/calculation how much you spend a year via buying digital or via retail.

I fear the day retails will be gone, because there is no competition for PS4 codes/games as for steam.....then will be pure monopol.

eXistor · Feb 13, 2017

The "getting up to switch discs" thing is such a non-issue to the point I'm thinking if people are just joking with that one. Are people that lazy?

For me there is zero reason to go digital. People wanna go minimalistic and in their Patrick Bateman apartments? That's fine, but most other reasons mentioned for going digital have no value to me, both actual and personal.

Marty Chinn · Feb 13, 2017

Terrell said:
I lost my copy of Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn in one of my moves. Yeah, I can get it back... if I pay double what I paid for it new at retail on eBay.

Were it available digitally, I'd still have it.

The argument cuts both ways.

In most cases, losing a game can be prevented. Like your example, you lost it and that's on you unfortunately. Accidents happen of course, but preventable. You cannot prevent a company from shutting down their server. So I'd argue that denying everyone access isn't equal to an individual losing access and needing to find another physical copy, even if they have to pay more. Shutting down the servers will affect way more people without any recourse compared to someone who has lost, destroyed or had their game stolen and would need to replace it. The fact is they still can replace it. Options exist compared to a server shut down.

Devilgunman said:
After I had to move a couple times, I knew I was done with collecting physical copies. It's such a pain in the ass to pack them all in boxes and carry to a new place and put them on shelf again. Right now my collections are still in the boxes is a storage and I don't think I will bother unpacking them again.

Packing games is like one of the easiest things to pack during a move. Games are symmetrical and fit nicely in a box. So it's super simple to pull them off the shelf in order and move them. I just went through this and moving my entire game collection was by far the easiest part of the move.

Memorabilia · Feb 13, 2017

Kagoshima_Luke said:
I never understand the convenience argument. What does changing the disc add to the game swap process... 10 seconds? Yet people except 30+ second load times and such without a second thought.

If an extra 10 seconds demotivates you from playing a game, you probably didn't want to play that game much to begin with.

To be fair, even from the perspective of an enthusiastic physical game collector, the "juke-box" convenience of digital is awesome. The main problem I have with these discussions is that too many people on both sides wish the other option didn't exist, when from a consumer standpoint it's clearly best to have both digital and physical available and leave it up to individual gamers to make the choice that fits their preferences best.

Edit: As an aside, too many people who come down on the "100% digital future" side of this debate really seem to lack a basic understanding of just how bad the global internet infrastructure truly is and how, at least in the US, it's going to require a massive public works project that is, frankly, out of reach given our current dysfunctional government (and don't say "private enterprise" will save the day...that isn't going to happen now or ever...there will not be any profit in laying fiber all over the country even if a company or combination of companies could do it).

Memorabilia · Feb 13, 2017

Terrell said:
(snip) They don't have a monopoly, though, by your own admission that more than one exists. PSN and XBL and Nintendo eShop will compete against each other, and all 3 of them will compete against Steam, vying for people's money, which itself competes with other online distribution methods on PC. The fall of physical media wouldn't end competition. In fact, if margins increase and they have no worry about pissing off retailers, competition will likely be more heated than it is now as each platform vies for the title of the best platform due to offering the best value.

The monopoly argument holds no water.

They most definitely have a sales pipeline monopoly within their own platforms. There are many types of "effective monopolies" that control a region or portion of a market, which in this case is within each respective ecosystem. Without physical there is *zero* price competition within XBL or PSN. Your assumption is wrong on its face and would only be valid if every gamer in existence owned both platforms. Time to read up.

Gravy Boat · Feb 13, 2017

eXistor said:
The "getting up to switch discs" thing is such a non-issue to the point I'm thinking if people are just joking with that one. Are people that lazy?

It's not laziness, it's convenience. I didn't buy an MP3 player beacause I was too lazy to change CDs, I just liked not having to change CDs. I'd swap discs on my PS4 if I had to, but I prefer not having to, especially when I can sometimes jump between 3 or 4 games in a 20-30 minute period trying to decide what I'm in the mood to play. It's much nicer being able to run a game from the dashboard instead of having to get up and look for a disc.

I've been mostly digital on PS4 with a handful of physical games and have no regrets. I'm well past the stage of needing to own games day 1, and can happily wait until things are discounted before picking them up. Being able to browse sales while at work, then purchase something and have it sitting ready to play by the time I get home is great.

zoukka · Feb 13, 2017

eXistor said:
The "getting up to switch discs" thing is such a non-issue to the point I'm thinking if people are just joking with that one. Are people that lazy?

There's more to it. You need to display or store those games and the farther they are, the less convenient the disc changing is. They also seem to have longer loading times on disc with some games and honestly I play a lot more games that are installed on the console than the ones on disc because how quick it is to change between games.

I don't think it sounds weird when people say that they don't want to change CD:s when listening to music.

Coxy100 · Feb 13, 2017

Gravy Boat said:
It's not laziness, it's convenience. I didn't buy an MP3 player beacause I was too lazy to change CDs, I just liked not having to change CDs. I'd swap discs on my PS4 if I had to, but I prefer not having to, especially when I can sometimes jump between 3 or 4 games in a 20-30 minute period trying to decide what I'm in the mood to play. It's much nicer being able to run a game from the dashboard instead of having to get up and look for a disc.

I've been mostly digital on PS4 with a handful of physical games and have no regrets. I'm well past the stage of needing to own games day 1, and can happily wait until things are discounted before picking them up. Being able to browse sales while at work, then purchase something and have it sitting ready to play by the time I get home is great.

Sorry - but it's laziness. It does not take effort to get up and change a disc.

I get what you're saying about convenience - but at the end it's just being lazy if you can't be arsed to get up and swap a disc. It's not much effort mate.

lawnchair · Feb 13, 2017

just to quickly weigh in on the digital vs physical .. for myself, 80% physical. every time i finish a game that i own a physical copy of i pass it on to my little brother. he does the same for me. it's awesome. it'll be sad when that goes away.

for example just recently he got RE7 (digital) with some giftcards. he's telling me how awesome it is, and i'm like "damn i can't wait for you to give me that" but he can't. lame.

Devilgunman · Feb 13, 2017

Marty Chinn said:
Packing games is like one of the easiest things to pack during a move. Games are symmetrical and fit nicely in a box. So it's super simple to pull them off the shelf in order and move them. I just went through this and moving my entire game collection was by far the easiest part of the move.

It's opposite of easy when most of my physical copies are collector's edition. The oversized boxes with statues are the worst. They take so much space and force other boxes to rearrange in awkward orientation. Then there're LE that come in a flimsy paper package which could be easily ruined. I also have bunch of DS, 3DS, PSP, Vita games and their LE, all comes with different shape and size. I'm glad your move went smoothly but this is my 3rd time and I'm done with them.

Gravy Boat · Feb 13, 2017

Coxy100 said:
Sorry - but it's laziness. It does not take effort to get up and change a disc.

I get what you're saying about convenience - but at the end it's just being lazy if you can't be arsed to get up and swap a disc. It's not much effort mate.

I know it's not much effort, but I prefer to not do it. It's not laziness as I would get up and change discs if I had to, but I don't. It's like saying using the TV remote is laziness, it doesn't take effort to get up and change the channel.

eXistor · Feb 13, 2017

zoukka said:
There's more to it. You need to display or store those games and the farther they are, the less convenient the disc changing is. They also seem to have longer loading times on disc with some games and honestly I play a lot more games that are installed on the console than the ones on disc because how quick it is to change between games.

I don't think it sounds weird when people say that they don't want to change CD:s when listening to music.

45 minute non-interactive music CD vs. 20+ hour interactive game isn't really a great comparison imo.

I'm not saying having games available with the press of a button is less convenient than going upstairs and getting another game and swapping discs, it's obviously more "work". I can't really speak for other people of course, but I play games for longer than I listen to music.

Usually the game remains in my system until I'm done with it, which is usually a few weeks, depending on the game. If in the meantime I want to play another game, I just swap discs. Takes maybe maybe a full minute running upstairs and getting the game, going back down and putting in the disc. I'll just leave the other game next to the system too, so swapping discs is really nothing but a non-issue. If it really is an issue for people, then I think it's gotta be a matter of perspective, one that I don't share.

watdaeff4 · Feb 13, 2017

I just like digital.

Went all digital for music and now converting all movies to digital libraries.

For games I'm down to having only about 15 discs and hope by the end of the year it's zero.

Terrell · Feb 13, 2017

Memorabilia said:
They most definitely have a sales pipeline monopoly within their own platforms. There are many types of "effective monopolies" that control a region or portion of a market, which in this case is within each respective ecosystem. Without physical there is *zero* price competition within XBL or PSN. Your assumption is wrong on its face and would only be valid if every gamer in existence owned both platforms. Time to read up.

If Sony wants to entice people to buy a PlayStation in the next generation, they compete price-wise with Microsoft. If Microsoft offers games for $10-20 less and discounts them faster, the incentive to own a PlayStation diminishes. So no, so long as the platform refreshes and consoles offer multiplatform games, there is no monopoly.

And rather convenient to ignore Steam. I'm pretty sure everyone owns a computer that has Steam on it. Consoles then have to compete with PC for price as well, which they already do. I assert that PS Plus and Games with Gold wouldn't exist as they are if Steam were not a thing. They certainly weren't done out of the goodness of Sony or Microsoft's hearts.

Not that either of us can prove our point, since we still live in a world where retailers are dictating the online distribution pricing for games.

Marty Chinn said:
In most cases, losing a game can be prevented. Like your example, you lost it and that's on you unfortunately. Accidents happen of course, but preventable. You cannot prevent a company from shutting down their server. So I'd argue that denying everyone access isn't equal to an individual losing access and needing to find another physical copy, even if they have to pay more. Shutting down the servers will affect way more people without any recourse compared to someone who has lost, destroyed or had their game stolen and would need to replace it. The fact is they still can replace it. Options exist compared to a server shut down.

I never argued to the contrary of any of the things you state, far from it, in fact. Please feel free to point out where I did, I'd like to rectify that mistake if I in fact made it.

Seems to me like you're looking at what I proposed as a condemnation of people justifying their choice to buy physical media when I never presented that argument.

KORNdoggy · Feb 13, 2017

the convenience isn't worth the additional cost of everything else imo. we need DEEP discounts early on to make me even look in the general direction of digital releases.

GankzyMcfly · Feb 13, 2017

Don't know how physical even compares to digital...digital is leagues ahead imo. I bought Rb6 Siege physically for 30 dollars and after about 20 hrs of gameplay immediately regretted it. My gf was intrigued by it but with a physical copy only one of us could play at a time so she didnt even bother. I double dipped digitally to get the year 2 season pass, paid roughly the same price as my original best buy price match physical copy, only now my gf can play with me from her xb (which is set to my home xb). Funny thing is the game even gave her the year 2 season pass as well, with all the bonus stuff i got for pre ordering, ie. charms, skins, uniforms etc. (excluding the ingame currency which makes sense)....so the way i see it..when i buy digitally (on xb anyways) i get two copies of the game which makes paying for things like season passes and dlc more manageable since my gf gets that content as well and i dodnt have to buy her copy of the game (well i do, it just the same copy i have i guess, a digital one

). The potential of being able to buy sea of thieves digitally and get two copies for less then 60 dollars day one is mind blowing to me...basically makes it so there would have to be a day one physical deal thats 10-20 dollars (so i could buy 2) just to compete with digital.

Memorabilia · Feb 13, 2017

Terrell said:
If Sony wants to entice people to buy a PlayStation in the next generation, they compete price-wise with Microsoft. If Microsoft offers games for $10-20 less and discounts them faster, the incentive to own a PlayStation diminishes. So no, so long as the platform refreshes and consoles offer multiplatform games, there is no monopoly.

And rather convenient to ignore Steam. I'm pretty sure everyone owns a computer that has Steam on it. Consoles then have to compete with PC for price as well, which they already do. I assert that PS Plus and Games with Gold wouldn't exist as they are if Steam were not a thing. They certainly weren't done out of the goodness of Sony or Microsoft's hearts.

Apparently, you don't have a basic grasp of what monopolies are or how they work. Your entire premise is bogus and doesn't adhere to basic economic systems. The pipeline to sell games ("keys") within each respective platform is locked down. To most families who don't have both platforms there is no price competition at all. More fundamental to the discussion, when two entities institute effective price fixing within a given market this is a modified form of a monopoly called a "duopoly". This is a well established truism in nearly every industry and lead to what is essentially price collusion to maximize profits. This isn't some exotic or outlandish idea...its how things *are*.

And I didn't ignore Steam. I already refuted that comparison a few posts back. It looks like you missed it. I'll re-post here with an edit.

Edit:

"Steam isn't an equivalent comparison for a number of reasons, chief among them is the fact that the console platforms have a super obvious *virtual monopoly* on sales pipelines and lock that shit down, which is why there are generally no XBL / PSN Humble Bundles, Bundlestars, etc...or other *legitimate* sources selling game keys that activate on the console platforms. If you eliminate those options on Steam or Sony/Microsoft suddenly decide to allow those options then your comparison and argument would hold water. Since that is just fantasy talk at this point, it doesn't."

GiantBreadbug · Feb 13, 2017

I'll keep switching discs so I can play my games as long as I want.

InsaneFandom · Feb 13, 2017

Meh the convenience aspect for me is totally offset by how long they take to download on my internet connection (from PSN anyway)
Plus I usually play a game to completion before switching to another so the 'not having to change discs' thing is hardly a great boon to me

I definitely prefer physical but I do buy digitally on those few occasions when its significantly cheaper due to a sale though.

I'd stick with what you're doing if that makes you happy & you can afford it. Best of both worlds

Terrell · Feb 13, 2017

Memorabilia said:
Apparently, you don't have a basic grasp of what monopolies are or how they work. Your entire premise is bogus.

And I didn't ignore Steam. I already refuted that comparison a few posts back. It looks like you missed it. I'll re-post here with an edit.

Edit:

Steam isn't an equivalent comparison for a number of reasons, chief among them is the fact that the console platforms have a super obvious *virtual monopoly* on sales pipelines and lock that shit down, which is why there are generally no XBL / PSN Humble Bundles, Bundlestars, etc...or other *legitimate* sources selling game keys that activate on the console platforms. If you eliminate those options on Steam or Sony/Microsoft suddenly decide to allow those options then your comparison and argument would hold water. Since that is just fantasy talk at this point, it doesn't.

A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. So long as other storefronts exist, they do not hold a monopoly in the commodity being sold (games), as they cannot force a consumer to stay with a particular hardware platform indefinitely. It's like arguing that Apple holds a monopoly on online music, movie and TV sales, and believe me, if they did, we'd have seen the court ruling already. "Virtual monopoly" is exactly what it sounds like... it appears like one if you have an ax to grind, but it's not.

GamerJM · Feb 13, 2017

zoukka said:
I don't think it sounds weird when people say that they don't want to change CD:s when listening to music.

I think this is different. Songs are enormously shorter than the average play session for games, and the process of getting to each song on a CD isn't really convenient (i.e. switching between tracks, having to stop the CD as soon as the song ends, etc.). The point of listening to albums is listening to them in their entirety, which is how people generally listen to them on vinyl (which is now making a comeback).

Memorabilia · Feb 13, 2017

Terrell said:
A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. So long as other storefronts exist, they do not hold a monopoly in the commodity being sold (games), as they cannot force a consumer to stay with a particular hardware platform indefinitely. It's like arguing that Apple holds a monopoly on online music, movie and TV sales, and believe me, if they did, we'd have seen the court ruling already.

*sigh* Just no. If, for the sake of argument, we allow your supposition that game prices on each respective platform are in competition with each other then at best, XBL and PSN share a "duopoly" market control. As I said, there are numerous forms of "effective monopolies". This isn't some exotic idea, monopolies and duopolies exist in nearly every industry and region in the US. In this "best case", they are essentially engaged in price collusion. However, the idea that there is *true open competition* in the sale of digital console games is flimsy at best since, by your own definition above, each of them does in fact have exclusive control of the supply/trade of digital games on their own platforms. As noted, neither platform allows for official 3rd party digital key distribution which is the *only* way that they wouldn't have a monopoly/duopoly sales structure (and this is also why comparisons to Steam don't hold water).

Edit:

And, as an aside, making hay out of the lack of legal action against such monopolies (as with Apple or dozens of other monopolistic companies) is spectacularly ignorant of the reality that the US government hasn't enforced the Sherman anti-trust Act since the 1980s. I'll leave that up to you to investigate since it falls outside the scope of this convo. But it's relevant in that lack of legal action against such illegal entities doesn't mean jack when the very system of oversight has been co-opted and de-clawed by the lobbyist coffers of the companies its supposed to oversee.

Listen, you can't win this argument because reality is on my side. Lol

keraj37 · Feb 13, 2017

Maintenance said:
I have to agree, digital is so much more convenient. Sometimes I give up playing some games because I stored them somewhere else and the disc is far away.

Funny that just recently I started collecting physical games that I always wanted, mostly older games that don't need patches and etc. That's another reason that makes me go "eh" with current gen physical games, you can't just plug and play anymore.

Exactly. Even if you get physical disk you need to download big patches just after first install.
I remember not being able to play one of the Total Wars, as I had really slow mobile connection - but I bought a physical copy.

Also many "physical" copies require Steam to play, so...
It is all going digital.

marcbret87 · Feb 13, 2017

McGruber21 said:
To each his own, but I find this idea that the convenience of saving a few seconds makes digital worthwhile to be laughable. The appeal of digital games really just feels like a result of society as a whole getting lazier, and perhaps valuing things a lot less now that we have a million other things to turn our attention to at any moment. I'll keep buying all physical games until I can't because I like owning games and not renting them, I also like for my purchases to have value.

Well, TVs initially didn't have a remote control. Did you need it? Probably not, you could just stand up every time you wanted to change the channel. It's simply more convenient. The same applies to digital. Besides, if you do not have a stable home it's much easier to move without having to worry about shit loads of plastic boxes.

Honestly, I don't see what you mean about value. Whether it's a physical or a digital copy we can both play the same game.

Marty Chinn · Feb 13, 2017

Devilgunman said:
It's opposite of easy when most of my physical copies are collector's edition. The oversized boxes with statues are the worst. They take so much space and force other boxes to rearrange in awkward orientation. Then there're LE that come in a flimsy paper package which could be easily ruined. I also have bunch of DS, 3DS, PSP, Vita games and their LE, all comes with different shape and size. I'm glad your move went smoothly but this is my 3rd time and I'm done with them.

I have all that too. In fact, I had an entire room dedicated to my game library. Limited editions, flimsy packaging, etc. It was by far the easiest aspect of moving because things pack up so easily and nicely and a majority of it is symmetrical that fits in a box. Packing up all my movies and games was just by far the easiest thing to do in the entire move. The kitchen on the other hand was way more complicated comparatively. Undoing my home theater setup and moving that was also way more complicated.

Terrell said:
I never argued to the contrary of any of the things you state, far from it, in fact. Please feel free to point out where I did, I'd like to rectify that mistake if I in fact made it.

Seems to me like you're looking at what I proposed as a condemnation of people justifying their choice to buy physical media when I never presented that argument.

I didn't say you were arguing against that or that you were trying to condemn people for buying physical media. I was disputing the claim that they were equally terrible in loss. I think removing everyone's access is worse than an individual losing access. One has a lot more control over the outcome than the other. Now if people are willing to take the risk for convenience, by all means, but I think one easily outweighs the other on how bad of an impact it is.

ramparter · Feb 13, 2017

100% with OP in this one. Just put digital codes on the physical cases already. Isn't this how many PC games work currently? I remember Orange Box being like this.

Edit: And yeah physical aren't plug n play anymore.

Coxy100 · Feb 13, 2017

marcbret87 said:
Well, TVs initially didn't have a remote control. Did you need it? Probably not, you could just stand up every time you wanted to change the channel. It's simply more convenient. The same applies to digital. Besides, if you do not have a stable home it's much easier to move without having to worry about shit loads of plastic boxes.

Honestly, I don't see what you mean about value. Whether it's a physical or a digital copy we can both play the same game.

you can't bring remote controls into the argument. They are so different. You need remotes due to the amount of different settings (buttons) that you need to utilise. That would be madness to have that amount of buttons on the TV

It's just laziness if you can't be arsed to swap discs on a console. Completely different.

redcrayon · Feb 13, 2017

I buy physical copies but only because they are much cheaper here, and then have the added cost reduction of selling on the ones I don't think I'll play again. I'll take saving £100 a year over ten games over the convenience of not having to change discs/carts considering that I play lengthy RPGs and change the game about once a fortnight, if that. It takes seconds.

It's not just people with massive collections and shelves full of games that buy physical, my 'collection' is small enough to sit in a large box at the bottom of a cupboard.

For as long as digital launch prices on the eshop and PSN are insanely high here I'll be buying physical copies. All of my digital games have been heavily discounted in the sales, which I do appreciate the convenience of. Sony and Nintendo can sod off with their digital prices for new copies when I can get a boxed copy delivered to my door for £10 less though.

Ossom · Feb 13, 2017

If I am playing a game it tends to stay in my console until it is done. Yes, digital is more convenient, but to save £20 to get off my arse a few times and the added benefit of resale value, I never buy new games digital. It's just not financially beneficial right now.

The problem is that publishers need retailers to sell their hardware and so digital cannot undercut physical as the publishers will be in direct competition with the retailers, when they need them on side. There is a recent Colin Was Right YouTube video on this and the Gamespot COL program.

redcrayon · Feb 13, 2017

Ossom said:
If I am playing a game it tends to stay in my console until it is done. Yes, digital is more convenient, but to save £20 to get off my arse a few times and the added benefit of resale value, I never buy new games digital. It's just not financially beneficial right now.

The problem is that publishers need retailers to sell their hardware and so digital cannot undercut physical as the publishers will be in direct competition with the retailers, when they need them on side. There is a recent Colin Was Right YouTube video on this and the Gamespot COL program.

I think in the US game prices are far more similar for new physical and digital copies which is where these threads come from.

IronicSonic · Feb 13, 2017

We all are in the wall-e time-line, aren't we?

Sephiroth_VII · Feb 13, 2017

For the people saying physical lasts longer: Have you not heard of bit rot? Optical discs rot.

HDDs and SSDs are the best long-term storage option for data sold to consumers. If not used, it doesn't degrade, and you can literally do a bit-for-bit copy of your archive HDD to another HDD. Going digital is the only way to take backups, and therefore, the only way to ensure that you can keep playing your games.

Undead Fantasy said:
They will try to make up excuses but at the end of the day it is laziness.

All innovation is grounded in laziness. Why take the c<r instead of the horse cart? Because it's faster and easier, i.e. because we're lazy.

Sizzel · Feb 13, 2017

Well...you are a collector...so that is a subset of video gamer...I play video games, but I am not a collector. Your current solution makes sense. In the states, with best buy, amazon discounts it makes more sense to buy physical, plus when you beat the game in a week, you can sell it back and net spend like 20 bucks.

Physical makes sense for consoles because of the secondary market and little to no mark down on digital. For PC day 1 without even going to gray market keys...there are generally incentives10-20-30%, but the market IS digital. Plus PC is backward compatible. Console is not.

On console if I buy a digital gameI know I am getting a bad financial deal, but it is a convenience choice I make based on if I can see myself playing the game for a long time. example.. Destiny was digital... UC4 - physical.

An imperfect solution would be the ability to "install" games, have a key associated to said game, that is checked via online and only allows one instance. issues would be if you somehow live in the woods w no inet or if you allowed offline. w /no check.. people could sell a game they still had to offline players. There would also have to be a licensing system to transfer so you could facilitate secondary market transactions and the buyer would know the key was theirs. eh fuck ..services like redbox..hmm yeah licensing system.

Sephiroth_VII · Feb 13, 2017

Sizzel said:
Well...you are a collector...so that is a subset of video gamer...I play video games, but I am not a collector. Your current solution makes sense. In the states, with best buy, amazon discounts it makes more sense to buy physical, plus when you beat the game in a week, you can sell it back and net spend like 20 bucks.

Physical makes sense for consoles because of the secondary market and little to no mark down on digital. For PC day 1 without even going to gray market keys...there are generally incentives10-20-30%, but the market IS digital. Plus PC is backward compatible. Console is not.

On console if I buy a digital gameI know I am getting a bad financial deal, but it is a convenience choice I make based on if I can see myself playing the game for a long time. example.. Destiny was digital... UC4 - physical.

An imperfect solution would be the ability to "install" games, have a key associated to said game, that is checked via online and only allows one instance. issues would be if you somehow live in the woods w no inet or if you allowed offline. w /no check.. people could sell a game they still had to offline players. There would also have to be a licensing system to transfer so you could facilitate secondary market transactions and the buyer would know the key was theirs. eh fuck ..services like redbox..hmm yeah licensing system.

That's literally what Microsoft wanted to do this gen. I still think it was a horrible idea.

CoolNumber9 · Feb 13, 2017

As long as my stupid ISP keeps data caps I'll never go all digital on consoles. We only have streaming on our tvs now and still almost go over every month. Stupid!!

mingo · Feb 13, 2017

yophlow said:
Do you have Netflix or Spotify? So lazy, you should be buying DVDs and CDs.

Actually I don't have either. But if I did have a large physical movie collection I wouldn't be that lazy that I couldn't get up and change the disc to a film I wanna watch

Widge · Feb 13, 2017

Convenience argument - I live in a tiny house with two small kids. I don't want games cluttering up and getting everywhere. The same with DVD.

I love just turning on my PC and plucking something from my library to play.

Physical has to offer something above the bare bones functionality now to be a thing. Or at least hug upon a nostalgic chord. I'm completely down with vinyl (but always pair with a digital copy) and even have a DJ Sprinkles cassette hidden away. CD is all but worthless to me though.

Terrell · Feb 13, 2017

Memorabilia said:
*sigh* Just no. If, for the sake of argument, we allow your supposition that game prices on each respective platform are in competition with each other then at best, XBL and PSN share a "duopoly" market control. As I said, there are numerous forms of "effective monopolies". This isn't some exotic idea, monopolies and duopolies exist in nearly every industry and region in the US. In this "best case", they are essentially engaged in price collusion.

To say they are in price collusion implies a conspiratorial act against consumers.
And also, it's not a duopoly, since there's more players, Nintendo in particular.

But moreover...

Memorabilia said:
However, the idea that there is *true open competition* in the sale of digital console games is flimsy at best since, by your own definition above, each of them does in fact have exclusive control of the supply/trade of digital games on their own platforms. As noted, neither platform allows for official 3rd party digital key distribution which is the *only* way that they wouldn't have a monopoly/duopoly sales structure (and this is also why comparisons to Steam don't hold water).

Edit:

And, as an aside, making hay out of the lack of legal action against such monopolies (as with Apple or dozens of other monopolistic companies) is spectacularly ignorant of the reality that the US government hasn't enforced the Sherman anti-trust Act since the 1980s. I'll leave that up to you to investigate since it falls outside the scope of this convo. But it's relevant in that lack of legal action against such illegal entities doesn't mean jack when the very system of oversight has been co-opted and de-clawed by the lobbyist coffers of the companies its supposed to oversee.

Listen, you can't win this argument because reality is on my side. Lol

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act can't be enforced without proof of artificial restriction. Humble Bundle offering keys for games on these services would indicate the opposite. To prove there is a monopoly, you would first have to provide evidence that another company has attempted to offer a comparable service and was denied the right to. And if you think 3rd-parties weren't interested in keeping Sony, Microsoft and Sony's cut of digital sales for themselves, then you can't really argue that you have "reality" on your side when you're talking about companies who have done everything humanly imaginable to increase their bottom lines.

As I said in the post you quoted that you clipped out, neither of us have the means to prove our points as valid at this time. I thought the point above went without saying, I was clearly mistaken.

And the law can't be so toothless when Apple, the example I mentioned, already lost one antitrust lawsuit over ebooks and is open and exposed to another over their App Store, which makes it an awfully perfect comparison to the point at hand. If there were collusion as you suggest, there's plenty of precedent in this arena to bring it before a court.

boneyjangles · Feb 13, 2017

Physical discs are a barrier to playing for me. A very small subtle barrier that I didn't realize affected me so much until I moved digital. Getting up and changing discs, simple and easy as it is, is far more effort than not doing it at all, particularly for games you have short sessions on.

Ossom · Feb 13, 2017

redcrayon said:
I think in the US game prices are far more similar for new physical and digital copies which is where these threads come from.

Fair enough. I was going on what the OP said of there being a 20% difference. What sort of price are games in the US?

In the UK a new digital game is normally £49.99 or £54.99, whereas a physical copy can be had for between £30 and £40 online depending on the title. For example I paid £30 on launch day for Paper Mario Color Splash, £36 for Dark Souls 3 and £39 for the Last Guardian with a free white face plate. Apart from that I generally wait for a price drop,which will 99% of the time come on physical first.

FarFromAnyGame · Feb 13, 2017

Ossom said:
Fair enough. I was going on what the OP said of there being a 20% difference. What sort of price are games in the US?

In the UK a new digital game is normally £49.99 or £54.99, whereas a physical copy can be had for between £30 and £40 online depending on the title. For example I paid £30 on launch day for Paper Mario Color Splash, £36 for Dark Souls 3 and £39 for the Last Guardian with a free white face plate. Apart from that I generally wait for a price drop,which will 99% of the time come on physical first.

Because here in the US, Amazon and Best Buy offer %20 discount on all new physical games. So new physical game is $48 and digital is $60.

Rellik · Feb 13, 2017

Ossom said:
Fair enough. I was going on what the OP said of there being a 20% difference. What sort of price are games in the US?

In the UK a new digital game is normally £49.99 or £54.99, whereas a physical copy can be had for between £30 and £40 online depending on the title. For example I paid £30 on launch day for Paper Mario Color Splash, £36 for Dark Souls 3 and £39 for the Last Guardian with a free white face plate. Apart from that I generally wait for a price drop,which will 99% of the time come on physical first.

You're talking consoles, right? Because I pre-ordered Mafia III digital for £22 on PC. No physical was anywhere near that at the time.

KiteGr · Feb 13, 2017

What hurts me the most are the dlc and the "complete editions" that give the content in vouchers.

Support NeoGAF

As a physical disc collector, digital convenience is hurting me.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Gold Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Similar threads