Support NeoGAF

[Blizzard]

Some do. I actually looked at the EULA for one of the physical games I bought recently and it did have the "you don't own it, it's a license" clause.

It doesn't matter. It's an empty threat. No company can ever take away or render a physical game nonfunctional unless the game is online only. Not until a system is put into place that locks specific copies of games to consoles, like Microsoft proposed.

Ah, thanks. Out of curiosity, do you remember what console/game had the EULA with mention of a license?

And as you say it's an empty threat. That's what I meant about the major change being that it may BECOME enforceable with the way things are going.

 

[jay23]

Netflix/Spotify and all those other media services don't prevent me from buying a physical copy of movies/albums. They actually benefit me.

 

[Mar Nosso]

you can still buy cd's and movies. physical copies aren't going anywhere.

Common sense response, thank you.

Stop the fearmongering please.

 

[fates]

I generally avoid purchasing games digitally and don't plan on changing that. If I have to rarely purchase something digitally, it's through GOG.

My issue is for one I like having a tangible product in hand. The other issue is the DRM, which is why I go through GOG if I have to. I don't like having to have all these overheads just to boot up a game, just to make sure I'm not a thief or something after purchasing their product.

I don't like the idea of an all digital future.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Anyone who says that they don't care and that they're for games as a service, I don't like you.
What's wrong with having a choice?

 

[entremet]

I will continue to support physical copies as long as possible and, if they die off, I'll focus on building my library from consoles of the past. I won't give in to this kind of thing. I have little interest in renting my games.

I take advantage of PS Plus free games from time to time but still ultimately purchase the games I enjoyed the most (provided they have a physical release).

There are some recent games that I really lament not being available physically. I would have been there day 1 for the update to "Abe's Oddysee" but $29.99 for a digital game is a huge turn off. I'd pay $50-60 for a physical copy of that same game.

After going through a generation of digital games I've emerged feeling as if I never actually owned any of those games and regret spending money on them. I'll still buy digital games from time to time but I've completely stopped supporting iOS releases.

I would agree with you. Digital games just don't feel like I own them. They feel very ephemeral. I don't in mind on the Vita, since it's so indie heavy--indie almost never get physical releases these days.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Kindles didn't kill books. There will always be a market for physical games. It will shrink, but it will always exist.

 

[abstract alien]

Kindles didn't kill books. There will always be a market for physical games. It will shrink, but it will always exist.

I wonder about this, because it seems like a bit of a different beast. Books have a physically different experience than something such as reading from a Kindle. Gaming with disk vs physical is literally the same exact experience since the game itself isn't played through the copy, but through the controller. It doesn't feel any different to play a game of inFamous or Mario through digital or physical and you wouldn't know the difference unless someone told you. This isn't true with a book vs kindle argument, it's the same content word for word, but a different deliver method(if that makes any sense). Am I over thinking it, or is there anything to this, for most people I mean?

 

[Sushi Nao]

Kindles didn't kill books. There will always be a market for physical games. It will shrink, but it will always exist.

I think it's less about there being a market for physical games, and more about how they've introduced a "sign-in". They've normalized signing in, even on physical copies of ostensibly single-player games, with both brute force and DLC incentives.

It's no longer their business, once I own a game, what I do with it and how I play it. EA or any other large publisher don't need to see me as a faceless, minute data point any more than they already do.

 

[fedexpeon]

Nah, I highly doubt niche or small studio games will be on any type of pay service soon due to the money required to do it.
As long as they are still selling limited/collection copy, I will never go full digital for console.

Still, even if EA managed to create a large base, and forcing UB/AV to do the same with a value subs package, Gamefly as a whole is a better competitor to all 3 of them combined.
EA/UB/AV can only offer the same old same old titles: AC/FC/BF/COD while you can experience a larger genres pool with Gamefly...or even PS Now.

We will see how this works for EA, and I am going to bet it will be a HUGE success. But it won't kill physical and owning actual good game from other publishers though.

 

[Black Nectar]

I paid $50 once for SMW for SNES and have been playing it for 20 years. It is my favorite game and I can't wait to play it for the next 20 years.

If you currently have your favorite game on PS+, then you will want to play it over the next 20 years and even 20 years after that. Thats thousands of dollars in subs.

All I had to pay was a one time fee of 50 dollars.

Am I right in how PS+ works?

 

[Woo-Fu]

Those days never existed. You owned a media kit and a license to use.

 

[Tidus_Great]

il never embrace digital so the days of gaming on future hardware will come to an end. at this point i cant say i mind too much. all the best games were on the Ps1 and ps2 anyways. everything now is shooter,shooter with maybe 1 in 1000 being unique (last of us, vanquish)

 

[NastyBook]

Eh, maybe I shouldn't go all digital on my PS4..

I wouldn't, personally. The convenience is real, but ownership of purchases will be in question. Same goes for the WiiU and XBONE, too. I skirt the line every now and then with games I feel I wasn't going to buy physically anyway, so it wouldn't really bother me if something were to happen. But as long as DRM exists, digital only will never be the main means in which I game on consoles.

 

[Son of Sam]

i barely BUY new games. I usually stick to a few games all gen long so this would be ok with me.. maybe.


I can see myself doing a subscription for yearly updates of stuff like NHL and FIFA

 

[DOWN]

This would be relevant if EA made games you only get via subscription. As of right now its tin foil hatted, slippery slope bullshit.

EA Access exclusive Battlefield 5.

 

[coldone]

The day 1 patches, DLC map packs etc.. made it obsolete long time back. Owning a game pretty much means nothing now-a-days. Consoles need to be connected on line for most of the games to work.

It is not all that evil. We have already done it with music, movies, tv shows etc. In all honesty I like it a lot with Pandora, Amazon Prime etc. So far.. So good. Unless some one evil comes in future and ruins it all.

 

[TAJ]

microsoft made a very real push for it just last year and sony was also considering it.

http://postimage.org/

Sony's last minute decision was whether or not to emphasize their lack of MS's DRM approach as a differentiator.
Doing the same thing as MS was not on the table.

 

[flux1]

I like digital distribution as having most of my collection right there to access is a nice convenience. That said, I know there are risks to it and pay accordingly. Plus I back up my games regularly with other important files.

The vast majority of my PC gaming dollars is spent at GOG and for other games that have DRM Free versions. I treat Steam games as rentals and pay accordingly. I've done this since the update where Valve added the arbitration clause and if you didn't agree you were locked out of your games.

 

[Orca]

Anyone who says that they don't care and that they're for games as a service, I don't like you.
What's wrong with having a choice?

When did all those other companies, much less EA themselves, stop selling games outside the services they haven't even set up yet?

Was there this "OMG NOBODY OWNS GAMES ANYMORE" crap when PS+ started?

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Do people seriously go back and play PS1/N64/SNES/GEN etc. games on the original consoles in this day and age? I can understand collecting them, like collecting coins, but actually playing them? N64 graphics are atrocious.

I'm too busy trying to play modern games. I don't have nearly enough time to play all the new games being released, let alone go back and play games from 10, 15, 20 years ago.

In 10, 15, 20 years from now, I'm sure I'll be far too busy playing VR games on my Oculus 3 with its 12k display to care about some crap game I bought in 2012.

To me, people like the author have a low level of mental illness. A touch of hoarder-ism or something. "Oh no! I can't play a game that came out 20 years ago! Whatever shall I do!" It's just an object. Who cares?

this mentality is super gross and is really detrimental to gaming as a whole

 

[jerry1594]

If that ever happens there are countless other games to play from before. And lol at the use of 'gross'.

 

[Gaogaogao]

regarding digital games, ownership is theoretical at best

 

[playXray]

The days of owning games are coming to an end

I used to worry about this when it started happening to the music industry. I now pay £9.99 a month and listen to more music than I've ever done before.

Most people will probably get used to it, whatever happens.

 

[TAJ]

I used to worry about this when it started happening to the music industry. I now pay £9.99 a month and listen to more music than I've ever done before.

Most people will probably get used to it, whatever happens.

Ewww... having to listen to the remastered versions of everything that's been remastered...
Not good.

 

[playXray]

Ewww... having to listen to the remastered versions of everything that's been remastered...
Not good.

Good for me - I love remastered music.

I wouldn't mind playing remastered versions of last generation games either.

 

[Cowlick]

Do people seriously go back and play PS1/N64/SNES/GEN etc. games on the original consoles in this day and age? I can understand collecting them, like collecting coins, but actually playing them? N64 graphics are atrocious.

I'm too busy trying to play modern games. I don't have nearly enough time to play all the new games being released, let alone go back and play games from 10, 15, 20 years ago.

In 10, 15, 20 years from now, I'm sure I'll be far too busy playing VR games on my Oculus 3 with its 12k display to care about some crap game I bought in 2012.

To me, people like the author have a low level of mental illness. A touch of hoarder-ism or something. "Oh no! I can't play a game that came out 20 years ago! Whatever shall I do!" It's just an object. Who cares?

Old movies suck and everyone should watch Transformers in 3D.

 

[Wolfgang Jr]

http://postimage.org/

Sony's last minute decision was whether or not to emphasize their lack of MS's DRM approach as a differentiator.
Doing the same thing as MS was not on the table.

Cool lie!
Sony was definitely going to do the same shit if they didn't feel the burn before the announcement.

 

[Future]

Everyone talking about still plugging in a ps1 and playing games are a tiny ass market. Reality is lots sell back their games if it means more easy cash for cheaper games. Games as a service that gets right at the heart of the matter: reducing initial cost of playing new titles by sacrificing permanent access to some titles is right up the alley of most I would say

 

[SegaShack]

We own our games. This is a non issue at this point.

 

[Mike Double U]

This would be relevant if EA made games you only get via subscription. As of right now its tin foil hatted, slippery slope bullshit.

This. Until you can't pickup a new game like Dragon Age or Battlefield at retail/digital download outside of EA Access, there's not a problem for non subscribers. You can still buy games the same way you always been.

 

[TelluricTokoro]

Never owned them in the first place.

 

[Mike Double U]

Do people seriously go back and play PS1/N64/SNES/GEN etc. games on the original consoles in this day and age? I can understand collecting them, like collecting coins, but actually playing them? N64 graphics are atrocious.

I'm too busy trying to play modern games. I don't have nearly enough time to play all the new games being released, let alone go back and play games from 10, 15, 20 years ago.

There's always time to go back and play classic gems, always. I find myself doing it every few months or so. No matter how many times I beat LoZ on NES it's still an amazing experience to me.

 

[Jakoozie89]

People need not be afraid. The games will never disappear, and will always be playable. Why? Because of pirates. Say what you will of them, but they keep games alive when no one else does, and will continue to do so. If you're really worried, keep a cracked/rom version of your favourite games on a backup drive, and you're set to go.

This is of course no validation of piracy of games. I'm talking about keeping the games you own.

A game rental service would be great for me. If you can stream it, even better. If I can play all the games I want for a reasonable monthly fee, without having to upgrade or even buy hardware to get the games running well, I will be a happy camper.

People should really think about their need to keep games around long after they launched. I mean, how many of them do you actually end up playing againg? I am one of those people that play games only once (if that), I have already converted to digital only on both PS4, Vita, and PC. I am of the opinion that games get better and better (even though the genre diversity is lower), and every time I have bought and played old games I've gotten bored quickly. (Even games that I played when I was young)

I guess I'm not that nostalgic a person.

 

[GameAddict411]

Unfortunately, we, "gamers" will let this happen. You, me, GAF won't, but the unthinking majority (loaded term, I know), the people that are not as well informed as you and me will not even flinch and buy it anyway.



They are tied to your Steam account which works on every PC. OS'es might change, hardware might change, but the open nature of PC is one major factor consoles don't have going for them.

If MS continues what they are doing, we'll have ot resort to other OS'es and make it work.

That incredibly naive, there is no guarantee that steam will be around for ten years. The same can be said for any download service. The moment steam goes offline the moment you will lose your whole library of games. Downloading any game nowadays will have similar consequences, just look at the aging PS3 and X360. They probably pull the plug a few years from now. Losing everything you bought digitally.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

That incredibly naive, there is no guarantee that steam will be around for ten years. The same can be said for any download service. The moment steam goes offline the moment you will lose your whole library of games. Downloading any game nowadays will have similar consequences, just look at the aging PS3 and X360. They probably pull the plug a few years from now. Losing everything you bought digitally.

The difference being that the PC is an open platform. Should Steam shut down at any point, there will always be a way to play those games. The same can't be said for consoles.

 

[Yagharek]

I wonder about this, because it seems like a bit of a different beast. Books have a physically different experience than something such as reading from a Kindle. Gaming with disk vs physical is literally the same exact experience since the game itself isn't played through the copy, but through the controller. It doesn't feel any different to play a game of inFamous or Mario through digital or physical and you wouldn't know the difference unless someone told you. This isn't true with a book vs kindle argument, it's the same content word for word, but a different deliver method(if that makes any sense). Am I over thinking it, or is there anything to this, for most people I mean?

Digital games versus physical copies of games will feel noticeably different if it all moves to cloud hosting like PlayStation Now.

Laggy games ahoy if thats the future.

 

[petran79]

The difference being that the PC is an open platform. Should Steam shut down at any point, there will always be a way to play those games. The same can't be said for consoles.

only with modded firmware
unfortunately this is the only viable solution

 

[SkoomaSuckinSwit]

I'll continue to buy games retail for as long as they are offered.
I don't mind buying cheaper "Arcade" titles for $5-15 a pop. Maybe even the rare occasional game that costs a bit more (Abe PS4).
But for $50-60 or more dollars, I want to own it. Hold the game in my hand, be able to pass it off to my kids or a friend. That will never change.

 

[Fattony12000]

Well, I still don't own (for example) a Magnavox Odyssey, Action Max, Halcyon, Atari Lynx, Philips CD-i, Famicom, Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Famicom, Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Virtual Boy, PC Engine Duo, WonderSwan, Neo Geo MVS, 64DD, PlayStation 4 or an Xbox One yet. Therefore (although, not necessarily) I have yet to own any of the games for those systems, but that's only due to my not having bought them yet. They still exist.

So...

I disagree with your statement.

 

[JimiNutz]

For someone that isn't a die hard collector of games this is 100% fine by me.

Once I've played a game for a week/month/year I'm usually done. I don't go back and play games from 10 years ago.

If I'm going digital anyway id probably rather rent/pay a subscription fee than actually pay full price for something that I can't actually touch.

 

[Occam]

microsoft made a very real push for it just last year and sony was also considering it.

Sony was definitely going to do the same shit if they didn't feel the burn before the announcement.

SonyToo™

 

[Lucumo]

I will buy retail as long as I can.

Same here. If I can't buy the game retail, I won't buy it. It's the company's loss, not mine.

 

[Sloane_Ranger]

I'll continue to buy games retail for as long as they are offered.
I don't mind buying cheaper "Arcade" titles for $5-15 a pop. Maybe even the rare occasional game that costs a bit more (Abe PS4).
But for $50-60 or more dollars, I want to own it. Hold the game in my hand, be able to pass it off to my kids or a friend. That will never change.

100% yes. I am also going to skip as many "online only" games as I can as well, because I won't actually own them. Destiny is the only exception I am making, and I feel horrible supporting online only even that much. There are a few other "online only" games hanging out there, like The Division, that I am interested in, but will simply wait until they are bargain binned solely because of the online only aspect. .

 

[Fugu]

This is the same bullshit that they were spewing about the original state of the Xbox One. No, one company choosing to go YOLO on anti-consumerism is not tantamount to gaming becoming service-based.

It is a mistake to conflate change with progress.

 

[MightySpicyTaco]

Wait a minute.....what's a disc?

 

[abstract alien]

Digital games versus physical copies of games will feel noticeably different if it all moves to cloud hosting like PlayStation Now.

Laggy games ahoy if thats the future.

I suppose so, but I'd assume the tech would grow with it. I guess we should know that this doesn't always translate into better products automatically. That's why we have powerful consoles and PCs, and still have software that runs and functions like shit.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I suppose so, but I'd assume the tech would grow with it.

lol

Hard drives keep getting bigger, memory keeps getting cheaper, and processors keep getting faster. Meanwhile, telecoms ensure that they maximize profit at the expense of virtually any improvement to infrastructure or service, now and forever.

But of course the cloud is the future!

/s