Blu-Ray has been detrimental to the Video game Industry.

Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
#1
When you look at the many interviews and books, it was clear that Blu-ray only won the war due to the bribing of two big holdouts, one being FOX, and it convinced many to line-up behind that flag. But HD-DVD losing the war was not only devastating for media in general, but for video games as well.

HD-DVD was the superior format in almost every way and every way it wasn't could be solved with an update, including size. The only one thing that SOME argue is a pure advantage was the covering on Blu-ray discs, damage protection wise. But otherwise HD-DVD was faster, more relatable to DVD, cheaper, and was interactive compatible. The latter of which Blu-Ray had limited features for.

But here's why Blu-ray was detrimental to the video game industry specifically, especially on the consumer end:

1. Blu-Ray started video game installs. No longer was it as simple as reading from the disc, parts of your game, or all of your game, had to be installed to the hard drive more and more.

2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.

3. Blu-Ray discs were slow to drop in price as well as the technology running them. This kept the prices of consoles that use it, and the games, from dropping in price. Analysts show that games could have been $50 new and with quicker price drops due to the lower prices of HD-DVD in 2009.

4. Load times for games got worse instead of better. Especially since early Blu-Ray lasers were not very stable under extreme use.

5. Blu-Ray never really took off after the "war" ended. DVD handily smacked it around. Pushes for PC blu-ray drives cratered, Blu-Ray Laser for scanning and media transfer equipment also faltered. This aided not only point #3, but also caused game development prices to rise. Some people forget how much money some third-party devs like THQ, Square, etc spend on game development tools to take advantage of Blu-ray capabilities. The fact that it wasn't replacing DVD and many plans were scrapped that would increase demand, made it so that the prices of these tools also never really dropped. In fact over time it INCREASED.

6. 4K Blu-Ray offered very few fixes to many fixable problems. The only thing 4KBR was designed for was an increase in resolution and asset compatibility. The BR council did not think that their new revision should have included fixes, even though Panasonic had partnered with 4 other board members to discuss fixes. Nothing ever came of those meetings, no one even leaked what the final result was. But whatever it was, it led to 4K Blu-Ray basically having all the same issues.

7. Lastly, Blu-Ray has caused the rise in 4K asset creation for CG due to rising costs and the fact many movie and game studios distribute primarily on Blu-Ray. This mean that pretty much every industry employing CG in their products and uses BR as the main distribution platform are fighting off rising costs. This is why you're starting to see more outsourcing for cutscenes and other assets that would originally be done in house. Contractors however are asking for more money due to rising prices, and eventually everything is going to collapse into itself as we already have reached and passed the point of un-sustainability

Due to trying to make profit due to rising costs, and trying to keep contracts in check, most attempts to replace BR with another format has failed. I take it next gen will still be Blu-ray with more rising costs. In hindsight Blu-Ray was one of the biggest mistakes. But especially for video games, and how fast it changed things.
 
Mar 11, 2006
19,803
392
1,230
Br
#3
This is absolutely, completely false.

Also, this:

HD-DVD was the superior format in almost every way and every way it wasn't could be solved with an update, including size. The only one thing that SOME argue is a pure advantage was the covering on Blu-ray discs, damage protection wise. But otherwise HD-DVD was faster, more relatable to DVD, cheaper, and was interactive compatible. The latter of which Blu-Ray had limited features for.
Is simply bullshit.
 

MP!

Member
Sep 6, 2017
167
55
180
#6
2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.
I'm pretty sure this was always the case as far back as media goes... down to albums and cd's games and movies... no one has ever owned the product they thought they had purchased... we've always been buying licences to use the content... I think you could argue that BluRay may have helped bring that into the light more... but honstly ... To me blu Ray was sort of a product no one needed... digital came so quickly that it was negligible that we ever needed it in the first place.


ACTUALLY... Now that I think about it... I think bluray has been detrimental to the games industry in one particular way.... It has allowed developers to bloat their games with all sorts of uncompressed assets... which has resulted in MASSIVE game sizes...
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
5,023
7,053
405
USA
dunpachi.com
#9
Some of these things are completely false. For instance:

2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.
PC gaming -- and Microsoft, who boasted the first major digital console storefront -- were responsible for the shift over to licenses in the gaming sphere. Blu Ray at least offered the hope of having all (or most) of the game on one disc. But as others have pointed out, this was also true for CDs and DVD movies.

Blu Ray was a means to an end: higher capacity game storage. If it wasn't Blu Ray then it would've been something else.

I eagerly look forward to your circular logic and the browbeating of any posters who disagree with your drug-fueled imagination.
 
Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
#10
I'm pretty sure this was always the case as far back as media goes... down to albums and cd's games and movies... no one has ever owned the product they thought they had purchased... we've always been buying licences to use the content... I think you could argue that BluRay may have helped bring that into the light more... but honestly ... To me blu Ray was sort of a product no one needed... digital came so quickly that it was negligible that we ever needed it in the first place.
Well cost was also a big part of it. And when DVD upscalers came out that hurt Blu-Ray more, sure a BR Disc was better than an upscalled DVD but DVD's were so cheap and everyone had such large collections it was a big deal to the average consumer.
 
Jun 22, 2014
7,609
978
390
#12
1. Blu-Ray started video game installs. No longer was it as simple as reading from the disc, parts of your game, or all of your game, had to be installed to the hard drive more and more.
How the flying fuck is that a bad thing? Especially when:

4. Load times for games got worse instead of better. Especially since early Blu-Ray lasers were not very stable under extreme use.
Your first point was done to solve your 4th one. Disc based media ALWAYS had load time issues prior to installing being mandatory. This is so palpably contradictory it makes me wonder if it was done in jest.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
11,708
1,102
620
#15
1. Blu-Ray started video game installs. No longer was it as simple as reading from the disc, parts of your game, or all of your game, had to be installed to the hard drive more and more.
I fail to see how Blu-Ray, specifically, caused this to happen. Any time you have a large capacity disk with a slow, sequential read mechanism (such as a laser) you're going to run into this issue. It's the reason why load times on older disc based consoles are slow, and having an available hard drive disk (with faster random read access) solved that problem. Older consoles got away with it more because a) there weren't any / many alternatives and b) because of that, game companies positioned sequential data strategically as well as c) the discs were of a smaller capacity.

We could still run games directly from Blu Ray discs on modern consoles, but they would be SLOW since that's a byproduct of capacity vs sequential read speeds - in fact, they would be so much significantly slower than their "downloadable" counterparts that if this were the case nobody would bother with discs. Game installs are a byproduct of Sony / Microsoft catering to consumer demand much more than they are a byproduct of Blu Ray discs.
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,458
1,769
410
Canada
#16
'm pretty sure this was always the case as far back as media goes... down to albums and cd's games and movies... no one has ever owned the product they thought they had purchased... we've always been buying licences to use the content...
I don't understand why this is always brought up. When I say I own a movie, or game, or CD or something, I'm saying I own a physical product (or digital file nowadays, whatever) that plays the content. I do own that. Obviously I don't "own" the movie in a sense beyond that. I just don't get the pedantic "AKSHULLY you know you don't own that but just have a licence to use the content". It's like no shit, I'm specifically talking about having ownership of items that play content.
 
Last edited:
Likes: PhineBuyM3
Aug 22, 2014
225
284
300
#17
1. Porn decided that VHS was better than BetaMax
2. Porn decided that Blu Ray is better than HD-DVD
3. Porn has now decided that streaming / digital is better than physical disk.

How dare you accuse these innocent, friendly, gaming conglomerates of trying to force a standard on the end user when the real puppet masters pulling the strings behind the scenes is the adult industry.
 

MP!

Member
Sep 6, 2017
167
55
180
#18
I don't understand why this is always brought up. When I say I own a movie, or game, or CD or something, I'm saying I own a physical product (or digital file nowadays, whatever) that plays the content. I do own that. Obviously I don't "own" the movie in a sense beyond that. I just don't get the pedantic "AKSHULLY you know you don't own that but just have a licence to use the content". It's like no shit, I'm specifically talking about having ownership of items that play content.
They're still licensed to you for your use... but sure you own the plastic I guess

I'm just saying this isnt new... and it certainly wasnt becasue of bluray in this specific instance.

I also don't think it pedantic, especially when it comes down to the topic of your rights with respect to said media and how you get to use it... I think it is especially revelatory to some people who ... come to find out they never had rights over the products they owned and get pretty upset when companies (who are well within their right) decide to take things away or discontinue things... I think it's quite relevant in some conversations.... Not that it doesn't suck.
 
Last edited:

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,753
792
225
#19
I'm pretty sure this was always the case as far back as media goes... down to albums and cd's games and movies... no one has ever owned the product they thought they had purchased... we've always been buying licences to use the content..
This is BS.

Do you have any retro games, cartridges or optical media? Are you telling me that you do not own that copy and that you can't resell it, play it at will and/or dispose of it as you see fit?
The only thing that makes modern physical games on console more tricky is the patches they need to run properly. You still own that copy of the game until you sell it or dispose of it. In the future the console industry will look more like Steam where the disc is just a way to register the game to your account and then the disc becomes useless with no value but for now you still own a copy of the game if you buy physical. Digital games are really just a long term rental. They will last as long as the digital store that sells them and the hardware you have it downloaded to.

...and before you go on about copyrights, no one bought a copy of Super Mario World thinking that they own every copy of it or the right to make copies and sell them. They just knew that they owned that one copy.
 
Last edited:
Jun 3, 2013
4,458
1,769
410
Canada
#20
They're still licensed to you for your use... but sure you own the plastic I guess
It's semantics, the plastic plays the content. I don't understand in what other sense one could be said to "own" a movie or piece of content. When people say they own something, a movie or game or whatnot, they mean they possess and can always access the content on the plastic, not they have any claim to ownership over the movie itself.
 
Last edited:
Aug 22, 2014
225
284
300
#22
compared to digital, blu ray is the new betamax.

the new standard format is digital. and it will always be digital.
sad but true. it will be interesting to see how many of the modern classics are going to be accessible and playable in 20 years like Mario and Sonic cartridges are now. I'll still keep buying physical until they stop making them altogether, but finding a working PS4 or PS3 in 20 years will probably be damn near impossible. Everything will have to be emulated.
 
Likes: VectorVictor

MP!

Member
Sep 6, 2017
167
55
180
#23
It's semantics, the plastic plays the content. I don't understand in what other sense one could be said to "own" a movie or piece of content. When people say they own something, a movie or game or whatnot, they mean they possess and can always access the content on the plastic, not they have ownership over the movie itself in some abstract way.
First, In the context of this conversation... the OP stated BluRay caused some monumental shift of consumers owning things to buying licences... ... my reply is that no, it did not... that we have always purchased licenses.
Second, I'm not debating the semantics. I frequently say I own games. But I also understand that the content is not mine and the licence agreement limits my use.

...and before you go on about copyrights, no one bought a copy of Super Mario World thinking that they own every copy of it or the right to make copies and sell them. They just knew that they owned that one copy.
This is not my angle
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,458
1,769
410
Canada
#25
First, In the context of this conversation... the OP stated BluRay caused some monumental shift of consumers owning things to buying licences... ... my reply is that no, it did not... that we have always purchased licenses.
Agreed on that, OP is wrong that this started with Blu rays.

I frequently say I own games. But I also understand that the content is not mine and the licence agreement limits my use.
Gotcha. I guess I just don't get why it ever needs to be stated. If it was your content, you wouldn't be buying it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
#27
1. Porn decided that VHS was better than BetaMax
2. Porn decided that Blu Ray is better than HD-DVD
3. Porn has now decided that streaming / digital is better than physical disk.

How dare you accuse these innocent, friendly, gaming conglomerates of trying to force a standard on the end user when the real puppet masters pulling the strings behind the scenes is the adult industry.
There was more porn on Laserdisc than VHS though. ;)
 
Last edited:

TGO

Member
Sep 5, 2007
7,449
393
905
UK
#28
When you look at the many interviews and books, it was clear that Blu-ray only won the war due to the bribing of two big holdouts, one being FOX, and it convinced many to line-up behind that flag. But HD-DVD losing the war was not only devastating for media in general, but for video games as well.

HD-DVD was the superior format in almost every way and every way it wasn't could be solved with an update, including size. The only one thing that SOME argue is a pure advantage was the covering on Blu-ray discs, damage protection wise. But otherwise HD-DVD was faster, more relatable to DVD, cheaper, and was interactive compatible. The latter of which Blu-Ray had limited features for.

But here's why Blu-ray was detrimental to the video game industry specifically, especially on the consumer end:

1. Blu-Ray started video game installs. No longer was it as simple as reading from the disc, parts of your game, or all of your game, had to be installed to the hard drive more and more.

2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.

3. Blu-Ray discs were slow to drop in price as well as the technology running them. This kept the prices of consoles that use it, and the games, from dropping in price. Analysts show that games could have been $50 new and with quicker price drops due to the lower prices of HD-DVD in 2009.

4. Load times for games got worse instead of better. Especially since early Blu-Ray lasers were not very stable under extreme use.

5. Blu-Ray never really took off after the "war" ended. DVD handily smacked it around. Pushes for PC blu-ray drives cratered, Blu-Ray Laser for scanning and media transfer equipment also faltered. This aided not only point #3, but also caused game development prices to rise. Some people forget how much money some third-party devs like THQ, Square, etc spend on game development tools to take advantage of Blu-ray capabilities. The fact that it wasn't replacing DVD and many plans were scrapped that would increase demand, made it so that the prices of these tools also never really dropped. In fact over time it INCREASED.

6. 4K Blu-Ray offered very few fixes to many fixable problems. The only thing 4KBR was designed for was an increase in resolution and asset compatibility. The BR council did not think that their new revision should have included fixes, even though Panasonic had partnered with 4 other board members to discuss fixes. Nothing ever came of those meetings, no one even leaked what the final result was. But whatever it was, it led to 4K Blu-Ray basically having all the same issues.

7. Lastly, Blu-Ray has caused the rise in 4K asset creation for CG due to rising costs and the fact many movie and game studios distribute primarily on Blu-Ray. This mean that pretty much every industry employing CG in their products and uses BR as the main distribution platform are fighting off rising costs. This is why you're starting to see more outsourcing for cutscenes and other assets that would originally be done in house. Contractors however are asking for more money due to rising prices, and eventually everything is going to collapse into itself as we already have reached and passed the point of un-sustainability

Due to trying to make profit due to rising costs, and trying to keep contracts in check, most attempts to replace BR with another format has failed. I take it next gen will still be Blu-ray with more rising costs. In hindsight Blu-Ray was one of the biggest mistakes. But especially for video games, and how fast it changed things.
 
Jan 26, 2018
513
584
260
South Africa
#30
When you look at the many interviews and books, it was clear that Blu-ray only won the war due to the bribing of two big holdouts, one being FOX, and it convinced many to line-up behind that flag. But HD-DVD losing the war was not only devastating for media in general, but for video games as well.

HD-DVD was the superior format in almost every way and every way it wasn't could be solved with an update, including size. The only one thing that SOME argue is a pure advantage was the covering on Blu-ray discs, damage protection wise. But otherwise HD-DVD was faster, more relatable to DVD, cheaper, and was interactive compatible. The latter of which Blu-Ray had limited features for.

But here's why Blu-ray was detrimental to the video game industry specifically, especially on the consumer end:

1. Blu-Ray started video game installs. No longer was it as simple as reading from the disc, parts of your game, or all of your game, had to be installed to the hard drive more and more.

2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.

3. Blu-Ray discs were slow to drop in price as well as the technology running them. This kept the prices of consoles that use it, and the games, from dropping in price. Analysts show that games could have been $50 new and with quicker price drops due to the lower prices of HD-DVD in 2009.

4. Load times for games got worse instead of better. Especially since early Blu-Ray lasers were not very stable under extreme use.

5. Blu-Ray never really took off after the "war" ended. DVD handily smacked it around. Pushes for PC blu-ray drives cratered, Blu-Ray Laser for scanning and media transfer equipment also faltered. This aided not only point #3, but also caused game development prices to rise. Some people forget how much money some third-party devs like THQ, Square, etc spend on game development tools to take advantage of Blu-ray capabilities. The fact that it wasn't replacing DVD and many plans were scrapped that would increase demand, made it so that the prices of these tools also never really dropped. In fact over time it INCREASED.

6. 4K Blu-Ray offered very few fixes to many fixable problems. The only thing 4KBR was designed for was an increase in resolution and asset compatibility. The BR council did not think that their new revision should have included fixes, even though Panasonic had partnered with 4 other board members to discuss fixes. Nothing ever came of those meetings, no one even leaked what the final result was. But whatever it was, it led to 4K Blu-Ray basically having all the same issues.

7. Lastly, Blu-Ray has caused the rise in 4K asset creation for CG due to rising costs and the fact many movie and game studios distribute primarily on Blu-Ray. This mean that pretty much every industry employing CG in their products and uses BR as the main distribution platform are fighting off rising costs. This is why you're starting to see more outsourcing for cutscenes and other assets that would originally be done in house. Contractors however are asking for more money due to rising prices, and eventually everything is going to collapse into itself as we already have reached and passed the point of un-sustainability

Due to trying to make profit due to rising costs, and trying to keep contracts in check, most attempts to replace BR with another format has failed. I take it next gen will still be Blu-ray with more rising costs. In hindsight Blu-Ray was one of the biggest mistakes. But especially for video games, and how fast it changed things.
Hi Phil. Shouldn't you be giving the media some more inspirational quotes or life coaching so we can get another "Phil Spencer says" thread?
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,753
792
225
#32
The biggest problem I have had with Blu Rays is the resume feature. All of a sudden we went from DVD's that resumed without any issue to Blu Rays that needed something special to make them resume (I think they need Javascript or something). What a headache.
 
Aug 3, 2014
8,466
123
340
#33
no.

maybe now they are holding back because they aren't big enough and nobody really wants to bring out a new kind of physical media which itself is dying.
 
Jan 27, 2014
389
124
280
#36
I lived through the format war and although his argument means nothing (it barely made a blip of a difference in video games) the HD-DVD advantages are true.
At the start, Blu-Rays had a hard time with simple menus and had to use Javascript type programming to work.
HD-DVD would have been easier and cheaper to transition to but Blu-Ray winning the format war had nothing to do with which was better, Sony and others wanted it to succeed and they got their way.
 
Dec 6, 2017
846
513
285
#37
Aren't we overlooking the fact that there never actually was a HD-DVD video game format? Xbox couldn't even read them without an add-on and it was only for movies. Even MS passed up on HD-DVD for their games, the format war was never a video game thing.
 
Last edited:
Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
#38
Aren't we overlooking the fact that there never actually was a HD-DVD video game format? Xbox couldn't even read them without an add-on and it was only for movies. Even MS passed up on HD-DVD for their games, the format war was never a video game thing.
No official releases of HD-DVD games, but MS did test them for game software. The results showed much faster loading than 360 discs and better laser tension. But MS never had a full stake in HD DVD. Sony needed it to win they were bleeding, and they still would have lost if not for bribery.
 
Sep 19, 2018
44
22
80
#43
compared to digital, blu ray is the new betamax.

the new standard format is digital. and it will always be digital.
sad but true. it will be interesting to see how many of the modern classics are going to be accessible and playable in 20 years like Mario and Sonic cartridges are now. I'll still keep buying physical until they stop making them altogether, but finding a working PS3 or PS4 in 20 years will probably be damn near impossible. Everything will have to be emulated.
I think that's also one of the very reasons why Nintendo had jumped ship from discs to cartridges (gamecards) after the Wii U with the Switch.
 
Last edited:
Jun 30, 2016
166
105
200
#45
Just about any point that might actually be true, would have also been true had HD-DVD "won" as well.

I think HD-DVD was the better format. I think it rightfully should have been the next one. I also think the winner of this format war is practically meaningless to the problems in the game industry.

Sony paid a HIGH price for BR's success, essentially exchanging Playstation's momentum and hype to promote the format, requiring PS3 to recover after a rocky start of insane prices and supply issues. I sort of doubt it was really worth it in the end, given the advent of digital. It wasn't a pointless format war, but it mattered little enough that I think they paid too much for the victory.

If it wasn't for BR, Sony may not have lost round 1 of that gen to 360. That's about the most damaging thing I can say about the format.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
582
242
190
#46
I don't understand why this is always brought up. When I say I own a movie, or game, or CD or something, I'm saying I own a physical product (or digital file nowadays, whatever) that plays the content. I do own that. Obviously I don't "own" the movie in a sense beyond that. I just don't get the pedantic "AKSHULLY you know you don't own that but just have a licence to use the content". It's like no shit, I'm specifically talking about having ownership of items that play content.

...and before you go on about copyrights, no one bought a copy of Super Mario World thinking that they own every copy of it or the right to make copies and sell them. They just knew that they owned that one copy.
With a book you can read it and copy it line by line with a pen and paper. Should it be illegal for you to make backup copies? Just because the tool you use is more complex than a pen and paper doesn't mean the act is different in kind. If you were immortal you could analyze the memory containing mario with special equipment and copy the zeros and ones by hand into paper or into another digital file.

Suppose one day you can transfer memories, if you've seen a movie enough times you probably have quite a complete memory. Does the copyright extend to the memory in your mind? To restricting the physical actions you can do with your physical property such as a scanner or a computer? I mean it is quite bold to say someone's Intellectual property rights extend to such a degree that they can prohibit what one does in the privacy of their home with their private property. Weren't laws against homosexuality struck down because you couldn't police what people did in the privacy of their homes without harming anyone?
Sony paid a HIGH price for BR's success, essentially exchanging Playstation's momentum and hype to promote the format, requiring PS3 to recover after a rocky start of insane prices and supply issues. I sort of doubt it was really worth it in the end, given the advent of digital. It wasn't a pointless format war, but it mattered little enough that I think they paid too much for the victory.

If it wasn't for BR, Sony may not have lost round 1 of that gen to 360. That's about the most damaging thing I can say about the format.
It wasn't only BR that was the issue, it was also all the crazy things ken kutaragi did. The design was overly complex and overly expensive and experimental as well as difficult to program for.

Microsoft managed to get Unified shaders first, which was a major advance for the time, and without these it would've been difficult to match the quality of 360.
 
Last edited:
Likes: kyubajin
Jun 30, 2016
166
105
200
#47
It wasn't only BR that was the issue, it was also all the crazy things ken kutaragi did. The design was overly complex and overly expensive and experimental as well as difficult to program for.

Microsoft managed to get Unified shaders first, which was a major advance for the time, and without these it would've been difficult to match the quality of 360.
Yeah, I'm aware of other issues like the funny architecture, it was like needless complexity for the sake of being its own thing...to this day it's hard to emulate PS3 lol. Thus why I say it may not have lost round 1 to 360. Keep in mind the PS3 was an insane price, and without the BR drive it could have been quite cheaper AND more plentiful, and nothing seems to motivate devs to figure out a system's unique problems like an install base spiraling, especially for the brand that won last gen.

Of course it's not that simple and we could talk what-ifs of history all day, but I do think the BR drive was a big enough deal to potentially affect the outcome.
 
Likes: OSC
Apr 3, 2016
204
67
215
#48
2. Blu-Ray is responsible for the fast and complete eradication of owning the video games you brought. Blu-Ray was great for DRM and other features that made it easier to use the DISC more as an authentication measure than a physical product. Which moved the industry to buying "licenses" instead of Consumers owning games. Once those few court cases settled things changed for the worst.
Just curious. Do Blu-Ray players and game consoles have a built in expiration where they no longer read DRM's Blu-Ray discs?
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,753
792
225
#49
With a book you can read it and copy it line by line with a pen and paper. Should it be illegal for you to make backup copies? Just because the tool you use is more complex than a pen and paper doesn't mean the act is different in kind. If you were immortal you could analyze the memory containing mario with special equipment and copy the zeros and ones by hand into paper or into another digital file.

Suppose one day you can transfer memories, if you've seen a movie enough times you probably have quite a complete memory. Does the copyright extend to the memory in your mind? To restricting the physical actions you can do with your physical property such as a scanner or a computer? I mean it is quite bold to say someone's Intellectual property rights extend to such a degree that they can prohibit what one does in the privacy of their home with their private property. Weren't laws against homosexuality struck down because you couldn't police what people did in the privacy of their homes without harming anyone?
I am not arguing in favor of copyright. I was just addressing the usual argument from people who say 'you've never owned a game'. These people who only started gaming this gen and have no idea that gaming hasn't always been such an anti-consumer thing.