Support NeoGAF

[Hendrick's]

Maybe in the next 50-100+ years the world will be ready... maybe

All you have to do is look at music, movies and TV to know the world is ready now, we are only waiting for technology to catch up. I'm afraid you are going to be quite disappointed if you think we are that far from this future.

 

[hybrid_birth]

To a few people above:

You guys need to stop arguing and hug each other. Let the frustration out.

I never seen such emotion.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Always online? Nope that isn't right.

Digital future? Likely...

this is where I'm at. I have 60 games for my xbox one and only 2 of them are physical BUT needing to be always online is a big "no" for me.

Winter time here (Canada) I have a large chunk of snow/storm days where work is canceled and a lot of those days my internet goes down for sometimes days at a time... those storm days I usually sit home and play games.

 

[Bolivar687]

The argument is nonsensical. Our devices today are just as "always online" as the new consoles were when they launched in 2013. The difference was, Microsoft was proposing a hardware device - not a game, not a service, but a hardware device - that would punish its users for failing to check in online at least once a day. As far as I know, no one before has ever attempted such a proudly anti-consumer product. To the best of my knowledge, no one has tried such an act of lunacy since.

The only thing more outrageous than Microsoft's unmatched disdain for its own audience is the extent to which gaming journalists went to downplay, normalize, and even celebrate Microsoft going to war against its fans. Just like they later tried to downplay, normalize, and even celebrate how the Xbox One ran games at inferior resolutions.

Ironically, no one ever congratulated Sony for their foresight on the PS3. Sony sold the system with a Blu Ray player, a hard drive, a Wi-Fi adapter, and rechargeable controllers. They were ridiculed for forcing gamers to buy such unnecessary baubles, yet by the end of the generation, it was widely understood that you need some of these things for high definition gaming, and Microsoft unquestionably capitulated to this with the design of the Xbox One.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not sure what point you are trying to make when dialup can still easily handle a kb size check in.

Why do you want this stupid "always on" internet feature to be mandatory? Is the way it's set up now not good enough for you?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

The argument is nonsensical. Our devices today are just as "always online" as the new consoles were when they launched in 2013. The difference was, Microsoft was proposing a hardware device - not a game, not a service, but a hardware device - that would punish its users for failing to check in online at least once a day. As far as I know, no one before has ever attempted such a proudly anti-consumer product. To the best of my knowledge, no one has tried such an act of lunacy since.

The only thing more outrageous than Microsoft's unmatched disdain for its own audience is the extent to which gaming journalists went to downplay, normalize, and even celebrate Microsoft going to war against its fans. Just like they later tried to downplay, normalize, and even celebrate how the Xbox One ran games at inferior resolutions.

Ironically, no one ever congratulated Sony for their foresight on the PS3. Sony sold the system with a Blu Ray player, a hard drive, a Wi-Fi adapter, and rechargeable controllers. They were ridiculed for forcing gamers to buy such unnecessary baubles, yet by the end of the generation, it was widely understood that you need some of these things for high definition gaming, and Microsoft unquestionably capitulated to this with the design of the Xbox One.

You hit the nail on the head. In gaming journalists are just shills for the industry. Saying nice things is how they get their free games, interviews, consoles.

 

[The_Mike]

They are not wrong, they are just way ahead of their time.

 

[mckmas8808]

They are not wrong, they are just way ahead of their time.

So wouldn't that make them wrong at the time they were trying to do it?

 

[KAOS]

They were wrong and the motto should be don't try that shit again!

 

[bitbydeath]

All you have to do is look at music, movies and TV to know the world is ready now, we are only waiting for technology to catch up. I'm afraid you are going to be quite disappointed if you think we are that far from this future.

None of your examples are close to the file size of a game. You’re expecting to reach Pluto because we just got to the moon.

 

[B_Signal]

All you have to do is look at music, movies and TV to know the world is ready now, we are only waiting for technology to catch up. I'm afraid you are going to be quite disappointed if you think we are that far from this future.

plenty of people, as in an awful lot of people, don't stream music. Your post, and I don't mean any offence in singling you out, is reflective of an ethnocentric viewpoint around things like this. We, the kind of people on gaming forums, aren't the default for how technology is used, even within our age groups. Take your music example, I deliberately picked a phone with an SD slot because I'd prefer to carry my music with me than stream it. My housemate spends a fortune on games, he will not buy a game unless it's a physical copy or he has absolutely no other way to play it

I play primarily on pc and as such most of my gaming library is downloads nowadays, I even bought an Onlive box out of curiosity. But the thought that I won't be able to play my games because my net is down for any reason, or because the providers servers are down, fuck that. I remember when PSN was down for weeks, I'd just bought Marvel vs Capcom 2 and couldn't play it because Capcom had decided it needed an online connection to boot. Fuck. That

 

[mckmas8808]

plenty of people, as in an awful lot of people, don't stream music. Your post, and I don't mean any offence in singling you out, is reflective of an ethnocentric viewpoint around things like this. We, the kind of people on gaming forums, aren't the default for how technology is used, even within our age groups. Take your music example, I deliberately picked a phone with an SD slot because I'd prefer to carry my music with me than stream it. My housemate spends a fortune on games, he will not buy a game unless it's a physical copy or he has absolutely no other way to play it

I play primarily on pc and as such most of my gaming library is downloads nowadays, I even bought an Onlive box out of curiosity. But the thought that I won't be able to play my games because my net is down for any reason, or because the providers servers are down, fuck that. I remember when PSN was down for weeks, I'd just bought Marvel vs Capcom 2 and couldn't play it because Capcom had decided it needed an online connection to boot. Fuck. That

These are the customers that MS didn't care about in 2013, until the internet blow up on them. Then they changed direction for good reason.

 

[Hendrick's]

You can all disagree, but streaming is the future and is not that far off. Both EA, and MS spoke of it at E3 this year and Sony has already been experimenting with it. If I can stream 4K content from Netflix seemlessly, I have a hard time believing gaming is that far behind. And maybe this is only something that will be readily adopted in certain parts of the world, NA, Europe, Japan, etc. But we are talking about Xbox here, and that market has always been their focus.

 

[kevm3]

No, they weren't right and they won't be right. We don't want to HAVE to be online in order to play our games.

 

[meirl]

But...what would I have done if I had to move 3 months for summer with an "always online" console into a place with no Internet? I dunno.

Great point. And while we are at it: what would you do if you had to move 3 months for summer into a place with no electric?

 

[HeresJohnny]

The future is digital, there's no coming back from that.

Not for me it isn't. I've bought 99 percent of my games on physical media whenever the option is available. I don't trust any company having the keys to my content.

 

[Ridaxan]

Not for me it isn't. I've bought 99 percent of my games on physical media whenever the option is available. I don't trust any company having the keys to my content.

I can see the inevitability of a digital-only future being the reality, whether we like it or not. That's the way the industry is heading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we own licenses to use the content, not the actual content itself. Even in a physical format.

Personally, it's not much of an issue for me, but I can see why other people are concerned about it. If I lose access to my entire digital library tomorrow it's not the end of the world.

 

[ar0s]

Cab we please have OPs that sum up the video in a number of paragraphs rather than solely a Youtube video? If you have watched it then you can easily summarise it rather than just paste it in.

 

[mckmas8808]

I can see the inevitability of a digital-only future being the reality, whether we like it or not. That's the way the industry is heading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we own licenses to use the content, not the actual content itself. Even in a physical format.

Personally, it's not much of an issue for me, but I can see why other people are concerned about it. If I lose access to my entire digital library tomorrow it's not the end of the world.

But didn't you pay for those games? Why would you be so okay with throwing your money away like this?

 

[pr0cs]

But didn't you pay for those games? Why would you be so okay with throwing your money away like this?

Yep they're very wrong. It's unacceptable to no longer have access to content we purchased. It REALLY hurt to orphan my PS3 psn purchases, I dread the day my og PS3 craters as ill have no way to play the games I bought.
Perhaps they haven't actually bought anything, that's why they don't care

Digital is coming, physical is a lesser form since you have to rely on the device to load it. What happens in 5 years when your ps4 packs it in? You're not going to run out and buy another one.. Unless you're happy trying to find a used one

 

[mckmas8808]

Yep they're very wrong. It's unacceptable to no longer have access to content we purchased. It REALLY hurt to orphan my PS3 psn purchases, I dread the day my og PS3 craters as ill have no way to play the games I bought.
Perhaps they haven't actually bought anything, that's why they don't care

Digital is coming, physical is a lesser form since you have to rely on the device to load it. What happens in 5 years when your ps4 packs it in? You're not going to run out and buy another one.. Unless you're happy trying to find a used one

Hopefully the PS5 plays all PS4 games.

 

[Ridaxan]

But didn't you pay for those games? Why would you be so okay with throwing your money away like this?

Yes I did, but it's just videogames. My view is that I'm paying for an experience. Once I'm done with a game it's served it's purpose.

Whilst gaming is very important to me, it's not close to the most important thing in my life.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes I did, but it's just videogames. My view is that I'm paying for an experience. Once I'm done with a game it's served it's purpose.

Whilst gaming is very important to me, it's not close to the most important thing in my life.

That's cool. Luckily for the rest of us, we view things that we buy a little more seriously. *salute*

 

[Fitzchiv]

The thing Microsoft understood way ahead of consumers is that high speed internet would become a constant utility. The market wasn't ready for their offer at that time and they delivered it badly, but it's getting closer. Saying always online is like keeping your content hostage is like saying power companies are keeping your content hostage because it's needed to run the Tv and the console. Microsoft's crime was to misjudge where gamers were on the adoption curve for this idea and overestimate their power to influence people along it.

 

[mckmas8808]

The thing Microsoft understood way ahead of consumers is that high speed internet would become a constant utility. The market wasn't ready for their offer at that time and they delivered it badly, but it's getting closer. Saying always online is like keeping your content hostage is like saying power companies are keeping your content hostage because it's needed to run the Tv and the console. Microsoft's crime was to misjudge where gamers were on the adoption curve for this idea and overestimate their power to influence people along it.

Why do you believe that 95+ percent of console gamers have a constant internet connection?

 

[Fbh]

Ok? But the video does nothing to support her point.
I think her point is that since most people already have their console constantly connected to the internet and since the most popular games are online anyway it wouldn't make a difference? Which I guess is true for a lot of people, but having an online connection be mandatory will still affect some people while having it be optional isn't negatively affecting anyone.
I can play online with my Ps4, I can party up with friends, I can stream music and tv, I can stream my own gameplay, I can take screenshots or videos and share them directly to social media, I can download games, demos, betas, DLC and can re-download them from anywhere in the world as long as I log in with my account, I can leave my console in rest mode so it automatically updates itself and my games while I'm not using it . And yet, when the internet is down (as it actually was for me a few days ago) I can just select the digital copy of god of war from the main menu or pop in my Horizon disc and play them with no issue.....how is THAT the wrong approach?

 

[B_Signal]

The thing Microsoft understood way ahead of consumers is that high speed internet would become a constant utility. The market wasn't ready for their offer at that time and they delivered it badly, but it's getting closer. Saying always online is like keeping your content hostage is like saying power companies are keeping your content hostage because it's needed to run the Tv and the console. Microsoft's crime was to misjudge where gamers were on the adoption curve for this idea and overestimate their power to influence people along it.

consoles do need power to function, I'd agree with you there, but they don't need the internet to run

It sounds to me like Game Pass is closer to what some people want. Pay a reduced amount but don't actually own the game, the cost being that you'd need to be online to play

 

[BryanGT]

Why do you believe that 95+ percent of console gamers have a constant internet connection?

Why do you assume that's a limitation for an online console? You only need to be online to download a game and renew a digital license to play the game (which then works offline with an expiry window). That's how digital PS4, Xbox, and Steam games work. You only need to be online every once in a while, the "always online" thing was just FUD that was being bandied about by motivated critics of the idea.

The difference in the Xbox One plan from 2013 is that they wanted the disc just to be install media and still manage all of the game licenses online. In exchange there would be a lot more features and freedom in selling, sharing, trading and loaning digital licences as if they were physical disks. This was actually a play to cut out Gamestop's secondary market that was a parasitic drag on the primary market. The primary market is what was paying game creators and funding new and better games, but Gamestop was pushing their used inventory over new sales because it represented almost pure profit for them. (Hey man, why spend $60 on a new one when I got this used one for $53 that I only paid some dumb kid $15 for?)

So was Microsoft wrong? Yeah, because consumers and Gamestop freaked the fuck out on them. Technologically it wasn't a bad move, and it would have been a better system for people who actually make the games. It was not, however, technologically untenable, bad for consumers, or even particularly groundbreaking (see Google Play, Steam, iTunes, the App Store). Eventually consoles will go that way, but Microsoft tried to do it way too early.

 

[WaterAstro]

I was just playing For Honor Story mode, and I was almost at the end of a really tough stage, then my internet went out for like 15 seconds and I have to restart the level because you have to be always online for For Honor single player.

So fuck always online.

 

[BryanGT]

I was just playing For Honor Story mode, and I was almost at the end of a really tough stage, then my internet went out for like 15 seconds and I have to restart the level because you have to be always online for For Honor single player.

So fuck always online.

That's how the For Honor developer decided to build their game, it's not the same as how the Xbox One was originally designed to manage content licenses.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why do you assume that's a limitation for an online console? You only need to be online to download a game and renew a digital license to play the game (which then works offline with an expiry window). That's how digital PS4, Xbox, and Steam games work. You only need to be online every once in a while, the "always online" thing was just FUD that was being bandied about by motivated critics of the idea.

The difference in the Xbox One plan from 2013 is that they wanted the disc just to be install media and still manage all of the game licenses online. In exchange there would be a lot more features and freedom in selling, sharing, trading and loaning digital licences as if they were physical disks. This was actually a play to cut out Gamestop's secondary market that was a parasitic drag on the primary market. The primary market is what was paying game creators and funding new and better games, but Gamestop was pushing their used inventory over new sales because it represented almost pure profit for them. (Hey man, why spend $60 on a new one when I got this used one for $53 that I only paid some dumb kid $15 for?)

So was Microsoft wrong? Yeah, because consumers and Gamestop freaked the fuck out on them. Technologically it wasn't a bad move, and it would have been a better system for people who actually make the games. It was not, however, technologically untenable, bad for consumers, or even particularly groundbreaking (see Google Play, Steam, iTunes, the App Store). Eventually consoles will go that way, but Microsoft tried to do it way too early.

But the "expiry window" was once every 24 hours. So in effect it always had to be online.

 

[Fitzchiv]

Why do you believe that 95+ percent of console gamers have a constant internet connection?

I didn't? I've no idea what the ratio is but I'm guessing it's pretty high in households able to spend a few hundred on a current gen console. My point is that's the direction of travel, and MS just called it early. Personally I'm resistant to electronic media rather than the always online stuff, but since I bought my current gen consoles I've always had the router on and, as of picking up an XBX last weekend I'm now a signed up gamepass member even though I don't like the temporary ownership or waiting for downloads.

They were right, just early because of their own bubble.

 

[mckmas8808]

I didn't? I've no idea what the ratio is but I'm guessing it's pretty high in households able to spend a few hundred on a current gen console. My point is that's the direction of travel, and MS just called it early. Personally I'm resistant to electronic media rather than the always online stuff, but since I bought my current gen consoles I've always had the router on and, as of picking up an XBX last weekend I'm now a signed up gamepass member even though I don't like the temporary ownership or waiting for downloads.

They were right, just early because of their own bubble.

But how do you know they were right? MS aren't doing it right now. For them to be right, they'll have to switch course and say, "Your Xbox One, One S, and One X will only work if it's connected to the internet once every 24 hours". Until then you can't say they were right.

You simply don't know. The fact that they haven't done it yet speaks VOLUMES!

 

[BryanGT]

But the "expiry window" was once every 24 hours. So in effect it always had to be online.

I'm not sure it was, got a reference? Either way that's an easy thing to configure if they got the window wrong, not a fundamental issue with the model.

 

[Fitzchiv]

But how do you know they were right? MS aren't doing it right now. For them to be right, they'll have to switch course and say, "Your Xbox One, One S, and One X will only work if it's connected to the internet once every 24 hours". Until then you can't say they were right.

You simply don't know. The fact that they haven't done it yet speaks VOLUMES!

It sure does, it says they moved too fast and have to wait for a population dominated by late adopters being exploited by Sony to move to the point they thought they could simply move it to themselves with all their 360 traction.

The further the ratio of households with consistent connection goes, and the more people get used to streaming services, the closer the market gets to Microsoft's vision and more importantly, the closer it gets to their huge strengths.

 

[Fitzchiv]

I'm not sure it was, got a reference? Either way that's an easy thing to configure if they got the window wrong, not a fundamental issue with the model.

Amazon currently do this with video content on their kids Kindle subscription - I think it's 48hrs rather than 24 though

 

[Ballthyrm]

Microsoft is right, the only reason it hasn't happen already is the US internet situation. The US is still the biggest game market, if the majority of US citizen had decent internet connection it would have happened already.

Streaming has so many consumer friendly advantage over their only downside, it is going to take over IMHO. The way i see it, you only see people yelling about how their shitty internet would stop their gaming session all the time and then list all the problem associated with consequence of their shitty internet.

I don't meet many people nowadays proud of owning their own giant collection of BLU-rays or DvD. The convenience of streaming is way too strong for that.

Once everybody has sub 30ms gigabit internet we won't have this fruitless debate (Hello Starlink & Oneweb)

Here is some of the advantage of streaming you won't see on other platform:
- no upfront fee (bye bye 400$ consoles)
- Always up to specs (all the computation is in the cloud, so potentially everybody has a 5000$ PC)
- if they keep the Netflix model , you can start and stop anything you like once you paid the monthly fee, no need to buy 60$ game and then have to return it
- potentially cheaper (20-30$ a month), again like netflix the more people buy in, the more thing you are going to get for less
- No attachment to any arbitrary platform, IP becomes king to attract customers, you can quickly switch back and forth for a month or so to just play the thing you like
- It work everywhere on earth where there is internet (with Starlink it means literally everywhere on earth)

TLDR: US has shitty internet, streaming will happen once it gets good enough, which is sooner than many people think.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The thing Microsoft understood way ahead of consumers is that high speed internet would become a constant utility. The market wasn't ready for their offer at that time and they delivered it badly, but it's getting closer. Saying always online is like keeping your content hostage is like saying power companies are keeping your content hostage because it's needed to run the Tv and the console. Microsoft's crime was to misjudge where gamers were on the adoption curve for this idea and overestimate their power to influence people along it.

TLDR: US has shitty internet, streaming will happen once it gets good enough, which is sooner than many people think.

You fundamentally misunderstand why many gamers object to "always online". A lot of the Microsoft defenders continue to misunderstand this point. And the patronizing hand-waving, saying "well technology will get there, just give it time" is a clear demonstration that you misunderstand. "But it was just going to be a check-in" is not a valid retort, merely another misunderstanding on your part.

The issue isn't "OH HEAVENS! HOW WILL OUR MEAGER 56K DIALUP HANDLE THIS?!?!"

The issue is "Why in the flying flippity-flip would I purchase a game at full price and yet still let that company maintain a grip over that purchase?"

To this day, Microsoft defenders have never -- not once -- been able to answer that question. At best, they say "well, Microsoft was going to give us such-and-such in exchange".

 

[Ballthyrm]

The issue is "Why in the flying flippity-flip would I purchase a game at full price and yet still let that company maintain a grip over that purchase?"

I understand that point, but i found it irrelevant. These people exist for DvD and Blu-ray too, or Vinyl for that matter. Thing is, they are the minority, the majority will choose convenience every-time.

Microsoft isn't there to serve the few people who want physical copies of their games, they want to maximize profit. If their goal is to make you want to buy their monthly gaming fee, and the majority will IMHO, well too bad for the "collectors" out there.

I don't think "buy the game you stream" model is going to survive long. We still have that on the VoD platform but the majority just pay the monthly fee for the standard catalog, they don't own anything anymore, and it doesn't seem to bother them too much if we see Netflix success.

I understand the "don't touch my stuff" mentality, i really do. Call me a cynic but the market has already said what they thought of that idea for video and i don't think i'm going on a limb when i say that people won't attach that much value either on video games.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I understand that point, but i found it irrelevant. These people exist for DvD and Blu-ray too, or Vinyl for that matter. Thing is, they are the minority, the majority will choose convenience every-time.

Microsoft isn't there to serve the few people who want physical copies of their games, they want to maximize profit. If their goal is to make you want to buy their monthly gaming fee, and the majority will IMHO, well too bad for the "collectors" out there.

I don't think "buy the game you stream" model is going to survive long. We still have that on the VoD platform but the majority just pay the monthly fee for the standard catalog, they don't own anything anymore, and it doesn't seem to bother them too much if we see Netflix success.

I understand the "don't touch my stuff" mentality, i really do. Call me a cynic but the market has already said what they thought of that idea for video and i don't think i'm going on a limb when i say that people won't attach that much value either on video games.

Then explain the rising sales of physical books and vinyl records in the past three years. Vinyl and CDs have been outselling digital in many markets since 2016. Explain the recent report that 66% of gamers still prefer physical [source]. Explain the recent arrival of mail-order specialty sites like limitedrungames.com, specialreservegames.com, play-asia.com, and strictlylimited.com where the games often cost more, even twice as much as the digital version, and yet these sell out very quickly in most cases. Explain the surge of YouTube collectors showing off their massive physical collections yet no one seems to care about massive digital collections. Explain the surge of arcade hardware collecting in the last 10 years. Explain the rise of aftermarket retro consoles, Everdrive cartridges, clone controllers, and SD-to-HD signal converters.

All of these fly in the face of the notion that "digital is the future. Deal with it".

I believe -- and I think I have a pretty strong case -- that the proliferation of digital content will actually make people crave physical media more, not less. I think the canary in the coalmine is the stupid-high increase in prices for retro games and retro hardware. I am deeply entrenched in that market and have watched prices soar in the last few years.

 

[mckmas8808]

I understand that point, but i found it irrelevant. These people exist for DvD and Blu-ray too, or Vinyl for that matter. Thing is, they are the minority, the majority will choose convenience every-time.

Microsoft isn't there to serve the few people who want physical copies of their games, they want to maximize profit. If their goal is to make you want to buy their monthly gaming fee, and the majority will IMHO, well too bad for the "collectors" out there.

I don't think "buy the game you stream" model is going to survive long. We still have that on the VoD platform but the majority just pay the monthly fee for the standard catalog, they don't own anything anymore, and it doesn't seem to bother them too much if we see Netflix success.

I understand the "don't touch my stuff" mentality, i really do. Call me a cynic but the market has already said what they thought of that idea for video and i don't think i'm going on a limb when i say that people won't attach that much value either on video games.

And why do you want to eliminate those that don't like the new "digital" only model? Why is doing both not better?

 

[Ballthyrm]

And why do you want to eliminate those that don't like the new "digital" only model? Why is doing both not better?

We are going to do both for sure, just like @ DunDunDunpachi said about Vinyl sales and CDs going up. I don't see physical games dying anytime soon.

The big question is where are people going to consume the majority of video-games? Right now for video and audio it is streaming, i don't see games being that much different.

Physical Video-games won't die but just like Vinyls and Retro consoles and things like that, they are going to become status symbols. Things you show off to other people.

 

[Z3K]

Okay but that E3 xbox unveiling got almost everything else wrong, forcing Kinect on everyone , a higher price than PS4, and underpowered console, a focus on TV and DVR functionality, and games? What games? No halo, no Gears, no nothing.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

We are going to do both for sure, just like @ DunDunDunpachi said about Vinyl sales and CDs going up. I don't see physical games dying anytime soon.

The big question is where are people going to consume the majority of video-games? Right now for video and audio it is streaming, i don't see games being that much different.

Physical Video-games won't die but just like Vinyls and Retro consoles and things like that, they are going to become status symbols. Things you show off to other people.

It's true, these formats have taken a chunk of the market, but there are reasons why it doesn't apply to videogames.

For instance, the audio quality expected by consumers more-or-less capped out 20 years ago when MP3 became a thing. Most people don't care about lossless audio or high-capacity audio formats. Since streaming at that 20-year-old standard quality is acceptable, it allows streaming to take a piece of the market. Even so, physical still sells profitably.

The movie quality expected by consumers was met when DVD launched, in my opinion. I think BluRay and 4K BluRay will be the final physical video formats. The vast majority of consumers don't care as much about physical now that they can stream DVD-quality (and better) via their regular internet connections. That said, very few folks are streaming or downloading 4K content. Adoption is even slower than with 1080p.

So, here's where the comparison falls apart: we cannot reliably stream current-quality videogames. Attempts so far have failed to set the market alight. Even if our internet manages to catch up, the question isn't whether or not we can stream what we're playing now. It's whether or not we can stream games in 5 years, 10 years, whatever. Unless there's a renaissance in data-compression methods, our data needs will balloon. Will internet speeds keep pace? This is a genuine question that never gets answered. There's also the issue of limited data caps, another concern that never really gets answered.

These shortfalls make physical media more attractive, not less, especially for those who can drive to WalMart faster than their connection can download the game.

 

[llien]

Main gog.com appeal for me is exactly that: no goddamn dependencies on some servers running piece of useless software created only to annoy me, legit customer, that can disappear any time.

So, no, thanks, I'll stay physical for consoles.

 

[Psykodad]

There's a big difference between always being online and always online being mandatory.

MS isn't very different from EA, except they've got Phil Spencer to brainwash people more easily.

 

[bufkus]

this is where I'm at. I have 60 games for my xbox one and only 2 of them are physical BUT needing to be always online is a big "no" for me.

Winter time here (Canada) I have a large chunk of snow/storm days where work is canceled and a lot of those days my internet goes down for sometimes days at a time... those storm days I usually sit home and play games.

at some point you are gonna have to accept that living in a place with spotty internet is NOT the norm and that companies don't need to cater to the 10% or whatever that fall under that.
the majority of gamers live in cities where they have access to "always-on" internet.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

They'll never be right about it. Not then, not now, it's too restrictive.

It's just a road that leads to getting rid of physical media.

 

[Hendrick's]

They'll never be right about it. Not then, not now, it's too restrictive.

It's just a road that leads to getting rid of physical media.

That's the road we are all on. Physical media is going to die, it's inevitable.

 

[TheMikado]

That's the road we are all on. Physical media is going to die, it's inevitable.

The only reason physical media exist is to have a means to transport and store data. It’s not a concept of itself but something that was born as a means to solve another another problem.

It’s like people who say landlines will never go away. Landlines weren’t created for the sake of just having them. They were created as the cheapest most efficient means of transporting data. When they no longer are, the market will move away from them.