Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

Probably the best post in this thread.

Indeed. The "industry" and associated sycophants seem to forget that the reason people buy the games they do has as much to do with perceived monetary value as it does with perceived entertainment. If everything becomes DD, then the perceived value drops. If the prices dont drop accordingly (and there is absolutely no reason to think that prices will drop) then sales will drop.

Anyone (like lowrider) who thinks that we should sit quietly like good little children and do what the "industry" says is best is either a troll, a marketing shill or another viral marketer for whichever games they name drop.

The "industry" approach to generating more revenue seems to focus almost entirely on raising prices and reducing physical inventory (ie D instead of discs). I would have thought the logical solution would be to sell more copies of better content rather than running the same three 'ideas' into the ground ad infinitum. But what would I know, I just play the damn things.

As other people elsewhere have said, there is a disconect between the industry and gaming. I think the sooner the bad apples are weeded out the better.

 

[BolognaOni]

I have yet to see a single one of these "predictions" backed up with any sort of credible sales numbers. I'm sure it will be So Awesome though.

 

[endlessflood]

We'd be transferring nearly all the power over to publishers, limiting our options as consumers and almost certainly be paying more for less.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell.

With physical media the power is shared; retailers have power over prices, consumers have power over what they do with their games.

With DD the power is concentrated, and shifts to people like this:

That is not a good thing. That will never be a good thing.

 

[Gwanatu T]

Every market where you physically buy something has a second hand market. Movies, Music, Cars, Houses, Computers, TVs, Books, etc etc. Why should gaming be any different? Why shouldn't you be allowed to sell a game used that you bought? If I buy a car and sell it next year Toyota doesn't get any money from it. Developers/Publishers need to make people want to keep the games they bought instead of trying to fuck over the consumer by making it so you can't sell shit you paid for. Game prices overall need to come down and replay value needs to be raised.

Look, I don't disagree with you, believe me. I was just coming from a developer/publisher's perspective with that post and saying this is probably because they are trying to keep their profits from moving to someone else. When someone is able to sell games/music/books/whatever that they don't use any more, they generally use that money that they make off the sale to go buy stuff, so it's not like that money doesn't turn around and get right back to where it "needs" to be in the cycle, they are just trying to control how much money goes out of the cycle. I would love to see DD copies be significantly cheaper than regular disc copies simply because of this fact that I can't resell the games I'm sick of. Hell I just took 4 games to Gamestop to get Wii Fit Plus as a gift for my wife and now I've got $30 left over to spend on whatever I feel like. I love selling used games when I'm sick of them, because honestly, what good does sitting on a shelf and gathering dust do for me? Absolutely nothing. With DD they would get uninstalled and never used again, and I wouldn't be able to get that $20 or less back for them, so honestly a DD title should be that amount cheaper than the disc game to make up for this problem.

 

[lowrider007]

Holy mother of God you are the king of fucking trolls.

It's my opinion dude, I'm not trolling, if you don't like it then tough, I'm not insulting anyone or trying to be controversial just for the sake of it, and in fact because of my hard-line stance on this particular topic and people rebutting my comments I, and I think other people have learnt quite a lot about the legality's of the licensing of IP's on physical media, I was wrong about certain consumer rights like not being able to technically sell on IP's for example (By US law at least) and I am thankful for the things that I've learnt, sometimes it takes a bit of controversy to get the facts out in the open.

Now that being said, I personally still don't have a problem with a DD only model where by we can't sell on the license or content that we've purchased providing the prices are fair, my only real concern is knowing whether or not I will still have access to that content in 10, 20+ years, I know people want like this stance but I really do think that publishers should get a cut from second-hand sales of their IP's in the retail market and developers should reap rewards from that cut also.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

But the problem that is more core to the issue is that publishers are not focusing on true "evergreen" titles but on disposable yearly updates and exploitable franchises. Most games are not games most people would want to keep. They lose value - that includes play value - quickly.

Boom. Right there. If most games are not games most people would want to keep, why buy them in the first place?

Why not just rent them? If they're interested in saving money, 9 bucks is a hell of a lot less than 60 bucks.

Why not just rent them? Because they want it Day One? When did patience go out of style?

Or what about borrowing the game from a friend a week or two later? What happened to that? You know, the days where you and your best friend would be like "Hey, I'll lend you this if you lend me that"?

This whole "the industry keeps making shitty games" angle can only work for so long, because if consumer spending were in check, the shitty games would mostly disappear, I'd expect the used games market to shrink dramatically, and the industry-consumer relationship would have stabilized out a long time ago.

This is why I have trouble laying the blame solely at the industry's doorstep. Because the consumer is just as responsible as the industry for the state of the gaming market.

I support DD because I see it forcing consumers to become more selective with their purchases and think a little bit harder about how they're spending their money. I support DD because I'm sick and tired of people bitching about how shitty Gamestop is in one thread, then see others singing praises for its used game marketplace in another discussion. I support DD because I want to see gaming become a long-term investment rather than the retarded day-trading I'm seeing now.

Then again, I support any measure that might stabilize the gaming market. It's just that DD is the only idea I've seen so far.

 

[kevm3]

How do these companies think they will sell their machines? Will they beam their new box over to your house through the internet? I don't know how these console manufacturers think they will cut out the most profitable part from retailers, which is software, and yet retailers will happily push their machine... unless they plan on only selling their machines online.

 

[Salty]

I'm sure Gamestop's director selling all those shares is somewhat related to this.

 

[Salty]

How do these companies think they will sell their machines?

Best Buy, Amazon, Wal-Mart etc

 

[kevm3]

Boom. Right there. If most games are not games most people would want to keep, why buy them in the first place?

Why not just rent them? If they're interested in saving money, 9 bucks is a hell of a lot less than 60 bucks.

Why not just rent them? Because they want it Day One? When did patience go out of style?

Or what about borrowing the game from a friend a week or two later? What happened to that? You know, the days where you and your best friend would be like "Hey, I'll lend you this if you lend me that"?

This whole "the industry keeps making shitty games" angle can only work for so long, because if consumer spending were in check, the shitty games would mostly disappear, I'd expect the used games market to shrink dramatically, and the industry-consumer relationship would have stabilized out a long time ago.

This is why I have trouble laying the blame solely at the industry's doorstep. Because the consumer is just as responsible as the industry for the state of the gaming market.

I support DD because I see it forcing consumers to become more selective with their purchases and think a little bit harder about how they're spending their money. I support DD because I'm sick and tired of people bitching about how shitty Gamestop is in one thread, then see others singing praises for its used game marketplace in another discussion. I support DD because I want to see gaming become a long-term investment rather than the retarded day-trading I'm seeing now.

Then again, I support any measure that might stabilize the gaming market. It's just that DD is the only idea I've seen so far.

How will digital downloads stabilize the market? By alienating a huge sector of the population that still wants physical media? By giving consumers less options to buying their product? By looking at services like Home where people spend tons of money buying digital gear or people spending 10 bucks for 3 maps in COD, it really doesn't look like Digital Distribution has made consumers more selective. In fact, it has made us less so. Imagine a company trying to sell 3 maps in a physical box and sell it for $10 bucks. Wouldn't happen.

I fail to see why physical media must die and can't be run in conjunction with digital downloads. The only reason companies want DD only is so they can slap their DRM over it and have greater control over how consumers receive the content. I'm pretty sure these corporations wouldn't mind completely taking ownership out of consumers hands and instead replacing it with a subscription service where you don't ever really own a game, but you're constantly 'renting games' online and sending them a nice, hefty check each month.

 

[kevm3]

Best Buy, Amazon, Wal-Mart etc

Why would any of those retailers want to push those boxes in any significant fashion when they can't sell the accompanying software, where they really make the money? Best-Buy would much rather sell you a DVD or Blu-Ray player and have you walk out with 4 or 5 discs than a single digital download box and absolutely no software with it.

 

[Salty]

Why would any of those retailers want to push those boxes in any significant fashion when they can't sell the accompanying software, where they really make the money?

A good point, likely because selling the consoles generates a profit.

I also think it's unlikely that physical discs for games will completely disappear. It will just likely go the same way as music.

 

[jorma]

Why would any of those retailers want to push those boxes in any significant fashion when they can't sell the accompanying software, where they really make the money? Best-Buy would much rather sell you a DVD or Blu-Ray player and have you walk out with 4 or 5 discs than a single digital download box and absolutely no software with it.

Does this mean i cannot buy an mp3 player anywhere? Since it seems that retailers have no incentive selling them.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Why would any of those retailers want to push those boxes in any significant fashion when they can't sell the accompanying software, where they really make the money? Best-Buy would much rather sell you a DVD or Blu-Ray player and have you walk out with 4 or 5 discs than a single digital download box and absolutely no software with it.

There are two reasons. One is that the digital media is so prolific that selling the box that obtains the digital media is so prolific that selling it gives you a better guarantee of profit than holding on to the old dream of selling the optical media, and the other is that it isn't, and the company making the box still needs retail and thus works with them to form a compromise in the form of the digital download cards. Also, not all devices present a complete threat to the physical media methodology. For instance, while the PSP Go is a direct threat to retailers selling games, it isn't so entrenched in comparison to the PSP userbase to make UMDs obsolete, and the system sells for a profit. The Netflix box is a threat to DVDs, but Netflix hasn't converted their entire library to digital streaming such that there's no point in the consumer walking out with the Netflix device and worrying that he's never going to buy a DVD again.

 

[Gwanatu T]

Why would any of those retailers want to push those boxes in any significant fashion when they can't sell the accompanying software, where they really make the money? Best-Buy would much rather sell you a DVD or Blu-Ray player and have you walk out with 4 or 5 discs than a single digital download box and absolutely no software with it.

You know, I never thought about that! This definitely poses a problem for manufacturers.

 

[Dorfdad]

No one cares about our woe's honestly. Say it loud and proud that your skipping the E-Commerce versions of these games just make sure you feel good about saying it beacuse no one cares..

E-distribution IS the answer the developers want. they want control of their products. They want to make as much money as is legally possible and the current infrastructure does not offer that.

E-Distribution offers them the ability to control costs, reduce cost in packaging, materials, and printing of manuals. Allowing them to Keep that extra money instead of passing the saving on to the consumer. it's about greed not need..

We can scream bitch and moan all we want but in the end very soon we will all be downloading our games from the man. Those who resist will just be missing out... You won't be missed

Times Change, Adapt.

 

[LCfiner]

You know, I never thought about that! This definitely poses a problem for manufacturers.

The market can change and manufacturers can start selling hardware for a profit (not just Nintendo).

what a novel idea!

 

[Gwanatu T]

The market can change and manufacturers can start selling hardware for a profit (not just Nintendo).

what a novel idea!

Well that wouldn't really matter to the retailers as long as they make money on the sale. I can just imagine that a giant section of sales would be taken away, and the retailers may threaten to drop the product all together.

 

[LCfiner]

Well that wouldn't really matter to the retailers as long as they make money on the sale. I can just imagine that a giant section of sales would be taken away, and the retailers may threaten to drop the product all together.

All I'm saying is that for the past 15 years or so, console hardware has had tiny profits for retail and money is made on software. but not all consumer electronics have razor thin margins.

gaming hardware can evolve to be profitable from the get go so that retailers don't have to depend on software or accessory sales to make any money.

and, yes, this would mean that tech advancements in new consoles would be more conservative to keep costs down.

 

[Lothars]

No one cares about our woe's honestly. Say it loud and proud that your skipping the E-Commerce versions of these games just make sure you feel good about saying it beacuse no one cares..

E-distribution IS the answer the developers want. they want control of their products. They want to make as much money as is legally possible and the current infrastructure does not offer that.

E-Distribution offers them the ability to control costs, reduce cost in packaging, materials, and printing of manuals. Allowing them to Keep that extra money instead of passing the saving on to the consumer. it's about greed not need..

We can scream bitch and moan all we want but in the end very soon we will all be downloading our games from the man. Those who resist will just be missing out... You won't be missed

Times Change, Adapt.

Yeah we have to Adapt but so do developers and publishers and charging high prices for digital games that can't be resold or doesn't give the consumer any benefit is not any way to adapt for the companies either, they have to find a comprise because it's not gonna be just benefits for them to change to an all digital model and leave consumers out in the cold.

 

[Flachmatuch]

This is why I have trouble laying the blame solely at the industry's doorstep. Because the consumer is just as responsible as the industry for the state of the gaming market.

This is just totally idiotic, sorry. The "consumer" is not a unit that can make decision. You can make decisions as a consumer (and a few people do), but as a group, "consumers" can only act statistically. It's an emergent group behaviour you're attributing personality and will to, which is an obvious fallacy. In case of publishers, power and decision is much more concentrated, so it's much easier to have a plan of actions and make decisions, and "responsibility" actually makes some kind of sense. Second, the consumer is influenced quite a bit by publishers efforts (looking at marketing budgets) - the industry could theoretically have been more rational and reasonable in educating the consumer instead of just hyping stuff.

 

[LiK]

ah Peter Moore, unless everyone in the world has broadband internet access or internet access that isn't capped by their ISPs, disc-based gaming will continue.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No one cares about our woe's honestly. Say it loud and proud that your skipping the E-Commerce versions of these games just make sure you feel good about saying it beacuse no one cares.

Well, seeing as how these are unnecessary consumer goods, if there are enough consumers who stick to their guns when the revolution comes in full force, as opposed to just whining about it, then I'm sure publishers will care about nobody buying their game.

That's the thing that always gets me in these discussions about consumer rights advocacy. Video games are an entertainment industry fueled by disposable income. Don't like what them impeding your rights? Don't support them.

Of course, if they go ahead with it and people buy the games anyway, then it's a moot point. You'll just be the old man waxing philosophical to disinterested people about the good ol' days when you owned a physical property that was your's to sell, lend out, and trade.

 

[dark10x]

The reality of DD continues to frighten me. I've been buying some of the DD games since the beginning of this gen and I do not feel a sense of ownership with those titles. It makes the console library seem less substantial. I simply enjoy owning physical copies as it allows the building of a library. I know this doesn't matter to many consumers, but it's a big deal to some of us.

 

[Salty]

Yeah we have to Adapt but so do developers and publishers and charging high prices for digital games that can't be resold or doesn't give the consumer any benefit is not any way to adapt for the companies either, they have to find a comprise because it's not gonna be just benefits for them to change to an all digital model and leave consumers out in the cold.

They'll charge for Digital Downloads what (they think) people are willing to pay for them.

 

[Crateman]

Digital Distribution is a godsend for people -like me-who live in countries where physical games cost more and more every day thanks to the shitty world economy.

Here in Mexico Borderlands will be available for $85 USD... in 2-3 weeks.

I pre-ordered Borderlands on Steam for $45 USD. I will play day one -at least for PC-.

Guess which option I prefer.

 

[DigitalDevil]

Fuck merchandise I can't physically own--FUCK IT!

first response nails my sentiment exactly.

 

[LQX]

Some look forward to full digital distribution but I kind of dread it as when that day comes I will most like start buying less and less games. Some forget the fact many of us wait on and look for deals on games and don't just buy every new $59.99 release. Moreover many trade in there old games to get new games and with digital distribution that wont be an option. Hopefully in this future they also think up a plan to allow digital distribution rentals because I will not be forced to buy every game at full retail.

 

[Shig]

A good point, likely because selling the consoles generates a profit.

Extremely false. Consoles are sold at about the same cost retailers pay for them. Games and accessories are the profit drivers.

But honestly, I'm not so sure retailers are actually as broken up about the prospect of losing game sales as people think they are. Gamestop is very vocal about it because that would affect their used game sales, whose margins are almost criminal, but for big box retailers I think it would actually be sort of a relief to be rid of them. There are certainly successes that they'd miss, but for every one of those there are thirty dead-weight titles that clog up the shelves and have to be price dropped/clearanced out at a loss. As long as they can still sell accessories, point cards, and are given a bit more profit on the console sale, I think they'll acquiesce.

Now, yes, being given more profit on hardware means inflated prices to the consumer like the PSPgo. But the trade-off would be worth it, because tip-toeing around the MSRP of a physical copy is a big part of what's keeping DD prices high. Without having to worry about incurring retailers' wrath by undercutting them, I'm certain DD prices will come down.

The problem right now is that DD sales of retail games are seen merely as a supplement to retail sales and they go DD way after release (strictly speaking consoles, here), so if they're not moving it's not that big a deal; They already moved the number of units they were looking to move at retail, so anything else is seen as gravy. If the DD version was the only version, though, publishers are going to have to take a much more proactive role, if it's not moving units they're damn well going to do something to spark them.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Extremely false. Consoles are sold at about the same cost retailers pay for them. Games and accessories are the profit drivers.

Yes, but remove games from the equation, and I'm sure that they're not going to sell the console if there's no incentive to do so. Look at the PSP Go, for instance. That thing HAS to be sold at a profit. There's no way retail would go along with it otherwise.

 

[Shig]

Maybe read the rest of the post there, slugger.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

All this will accomplish is giving me a better excuse for playing nothing but games from prior generations.

DD-only offers me no benefits. I see no reason for it. Then again I'm one of those guys that the industry hates. I almost always buy used, I never pay full-price, and if I do it's for games that maybe .001% of the world actually care for. I'm far beyond the point where I could stop buying games now and be covered for the rest of time.

I do look forward to the badass and practically free internet connections we'll be getting in 10 years though.

 

[Tobor]

Well, seeing as how these are unnecessary consumer goods, if there are enough consumers who stick to their guns when the revolution comes in full force, as opposed to just whining about it, then I'm sure publishers will care about nobody buying their game.

That's the thing that always gets me in these discussions about consumer rights advocacy. Video games are an entertainment industry fueled by disposable income. Don't like what them impeding your rights? Don't support them.

Of course, if they go ahead with it and people buy the games anyway, then it's a moot point. You'll just be the old man waxing philosophical to disinterested people about the good ol' days when you owned a physical property that was your's to sell, lend out, and trade.

It should be obvious to everyone that no great consumer outcry is going to come. Once we reach the tipping point where the industry no longer needs to baby retail and can price accordingly the flood gates will open. There's been no backlash of any kind from consumers in any other medium. It's the same story every time. Slow, steady increases until the price crosses the mainstream threshold, then mass adoption.

 

[fastford58]

With a lot of NA ISPs bandwidth capping and charging extra for going over, games better be like $15 bucks for a full retail version.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Maybe read the rest of the post there, slugger.

Sorry about that. I'm perusing this thread at work at that first paragraph in your post just leaped out at me.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The DRM present on console discs is still, in my opinion, the gold standard method: it is portable from system to system, it limits the ability of most players from making their own copies when well implemented, it allows consumer-friendly service such as defective product returns, game rentals, trading and borrowing, and used game resale, and it is durable. When I say 'durable' I mean that it works independent of expensive servers or other maintenance-costly mechanisms: as long as you have an operating console and a readable copy, the game will play.

By comparison everything on offer for digital download DRM, even Steam, is unfriendly to outright hostile.

Actually, I vote this as the best post in the thread.

Still, on the side, I could observe:

It's important to filter out the hardcore gamer/nerd/geek reality tunnel as well. Lots of the super geeks (of which I am one) will play up the physical media issue as being primary to everything because they're hard-on for the idea of having every one of the games they "own" in one place, on one box, and don't have to venture out under the brutal beast that is the daystar to get new software.

This kind of all-in-wonder cloud convergence technomagery is, I suspect, not what the average gamer - nevermind the average person in general - cares all that much about. Christ, half the truly average gamers I know with a 360 only have Xbox Live Gold if they are forced to, to play Halo and CoD4 online. Many of them have never downloaded a game through the dashboard. They don't care to. It doesn't seem real to them. It seems like Stupid Internet Stuff. What they WANT, is a box to hook up to their TV and shove a disc in that just works and they start popping melons. ROCK!

I do not say this with derision. I'm not putting those guys down. They're probably doing better at remembering what the f**k this is supposed to be /about in the first place/. Physical discs are, ironically, the best and most customer-friendly DRM in that regard; it's true!

Geeks are very willing to sell themselves down the river for whatever is shiny.

 

[H_Prestige]

Is it safe to say that blu-ray is pretty much a given for the next wave of HD consoles? Wouldnt ISPs be pretty much against 50GB downloads? Arent they trying to cap bandwidth as it is?

With PS4, definitely. Sony has no need to do anything radical next gen. Just play it by the book. Nintendo will use something else, but they will definitely stay with physical media.

I think Microsoft will be the first to start selling consoles without physical media.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Look at the PSP Go, for instance.

And look at how much more it costs over its predecessor. Specially considering we should be paying LESS for it. Smaller screen, no UMD drive. Shit should be at least 100 bucks cheaper than it is. Instead the consumer is getting bent over to make retailer happy. Yeah sounds like an awesome future. Can't wait for the $800 PS5 at launch!

 

[Tobor]

Actually, I vote this as the best post in the thread.

Still, on the side, I could observe:

It's important to filter out the hardcore gamer/nerd/geek reality tunnel as well. Lots of the super geeks (of which I am one) will play up the physical media issue as being primary to everything because they're hard-on for the idea of having every one of the games they "own" in one place, on one box, and don't have to venture out under the brutal beast that is the daystar to get new software.

This kind of all-in-wonder cloud convergence technomagery is, I suspect, not what the average gamer - nevermind the average person in general - cares all that much about. Christ, half the truly average gamers I know with a 360 only have Xbox Live Gold if they are forced to, to play Halo and CoD4 online. Many of them have never downloaded a game through the dashboard. They don't care to. It doesn't seem real to them. It seems like Stupid Internet Stuff. What they WANT, is a box to hook up to their TV and shove a disc in that just works and they start popping melons. ROCK!

I do not say this with derision. I'm not putting those guys down. They're probably doing better at remembering what the f**k this is supposed to be /about in the first place/. Physical discs are, ironically, the best and most customer-friendly DRM in that regard; it's true!

Geeks are very willing to sell themselves down the river for whatever is shiny.

This is the exact opposite of the way mainstream consumers have reacted to digital delivery so far.

The nerds and techies are first, yes, but the mainstream follows along once pricing becomes friendly.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

And look at how much more it costs over its predecessor. Specially considering we should be paying LESS for it. Smaller screen, no UMD drive. Shit should be at least 100 bucks cheaper than it is. Instead the consumer is getting bent over to make retailer happy. Yeah sounds like an awesome future. Can't wait for the $800 PS5 at launch!

Then don't buy it? I don't follow your point. The older, cheaper PSP still exists. And as for the $800 PS5, well, that seems highly unlikely given that consumers already rejected the notion of a $600 PS3, thus proving that manufacturers and retailers DON'T have us over a barrel, and that they can't get away with anti-consumer shenanigans unless the consumer chooses to be along for the ride.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Then don't buy it? I don't follow your point. The older, cheaper PSP still exists.

Your point was that for retailers to sell consoles in a DD only future they would just raise the price of the system so retailers get a cut of the pie from hardware sales, the opposite of what they do now. You used the PSPGo as an example, a system that's over priced by at least 100 bucks so retailers make some money on it. Right now you have the option of not buying the DD only version and getting a cheaper one. In a DD only future though there is no option of buying the cheaper model. If every system now has to turn a decent profit for the retailer then expect console costs to go up by 100 - 200 bucks. The raise isn't going to effect the hardware manufacturers the cost will be passed onto the consumer. Its really not a hard point to get.

 

[Ranger X]

Of course Moore will praise "digital era". They can't make their old model survive and digital era = total fiscal paradise. Great psychology Mister Moore. In the long run it will work, you only need to continue to stab people's mind to that idea.

.

 

[Tobor]

Of course Moore will praise "digital era". They can't make their old model survive and digital era = total fiscal paradise. Great psychology Mister Moore. In the long run it will work, you only need to continue to stab people's mind to that idea.

.

By the time you see Peter Moore come at you with his Mind Knife, it's too late.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

If every system now has to turn a decent profit for the retailer then expect console costs to go up by 100 - 200 bucks. The raise isn't going to effect the hardware manufacturers the cost will be passed onto the consumer. Its really not a hard point to get.

The PSP Go is not the model for how the DD-only system will or should be sold, but just a counterpoint to the notion that retailers won't sell hardware that undermines another revenue generating sector of their business.

I get reservations about the DD future, but I think some leap to bad points about how it's going to be brought about should it come to fruition. If they pull it off, it's going to be an evolutionary process where you barely notice it's happening. I argue that it's impractical to think they're going to unveil it tomorrow and kill off physical media for good, but I think some of you argue against it like that's how it's going to happen. "Oh great, so now I'm paying $60 to use my bandwidth to get a digital copy of a game that doesn't have a box, manual, or the same ownership rights as the old optical discs, and now the hardware costs more! Fuck you digital distribution!"