295 réponses à ce sujet

[SoulRebel_1979]

My PC game purchases have been 100% digital starting around 2006. Still have CD binders filled with old PC games from 1995-2006. I think my original Baldurs Gate is something like 5-6 discs!

Don't own a console, but if I did, I'd prefer all digital for that as well.

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

 I would have said no, prior to the XBox One fiasco.  For the PC, at least.

Now, however...

we're in a weird transition period.  I think that physical copies should start doing what Blu-ray movies do (and many games DO do this) and give free digital copies with the physical copy (blu-ray combos coming with DVDs and digital, to help this very odd transition period for entertainment media.)

You get the old way (disc) but also the new way (digital) and, very quickly, you learn that the latter is better than the former.

I'm die-hard anti-blu-ray, but as I gain more and more blu-rays with the DVDs I purchase, I could see me eventually getting a blu-ray player...

except I already buy most my movies digitally only, and I'm a step ahead of blu-ray.:happy:

So I think, especially since DA:I is a cross-generation of platforms game, it NEEDS to have physical copies available.  But in the next year or so, I think you see physical copies of games go the way of music CD's and retail PC games.

Best Buy sells digital cards to buy games for some titles, like BioShock Infinite, already. 

If XB1 had gone the route of allowing digital downloads for its games and NOT the "be online once every day" type of rule in order to play said games, I would have been ecstatic. 

As easy as it is for me and others to prefer and wax nostalgic about having discs, it introduces a huge risk in terms of the game getting scratched (or, conversely, your hardware disc reader going bad - temporary hiccup for PCs, platform-destroying crisis for consoles). Having a digital download library is honestly not only a better long-term solution in many cases, but actually pretty inevitable in the long term. 

I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

It's not "paper" per se (unless you print it) but Amazon and Steam e-mail you receipts for digital purchases...

[Osena109]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

 I would have said no, prior to the XBox One fiasco.  For the PC, at least.

Now, however...

we're in a weird transition period.  I think that physical copies should start doing what Blu-ray movies do (and many games DO do this) and give free digital copies with the physical copy (blu-ray combos coming with DVDs and digital, to help this very odd transition period for entertainment media.)

You get the old way (disc) but also the new way (digital) and, very quickly, you learn that the latter is better than the former.

I'm die-hard anti-blu-ray, but as I gain more and more blu-rays with the DVDs I purchase, I could see me eventually getting a blu-ray player...

except I already buy most my movies digitally only, and I'm a step ahead of blu-ray.:happy:

So I think, especially since DA:I is a cross-generation of platforms game, it NEEDS to have physical copies available.  But in the next year or so, I think you see physical copies of games go the way of music CD's and retail PC games.

Best Buy sells digital cards to buy games for some titles, like BioShock Infinite, already. 

If XB1 had gone the route of allowing digital downloads for its games and NOT the "be online once every day" type of rule in order to play said games, I would have been ecstatic. 

As easy as it is for me and others to prefer and wax nostalgic about having discs, it introduces a huge risk in terms of the game getting scratched (or, conversely, your hardware disc reader going bad - temporary hiccup for PCs, platform-destroying crisis for consoles). Having a digital download library is honestly not only a better long-term solution in many cases, but actually pretty inevitable in the long term. 

I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

Couldn't have said it better   each game i buy form steam or origin i keap my email  werei bought the game in folder on my pc

[Iron Fist]

I'm a consumer and I demand a physical copy. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

[CroGamer002]

As much as Digital distribution is huge and physical disk retailers are dropping hard, it's still too soon to go full Digital.

Infrastructure of decent unlimited internet access and possibility to shop online isn't implemented enough in USA, let alone worldwide. As well, most consumers are not used to Digital distribution with video games.

Basically, there's no need for rushing and it hurts you more if you do. Microsoft got burned hard when it tried to do that with XBone and Sony is hugely capitalizing on that mistake.

So yeah. While Digital distribution is the future, it just isn't quite here yet.

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

It's not "paper" per se (unless you print it) but Amazon and Steam e-mail you receipts for digital purchases...

Yes, and I would likely print that email, but still... a secondary redundancy other than expecting the player to be resposible would be a good route for distributor's to take, I would think.

[NUM13ER]

A physical copy is always superior in my opinion. Plus I can lend it to my friends when I've played it to death. I like to own my games, not license them.

[DPSSOC]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

It's not "paper" per se (unless you print it) but Amazon and Steam e-mail you receipts for digital purchases...

Yes, and I would likely print that email, but still... a secondary redundancy other than expecting the player to be resposible would be a good route for distributor's to take, I would think.

A good route for you, but distributors don't care about you.  They want you to lose those receipts and have nothing to bring forward when they say you didn't purchase those games you've lost/are looking to reinstall.  This is a big reason I'm against all digital is that it lets the distributor grab you by the balls.  If Steam or Origin want to screw you out of your purchases you have no recourse, because Origin at least (don't know about Steam) is tied to a particular publisher, you can't get those games digitally anywhere else.  You also can't complain to a digital distributor because either you email them and they just ignore you, or you call and they jerk you around until you give up.

If I purchase a digital copy now, with discs still available I have an option, I can find and purchase the game used depriving the company of revenue, so since they have a chance of losing my business they have a greater incentive to work with me.  Similarly with hard copies I can go to a store and deal (rationally or otherwise) with another human being face to face to work out a solution.

We need to remember that people are scum, they are out to screw you out of every dime you have and will take you for all your worth unless we collectively keep systems in place to make it harder for them to do so.  If we lose hard copies, if we lose the used game market there is nothing stopping distributors from ramping up prices and lowering quality, cause where else are you gonna go?

[t0mm06]

Jaulen wrote...

t0mm06 wrote...

Jaulen wrote...

One of the points the OP brings up is cost.

I do think, that from the outset, the digital copy should be cheaper, slightly, compared to a physical copy.


There's no manufacturing costs for the jewelcase or the disk, no production costs for the disk, no printing costs for the disk or the inserts, no shipping costs....you have to pay the costs for each one of these disks.

To be fair with Digital downloads you have to pay for the servers and stuff like that, especially considering they need to let you download stuff relitively quickely, Compare downloading a 15gb game on steam (takes me 10 hours) if i downloaded 15gb for films or tv on the same computer/internet it take me like 3 days..
Serves and stuff like that cost a fair bit

Server space for a game can be phased out and reallocated to newer games if the game isn't selling well, or is old. It's not like they purchase a server for a specific game and that server can only ever be used for that game. It's an reusable asset that can be spread across multiple titles.  

The same can't be said of the physical copies of games. They don't take them back and pull out the artwork to reuse the jewel cases on new games, and they can't reburn/reskin the disks for new games. All the unsold games just go into the trash. (that's waste of resources to me)


Although it would be interesting to know the specifics on the per-copy cost to get a physical disk into a consumer's hand vs getting a digital copy downloaded to a consumer.

You're foprgetting the costs to run a server farm, so its not like you buy one and thats all the money you ever spend on it. also dont forget, running an online distributer (so people can download) also cost a lot, i mean mantinance and all that stuff.
So i dunno in the end but i cant imagin its actually Cheaper to run digital downloads. I wouldnt say its more expensice either, I think if it was looked into you're probably looking at about the same costs. 

[David7204]

It's cheaper.

Way cheaper.

Modifié par David7204, 26 décembre 2013 - 10:09 .

[t0mm06]

DPSSOC wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think what would be more beneficial is having a paper trail/receipt system for digital downloads. If Steam loses my account records and says I didn't buy three dozen games from them, then it's my word against theirs without some form of physical proof.

It's not "paper" per se (unless you print it) but Amazon and Steam e-mail you receipts for digital purchases...

Yes, and I would likely print that email, but still... a secondary redundancy other than expecting the player to be resposible would be a good route for distributor's to take, I would think.

A good route for you, but distributors don't care about you.  They want you to lose those receipts and have nothing to bring forward when they say you didn't purchase those games you've lost/are looking to reinstall.  This is a big reason I'm against all digital is that it lets the distributor grab you by the balls.  If Steam or Origin want to screw you out of your purchases you have no recourse, because Origin at least (don't know about Steam) is tied to a particular publisher, you can't get those games digitally anywhere else.  You also can't complain to a digital distributor because either you email them and they just ignore you, or you call and they jerk you around until you give up.

If I purchase a digital copy now, with discs still available I have an option, I can find and purchase the game used depriving the company of revenue, so since they have a chance of losing my business they have a greater incentive to work with me.  Similarly with hard copies I can go to a store and deal (rationally or otherwise) with another human being face to face to work out a solution.

We need to remember that people are scum, they are out to screw you out of every dime you have and will take you for all your worth unless we collectively keep systems in place to make it harder for them to do so.  If we lose hard copies, if we lose the used game market there is nothing stopping distributors from ramping up prices and lowering quality, cause where else are you gonna go?

I would say an email i a good deal more secure then a receipt. you can print them out to have a hard copy but also keep them in a store box online incase you lose the hard copy, something you cannot do if you lose a normal receipt. 
And thats has not been the case for me in either steam or Uplay. With steam i once spent £30 on a game i didnt want by accientally pressing wrong buttons, this was %100 my fault. But i emailed them and as i hadnt tried to insteall the game they gave me a full refund. ALSO with Uplay i lost 3 peices of DLC for AC3 and when i emailed them i got a response withing the day AND the following day recived an apology and a free DLC for my troubles

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

It's cheaper.

Way cheaper.

And your still under the impression that it will lead to better games, when that's not true

[Angrywolves]

MevenSelas wrote...

I'm a consumer and I demand a physical copy. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

this.

That's only for the main game, dowloading packs and dlcs is fine.:innocent:

[David7204]

Oh, I very seriously doubt many people would give up new video games, just like that, if such practices were enacted.

It's an empty threat.

Modifié par David7204, 26 décembre 2013 - 10:19 .

[t0mm06]

David7204 wrote...

It's cheaper.

Way cheaper.

The evidence you produced is outstanding and i am forced to admit that by your thorough and well made points i was wrong and you as always are right. 

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Oh, I very seriously doubt many people would give up new video games, just like that, if such practices were enacted.

It's an empty threat.

Your way with people is so amazing that it must be true

[David7204]

Straight from Wikipedia - (emphasis mine)

"The main advantages of digital distribution over the previously dominant retail distribution of video games include significantly reduced production, deployment, and storage costs."

Digital distribution also offers new structural possibilities for the whole video game industry, which, prior to the emergence of digital media as a relevant means of distribution, was usually built around the relationship of the video game developer, who produced the game, and the video game publisher, who financed and organized the distribution and sale. The heightened production costs in the early 2000s made many video game publishers avoid risks and led to the rejection of many smaller-scale game development projects.[15] Gabe Newell, creator of the PC digital distribution service Steam, described the disadvantages of physical retail distribution for smaller game developers as such:

The worst days [for game development] were the cartridge days for the NES. It was a huge risk – you had all this money tied up in silicon in a warehouse somewhere, and so you’d be conservative in the decisions you felt you could make, very conservative in the IPs you signed, your art direction would not change, and so on. Now it’s the opposite extreme: we can put something up on Steam, deliver it to people all around the world, make changes. We can take more interesting risks.[...] Retail doesn’t know how to deal with those games. On Steam [a digital distributor] there’s no shelf-space restriction.
—Gabe Newell, Rock, Paper, Shotgun[3]"

Now, although it doesn't explicitly say that the savings are less than the cost of the servers and whatnot, it doesn't say otherwise either. And it would. If digital distribution actually did cost more or the same, the article would say so. And it doesn't.

Modifié par David7204, 26 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .

[CynicalShep]

Why would you do that to gamestop, Davey? Do you have any idea how many people you're putting out of a job?

[David7204]

We can't refuse to make progress because we'd be putting people out of jobs.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Xboxs, PSs & PCs crash i prefere disks heck i prefere cartrages and 8tracks are better than those MP3 things to.

[CynicalShep]

People who don't work can't spend money on "progress", Dave. They have none, or worse, they're bankrolled by people who work their tails off.

[Get Magna Carter]

David7204 wrote...

Oh, I very seriously doubt many people would give up new video games, just like that, if such practices were enacted.

It's an empty threat.

If games became download only (and I did not have a significant enough change in my life to lead me to getting a connection) then I would stop buying new games and focus on the games I already have.
I have a sizeable backlog to catch up on.
and I horde my old games so have many games I would like to play again
so it wouldn't be a problem for me

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...
Now, although it doesn't explicitly say that the savings are less than the cost of the servers and whatnot, it doesn't say otherwise either. And it would. If digital distribution actually did cost more or the same, the article would say so. And it doesn't.

Actually them not saying anything about the cost implies more that it's the same, as it being cheaper would have been another point in favor and would have been mentioned.

[Jaulen]

CynicalShep wrote...

People who don't work can't spend money on "progress", Dave. They have none, or worse, they're bankrolled by people who work their tails off.

 at the idea that companies and shareholders care if people are put out of jobs due to progress.

We might care, but they don't.