Game Pass has made me realise I don't care all that much. If it's a game I really love and want to physically own, sure. Otherwise, I rarely replay games so meh.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Game Ownership - How important is it to you?
- Thread starter SublimeAnarky
- Start date
I like the availability of games to not be based on the whims of a platform owner's servers. Sure, games these days are more likely than not to be patched over time to add content and fix bugs, but 99% of the time those games will still be playable in their 1.0 state. If the servers for a given service go down, you can at least still access most games that had a physical release.
And then there's the whole issue with licensed content in games. Pretty much anything that is based on a licensed property, or has a licensed soundtrack, or designs and/or models of things that have been licensed out by the rights-holders is essentially a ticking time bomb. In some instances the developer can rework a game to remove things such as songs they no longer have the rights to use (like the older GTA games) or brands the can no longer use the likeness of (Nintendo removed the Kawasaki branding from the VC release of Wave Race 64), but in other instances it is too costly to make these changes for a game that is no longer selling enough to justify the work, or it is flat-out impossible. The example everyone likes to use is Scott Pilgrim vs The World The Game, but there are plenty of other games out there that are no longer available digitally that at least had physical versions. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Steam (for the most part at least), which is where I own the most games that have been delisted at some point or another.
It's also why I don't get the desire from so many people here to push for a digital only future on consoles. Why would you willingly want to advocate for fewer options to obtain games?
And then there's the whole issue with licensed content in games. Pretty much anything that is based on a licensed property, or has a licensed soundtrack, or designs and/or models of things that have been licensed out by the rights-holders is essentially a ticking time bomb. In some instances the developer can rework a game to remove things such as songs they no longer have the rights to use (like the older GTA games) or brands the can no longer use the likeness of (Nintendo removed the Kawasaki branding from the VC release of Wave Race 64), but in other instances it is too costly to make these changes for a game that is no longer selling enough to justify the work, or it is flat-out impossible. The example everyone likes to use is Scott Pilgrim vs The World The Game, but there are plenty of other games out there that are no longer available digitally that at least had physical versions. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Steam (for the most part at least), which is where I own the most games that have been delisted at some point or another.
It's also why I don't get the desire from so many people here to push for a digital only future on consoles. Why would you willingly want to advocate for fewer options to obtain games?
Until everyone has a gamepass service and every game is on it for one low price I'll continue to value game ownership.
I'd be more happy to go full digital if the savings were actually passed on to the consumer. There is no reason that I pay the same as physical other than making some Gamestop empty suit happy.
I think people should distinguish whether they are talking about physical against digital purchases or subscription services when giving their opinions. These are very different things.
For example, you do own the rights when you buy digital. What you lose is the physical connection with a purchase, your ability to sell in and potentially your ability to play the game if a service goes down in the future (although as far as the last one goes I think chances are greater that your console eventually stops working or the disk gets scratched).
Subscription services, are quite different from digital purchases in the sense that you never own a licence, just the ability to play, and games can be removed at any time without the ability to redownload. So essentially the Netflix model.
In my opinion, the main caveat right now for most people regarding digital purchases is the fact that it's overall a more expensive option due to the lack of sell in and return options. Subscription services are a great idea but eventually we'll end up in a situation where every major publisher is running one so the player ends up spending even more under the illusion of "infinite options".
For example, you do own the rights when you buy digital. What you lose is the physical connection with a purchase, your ability to sell in and potentially your ability to play the game if a service goes down in the future (although as far as the last one goes I think chances are greater that your console eventually stops working or the disk gets scratched).
Subscription services, are quite different from digital purchases in the sense that you never own a licence, just the ability to play, and games can be removed at any time without the ability to redownload. So essentially the Netflix model.
In my opinion, the main caveat right now for most people regarding digital purchases is the fact that it's overall a more expensive option due to the lack of sell in and return options. Subscription services are a great idea but eventually we'll end up in a situation where every major publisher is running one so the player ends up spending even more under the illusion of "infinite options".
I grew up very poor. Brand new games and even games on sale are a HUGE cost I can't even think about spending all the time... so the vast majority of my game purchases are used games.
I also resell my games semi-frequently to buy new games.
For me it's not about owning the game, it's about being able to sell something I own.
I also resell my games semi-frequently to buy new games.
For me it's not about owning the game, it's about being able to sell something I own.
I care about 5% about ownership
Hence why I love gamepass, back in the day as soon as I beat a game I would sell it.
So gamepass is perfect for me because I don't have to worry about trading a game back in once I am don eit.
Hence why I love gamepass, back in the day as soon as I beat a game I would sell it.
So gamepass is perfect for me because I don't have to worry about trading a game back in once I am don eit.
Yep, that's a good point.
For me, I feel the benefits around digital (ease of use, no disc swaps, no physical storage space, no landfill at end of life) outweigh the negatives. Especially compared to movies and music, where you aren't locked into watching your DVD or listening to your album on a specific piece of hardware like you are with console games. So for me, switching to digital gaming was easier to justify than switching to digital movies and music. When it comes to ownership over streaming, I now exclusively stream movies and most TV (but am not a huge movie/TV fan, so that makes it easier), mostly stream music (but have bought the odd album I really love, both to support the artists and ensure I have them on any device, offline, and don't have to worry about it leaving the streaming service I use), and mostly buy games digitally but have subbed to Origin Access Basic for a few years now and just started a Game Pass PC sub this month. I can only see myself sticking to game streaming if the price is as competitive as these two services. Origin Access Premium, Ubisoft's streaming, and even Xbox Game Pass / PSNow are too expensive for me to care about.
I only buy physical games for collector's editions I really care about. That's maybe... once every few years.
I should also say that living in the EU probably makes me feel safer about digital "ownership" than I might feel if I lived in the US. But when console games are locked to specific hardware I've always felt "ownership" is rather limited and harsh on the consumer compared to movies and music anyway.
No because the games on my shelf thing plays second fiddle to lending them to people. That's the first and foremost best part of owning a game imo
But the Gamepass interest / sub is 100% because I play a lot of games and enjoy access to that library at that price.
Last edited:
Things are different on PC, where emulation can accomplish miracles but for consoles, History has shown that:
1. Publishers and copyright law are generally the enemies of preservation.
2. Anything that is not a physical release of a "mostly offline" game is not something I own.
That includes MMORPGs, PSplus games, gamepass games, etc. 0% ownership of them. I don't like it. Copyright laws should be eviscerated and reduced to something sane like 25 years instead of centuries.
Yeah, agreed. I've slowed down on buying special editions as I've noticed most of the time, I don't look at the merch again or even really care about it a year down the line, so it just becomes clutter. Some franchises I've loved my entire life, so of course I know I'll still feel good about those special editions if I really want them.
