-
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.
If you had to choose, An all digital future? Or an all Physical Future?
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
Digital. It's easy, and games are mostly disposable entertainment for me. If I were younger and had less money, as I was once/did, physical was better because trade-in/selling stuff made affording more games easier.
Physical gives you power and prevents companies from taking down games when they're done with them.
That's why it's not the future.
That's why it's not the future.
All digital, if done right.
I do not have much hope of 90% of companies doing it right. Especially in the console space. GOG on PC are basically what I would want. The ability to make your own backups without limitation, so you never need to worry about the store or any servers going down in the future.
I do not have much hope of 90% of companies doing it right. Especially in the console space. GOG on PC are basically what I would want. The ability to make your own backups without limitation, so you never need to worry about the store or any servers going down in the future.
Physical. I like owning my items, plus at any time I can go back and replay the games I own. There's tons of caveats associated with Digital that prevents this, plus licensing can cause games to disappear from a digital store, or have the music changed completely in the game from the original.
All digital is the way to go especially with the live service model of gaming that is becoming the norm. When they turn off the servers for games like Division 2 we will be on to either the Division 3 or 4, or whatever other online game Ubi makes. So, why keep a copy of the disk for something that is not going to be played anymore? I get the idea of preserving games but most of these titles are so heavily online focused.
...and worse for the consumer. Unless you're in the industry, an all digital future is a nightmare.
If I had to choose right now, all physical for sure. You get the games at release for cheaper, can play/install them whenever you want, you sometimes get some nice bonuses, you can lend them to friends, and you can even resell them if needed (or keep a nice collection).
Well, except for PC because there isn't a choice anymore there (but then again, this platform is a step above for digital unlike consoles).
Well, except for PC because there isn't a choice anymore there (but then again, this platform is a step above for digital unlike consoles).
All digital.
Data not tied to a specific place or physical object has the best chance at surviving any one event, like damage, theft or breakage.
Now, all digital hasn't been perfect, with titles removed for a sale, sometimes without warning and even entire storefronts closing down. The ideal would be the GOG model but that's still an ongoing experiment. I'd also like to see digital loans/renting, as I do rent games from my local library.
Data not tied to a specific place or physical object has the best chance at surviving any one event, like damage, theft or breakage.
Now, all digital hasn't been perfect, with titles removed for a sale, sometimes without warning and even entire storefronts closing down. The ideal would be the GOG model but that's still an ongoing experiment. I'd also like to see digital loans/renting, as I do rent games from my local library.
Physical is best for game preservation which the industry doesn't seem to care about
All digital is nice but games and services can disappear in an instant. Imagine Mario 64 was digital only in 96, your N64 stops working and the servers for the shop are offline and the later Nintendo consoles don't have BC because they switched architectures so now you can't play one of the most revolutionary games of all time at all.
If you're fine with being at the mercy of publishers then all digital is good for you. But I'd rather have the option of preserving games myself
All digital is nice but games and services can disappear in an instant. Imagine Mario 64 was digital only in 96, your N64 stops working and the servers for the shop are offline and the later Nintendo consoles don't have BC because they switched architectures so now you can't play one of the most revolutionary games of all time at all.
If you're fine with being at the mercy of publishers then all digital is good for you. But I'd rather have the option of preserving games myself
All digital.
There are too many smaller budget games that would not be able to exist if everything had to only exist physically.
There are too many smaller budget games that would not be able to exist if everything had to only exist physically.
I'm 90% all digital. I only buy physical for games I know I'll trade back. I'd like to see some sort of policy on digital games, would be good to be able to return a game if you were done with it, within say 30 days and maybe get back a third or half of the full price back.
EDIT: Either way I support digital 100%, it's cost effective and can't beat being able to play a new game on the stroke of midnight.
Been all digital since the start of this generation on all 3 consoles and PC. Fuck storing cases and switching out games.
Without digital, indies cannot compete and thrive in the market. That reason alone is why I'd choose digital only, even though I'm a staunch physical media guy.
All physical easily.
You can borrow, trade and sell games.
It's also a lot of fun to just collect and display games.
You can borrow, trade and sell games.
It's also a lot of fun to just collect and display games.
For consoles physical all the way.
Why would you want to be dictated the price of a console game by only one provider on your platform of choice? It would only result in higher prices to the consumer. It reaks of corporations exploiting that one simple fact.
In the U.K. digital games cost £55-£50 and physical might start at that price but due to numerous retailers the prices drop a lot more and lot more quickly too.
Why would you want to be dictated the price of a console game by only one provider on your platform of choice? It would only result in higher prices to the consumer. It reaks of corporations exploiting that one simple fact.
In the U.K. digital games cost £55-£50 and physical might start at that price but due to numerous retailers the prices drop a lot more and lot more quickly too.
All digital, assuming it's a lifetime guarantee of access and I'll never have to worry about losing the content due to physical degradation or data corruption.
digital has allowed a lot more games to be released. soo digital. although they do have a few kinks to work out.
anyway, why can't we have both? all these topics on physical's proposed imminent demise is amusing (not this topic but others that pop up). you can still buy cd's at the store lol. physical games will still be here in 20 years.
anyway, why can't we have both? all these topics on physical's proposed imminent demise is amusing (not this topic but others that pop up). you can still buy cd's at the store lol. physical games will still be here in 20 years.
How is it better for the industry?
I see it bad for the consumer.
Digital. With the environment in mind I would say it's the only possible future. Either that or developers would have to create more convenient materials for holding physical copies.
All physical. Sure, space management is a chore, but being able to buy, sell, and lend my games as I please will always be something I value more than convenience.
Also digital is only appealing for whatever current generation it is in, afterwards the infrastructure feels dated. There are a lot of PS3 digital-only games I have yet to play, but dealing with the PS3's download management, PSN store, and the speed at which these two run, is so, SO terrible.
Also digital is only appealing for whatever current generation it is in, afterwards the infrastructure feels dated. There are a lot of PS3 digital-only games I have yet to play, but dealing with the PS3's download management, PSN store, and the speed at which these two run, is so, SO terrible.
