Do people care about owning content yet?

[Space Spoons]

I've never believed the "DLC/Games on Demand is the future" hype. I'm all for supporting development teams and cutting production costs, but I'm not about to hand over my rights as a consumer. This Halo 2 clusterfuck proves my point, I think.

If I can't hold the game in my hands, I'm not buying it, end of story. I'll leave gaming altogether before I go full digital.

 

[FoolKiller]

Now, Microsoft is killing support for Xbox 1 titles on Xbox Live.

What I find atrocious is the fact that they are taking it away from the Xbox Originals that you could download to your 360. So basically they sold you a game and then don't allow you to play it. It sucks.

I will stop gaming when there is no more physical media for it. I have a big enough back log that I could just play those for the rest of my life anyways

 

[CyberKnight]

I'm going to go out on a limb and put forward the idea that I don't think the balance will change for a while.
Games are getting bigger at a fast rate, but internet connections aren't improving that much, or at least not at a comparable rate. Maybe when the infrastructure in the EU and the US improves (at least) then we'll see a much bigger uptake of Digital Distribution, but for now I can't see it happening.

That's especially true with Sony, who have pretty much said their Blu-ray-sized games are a barrier to effective digital distribution on current networks (July article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92990-Sony-Not-Interested-In-Digital-Distribution-For-PS3-Games]; I think there was a more recent quote, too, but I'm not able to find it now).

I also blogged on it way back when, when I first installed Halo 2 on my 360. I have the Multiplayer Map Pack disc, which has all maps but the last pack they released. It took me less time to reboot and install the three or four map packs I had on the disc, than it took me to download and install the one remaining map pack from Xbox Live.

I'm curious how well the "Games on Demand" service has been selling, considering the prices tend to be more than you can get the games retail, the limited-sized/overpriced hard drives, and the time to download even a standard DVD's-worth of bits.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I just don't like DLC, and hate that developers are that obsessed with my money that they will not release content for their game unless I also have the online support necessary for it. It's not clever or a brilliant new way to innovate the industry, it's just not giving us a completed game.

I'll stick with discs thanks, and if it takes a few extra months to get all the content on the discs, that's fine! Don't release an incomplete game, and for God's sake don't only make your game available online. I don't go there anymore with my console, it's not worth it.

 

[CyberKnight]

Now, Microsoft is killing support for Xbox 1 titles on Xbox Live.

What I find atrocious is the fact that they are taking it away from the Xbox Originals that you could download to your 360. So basically they sold you a game and then don't allow you to play it. It sucks.

The games themselves should still be playable, just not on Live; only the Live/matchmaking service is going away, not backwards compatibility. (I haven't seen confirmation either way whether the Xbox Original titles on "Games on Demand" are being pulled, so for the moment I'm assuming they'll still be there.)

Just wanted to clarify. You can buy and download it (at the same price, of course), and play the campaign and even set it up for LAN (a.k.a. "System Link") play, but the Xbox Live portion of it will be completely non-functional.

Which does, indeed, suck.

Here I thought we'd only have this problem with "dedicated server" games, like Chromehounds (may it rest in peace).

 

[xDHxD148L0]

I will always prefer phisical media whenever it is available.

 

[aaronmcc]

9 times out of 10 it is actually cheaper to buy a physical copy which is completely stupid. With no disc, manual or box to pay for these games should be much cheaper. Digital distributors don't seem to get that shops sell these game for about £10 off RRP.

 

[CyberKnight]

9 times out of 10 it is actually cheaper to buy a physical copy which is completely stupid. With no disc, manual or box to pay for these games should be much cheaper. Digital distributors don't seem to get that shops sell these game for about £10 off RRP.

This would be why "Games on Demand" has never tempted me in the least. More money for less product? That's already a "no", without even getting to the "leasing, not buying" and "no rights" issues.

 

[no one really]

I like to have the CD's and covers and what not... Makes me happy to have an excuse for getting out of the cellar... I'm usually locked up here : S
Oh, and it's kinda like "trophies" too. IMO
.>

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I'm buying tangible copies for consoles and downloading my PC games whenever I can.

I don't want to bother tracking down my PC disks. The only reason that I prefer tangible copies for consoles has to do with consoles not changing hardware for several years. I like the idea of transplanting my PC collection with relative ease, or being able to load simple games (Uplink, BookWorm, etc) on lesser machines.

 

[CyberKnight]

I'm buying tangible copies for consoles and downloading my PC games whenever I can.

I don't want to bother tracking down my PC disks. The only reason that I prefer tangible copies for consoles has to do with consoles not changing hardware for several years. I like the idea of transplanting my PC collection with relative ease, or being able to load simple games (Uplink, BookWorm, etc) on lesser machines.

The major issue, though, is what happens when the service that you download from is unavailable, either temporarily or permanently? Or do you not worry about that?

Beyond that, how do you transfer rights for (i.e. loan or resell) one of these downloaded games? Or is that something you just don't generally do?

You mention "transplanting [your] PC collection with relative ease" -- have you ever run into the problem with downloadable games that restrict the number of machines you can install on, that kept you from doing exactly this? (Granted, there is DRM on disc-based games that causes this problem as well.)

 

[Fappy]

Companies are finding new and creative way to rip us off unfortunately

 

[TPiddy]

DLC is better for the environment and will save on production costs for development companies. Right now a blockbuster game costs upwards of 50 million to produce.... if you can shave off a few million of the overhead of shipping, DVD and case production by all means!

 

[Fappy]

DLC is better for the environment and will save on production costs for development companies. Right now a blockbuster game costs upwards of 50 million to produce.... if you can shave off a few million of the overhead of shipping, DVD and case production by all means!

Cutting out the middle man isn't exactly stimulating the economy though :<

 

[DarkSaber]

DLC is better for the environment and will save on production costs for development companies. Right now a blockbuster game costs upwards of 50 million to produce.... if you can shave off a few million of the overhead of shipping, DVD and case production by all means!

Thing is, how much of those millions saved on production overheads are passed on to the consumer? Games continue to get more expensive while companies cut more and more corners.

 

[TPiddy]

DLC is better for the environment and will save on production costs for development companies. Right now a blockbuster game costs upwards of 50 million to produce.... if you can shave off a few million of the overhead of shipping, DVD and case production by all means!

Thing is, how much of those millions saved on production overheads are passed on to the consumer? Games continue to get more expensive while companies cut more and more corners.

Games only really see a price hike with each generation... some titles like Final Fantasy have always cost more than traditional games. However, saving production costs means a studio could take more risks, as a game that bombs wouldn't necessarily break the bank like several studios we've already seen.

 

[CyberKnight]

DLC is better for the environment and will save on production costs for development companies. Right now a blockbuster game costs upwards of 50 million to produce.... if you can shave off a few million of the overhead of shipping, DVD and case production by all means!

Thing is, how much of those millions saved on production overheads are passed on to the consumer? Games continue to get more expensive while companies cut more and more corners.

Games only really see a price hike with each generation... some titles like Final Fantasy have always cost more than traditional games. However, saving production costs means a studio could take more risks, as a game that bombs wouldn't necessarily break the bank like several studios we've already seen.

As for games getting a price hike each generation, that's not exactly true; a quick Googling turned up that Sega Genesis cartridges were around $50 (which, adjusted for inflation, puts them about $70 today) and a review of the Nintendo 64 with its cartridges releasing between $70 and $80 a pop.

Studios have the ability to self-destruct regardless of whether they make a successful game or not (I'm looking at you, Ensemble). If the only way they have to survive is to fleece their customers by taking away or circumventing our rights (yes, the First Sale Doctrine is a right codified in US Law, Title 17, § 109, and upheld in court cases against such behemoths as Autodesk, Adobe, and Microsoft), then I suggest they reevaluate their business strategy, because I don't consider that worth my cash.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I must own certain things. It annoys me, if I'm just loaning some things say games. Hard copies are also a lot definitive and better option at the moment for me than downloadable content.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

The major issue, though, is what happens when the service that you download from is unavailable, either temporarily or permanently? Or do you not worry about that?

Beyond that, how do you transfer rights for (i.e. loan or resell) one of these downloaded games? Or is that something you just don't generally do?

You mention "transplanting [your] PC collection with relative ease" -- have you ever run into the problem with downloadable games that restrict the number of machines you can install on, that kept you from doing exactly this? (Granted, there is DRM on disc-based games that causes this problem as well.)

Most of the time it's a non-issue. As for being put out of business I'd hope for a grace period to download all my titles. Suffice to say those titles that can't be re-downloaded I have the installer files backed up to a network hard drive.

For loaning and reselling- it's not my problem. I tend to let others borrow a game or two from my console collection and that's it (I don't loan PC games in case they steal my key).

I've had one or two games that have mentioned a limit to the machines that they can be installed to, but when I install to another machine it turns into a non-issue. The quotes tend to disappear as companies decide the resources to keep track of licenses over he years is too much (they just don't want one person to give their game to a bunch of friends at launch anyway). DRM tends to only be a problem for me during the original installation, in which case there is usually a workaround or patch within a few days.

 

[MetalDooley]

I'm one of the old fashioned types who prefers to have a hard copy when it comes to games/movies/music etc.The inability to loan/borrow or resell games turn me off DD and ,as some have mentioned,price as well.XBL's GoD service is waaay overpriced atm.Example:Tomb Raider Legend cost me ?12 new in Gamestop.It's ?30 on Live