Do people care about owning content yet?

[Low Key]

Wishful thinking, but I'd assume as digital distribution gets more popular, there might be a way to buy online, then burn the data to discs yourself. That way, you'll always have a hard copy in case some freak accident happens online. Perhaps they'll be able to write in code that lets consoles know it's legit. I mean hey, pirates already burn games. So long as the game is purchased, I don't see why companies wouldn't let people burn a copy. At least in the computer world, Windows does a decent job of identifying pirated copies of their OS's. I don't see why that couldn't transfer over to gaming.

Either that or games should be made to order. After the initial pre-orders, the company won't make anymore discs, forcing people to either buy early and at full price to get the hard copies they want, or buy the digital copy. That way people can have the chance at obtaining a hard copy and digital distribution will still be dominant.

So would that mean the only people who could resell/trade/loan their games were the preorder folks? Seems that would make those discs more valuable over time, since they are now a more "limited edition". That would be about as effective at killing the second-hand market as total DD. Good for the corporations, bad for consumers. Now we're back to the single, corporation-controlled marketplace with fixed prices. No competition = less incentive to lower prices.

Not necessarily. You are forgetting that the people who buy the digital copies also have to store the data somewhere, and that storage can be sold. It would be a package deal, but there still could be a market for pre-owned hard drives...unless that person has a PS3.

But in reality, I think it will be a long time before digital replaces physical. A 60 gig hard drive for the 360 is still like $90, which is ridiculous. The small memory cards are like $30-$40, which is also ridiculous. Sony won't be doing it for a while since their games are substantially bigger files with blu-ray and all. Nintendo are really the only ones that could make digital distribution work for them at this point since they use SD cards and don't sell them exclusively. The PC market doesn't have to worry because the user can burn digital copies to disc themselves.

 

[GonzoGamer]

My biggest gripe with the expected ?death of the disk? is the whole not being able to rent, borrow, lend, and resell. It hasn?t stopped me from buying the little $5 downloadable games but I would never buy it as a downloadable if it was available on disc; like with games like Burnout Paradise (thank god, I played that for a week and never touched it again) or Warhawk. It would be one thing if they gave you a discount (seeing as though you save them money on printing/distribution) but they don?t.

The fact of the matter is that gamers (as a whole) are probably the least savvy consumers this side of new car sales. If there?s a bad deal made to look like a bargain, gamers will lap it up. No offense guys but it?s true: We?re suckers.

So it?s probably only a matter of time until we say goodbye to the disc. Hopefully (but I doubt it) Onlive will be a good deal for gamers (we are in desperate need of a console that?s worth it?s price) wanting to go in that direction but they?re probably going to want to rip us off as much as ms, sony, gamestop, or any of the other swindler that preys on gamers.

 

[CyberKnight]

Not necessarily. You are forgetting that the people who buy the digital copies also have to store the data somewhere, and that storage can be sold. It would be a package deal, but there still could be a market for pre-owned hard drives...unless that person has a PS3.

But in reality, I think it will be a long time before digital replaces physical. A 60 gig hard drive for the 360 is still like $90, which is ridiculous. The small memory cards are like $30-$40, which is also ridiculous. Sony won't be doing it for a while since their games are substantially bigger files with blu-ray and all. Nintendo are really the only ones that could make digital distribution work for them at this point since they use SD cards and don't sell them exclusively. The PC market doesn't have to worry because the user can burn digital copies to disc themselves.

As to the first point, for Xbox and Steam (I thought PSN was the same, but I know even less about that than I did about Steam until I started this discussion), content is tied to the account. I could sell you the hard drive with all its games, but they'd be completely useless to you (except in "demo mode") unless I also gave you my login credentials as well.

(Xbox also ties the content to the purchasing console, so I could theoretically sell you my whole console and all the games on it, which would be fine until the console failed. Still an incredibly inefficient method if I wanted to share a single game.)

To the second, it does seem ironic. Sony is the only console that offers the best, most flexible mass-storage options, and their discs are too big to even consider going DD; and MS and Nintendo offer poor mass-storage options (no hard drive for Nintendo, undersized/overpriced for MS) for the content they're trying to push. Not that I mind; if it increases resistance to DD, then I'm all for it.

The fact of the matter is that gamers (as a whole) are probably the least savvy consumers this side of new car sales. If there?s a bad deal made to look like a bargain, gamers will lap it up. No offense guys but it?s true: We?re suckers.

I'd like to say gamers are smarter than that... but then I've seen fanboi threads. 8O

 

[GonzoGamer]

The fact of the matter is that gamers (as a whole) are probably the least savvy consumers this side of new car sales. If there?s a bad deal made to look like a bargain, gamers will lap it up. No offense guys but it?s true: We?re suckers.

I'd like to say gamers are smarter than that... but then I've seen fanboi threads. 8O

I'm not saying that gamers are stupid, though as you pointed out, many are. On the other hand, some of the smartest people I know are gamers.

You can be smart and still be bad with money. I also know quite a few smart people who get a new car every few years. It doesn't mean they're stupid, they're just suckers.
We are the ones that buy some of the most overpriced goods. And look at some of the most successful companies that cater to gamers, they're practically con artists.

 

[vallorn]

i use a mix of steam on my PC and hard copy ps3 disks for gaming. i prefer this because I can get the ps3 games cheaply after 2-4 month's of release and steam has the best pricing and community support I have ever seen.
Then again I just bought FF7 on the PSN so maybe this will swing me in favour of digital distribution.

 

[Low Key]

As to the first point, for Xbox and Steam (I thought PSN was the same, but I know even less about that than I did about Steam until I started this discussion), content is tied to the account. I could sell you the hard drive with all its games, but they'd be completely useless to you (except in "demo mode") unless I also gave you my login credentials as well.

(Xbox also ties the content to the purchasing console, so I could theoretically sell you my whole console and all the games on it, which would be fine until the console failed. Still an incredibly inefficient method if I wanted to share a single game.)

That was me just brainstorming on the fly as to how a feasible digital distribution system might work. It was purely hypothetical. I assume that if consoles wanted to get into the digital market, they'd have to somehow transfer the licenses to be sold along with the data in a single serving way (ex: on a SD card or appropriately price memory stick), otherwise they'd catch hell from a lot of pissed off gamers and a lot of unemployed game store workers. What the consoles makers, and to a lesser extent, PC developers are doing now won't work in my opinion. Frugality wins over convenience in the long run, and without a resale market, less people will be willing to download.

To the second, it does seem ironic. Sony is the only console that offers the best, most flexible mass-storage options, and their discs are too big to even consider going DD; and MS and Nintendo offer poor mass-storage options (no hard drive for Nintendo, undersized/overpriced for MS) for the content they're trying to push. Not that I mind; if it increases resistance to DD, then I'm all for it.

I too like owning hard copies of games, but digital distribution is definately the future. Hopefully not yours or my future though. I might be a little more swayed if downloading a game meant a cheaper price tag, but knowing the big three, they'd never let that happen.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I miss the days of the disc. I am not looking forward to what could be an all-digital future. What they can't take away though, is the old fashion LAN party. People who really want to go back and play the older games will have to physically get together to play together. I've never been to a LAN party but they lok fun *shrug*

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I hate how it's claimed that you get it instantly. Six or seven hour download, that fails 60% of the time, or an hour drive to the game store. Also, having 0.6 cents on my account really pisses me off. I wish I could just get rid of it, but NO I have to have it sitting there, mocking me. MOCKING me.

 

[The Undoer]

I'm not a huge fan of digital downloads.

But I do like Steam, because, for the most part, price their games fairly.

Old games are usually put on offer, and new games generally reflect the retail pricing of the hard copies, (with a few exceptions of course!).

(I just wish Steam had a multi-pc mode or something, as being offline can be so inconvenient, (as the sign in data is quite erratic, meaning Steam hardly ever switches me into offline mode when my internet suddenly cuts off))

Skipping ahead from reading all the posts. Except their l4d1 prices, £25, £12 on amazon, ouch! My personal opinions on Digital Distribution is: I'd like to have something like the orange box where I have both a digital download, and the disc.

 

[CyberKnight]

I might be a little more swayed if downloading a game meant a cheaper price tag, but knowing the big three, they'd never let that happen.

I don't understand this at all. Unless the costs they have to pay for shipping and retailers are really slim, it seems like they could sell DD copies for less, make more money on them (because all the money would come back to them instead of getting split with the shippers & sellers), and attract more buyers due to the lower cost. And yet, they keep the prices "competitive" with the physical product.

It's like they're more intent on "proving" that it's the "same product" by pricing it the same -- rather than acknowledging that we're getting less and should pay accordingly.

 

[x0ny]

downloading titles for the wii comes with a risk. If your console dies, then you lose the game, as the ggame is locked to the console, and not to an account. You can only recover your games if Nintendo decide to do so. You'll be issued with a new console together with the games you had before.