Physical vs. Digital

[Old Father Eternity]

Personally, I prefer physical. One of the reasons, as others have mentioned, if I want, I can just reach for the case and install, which for most games does not take more than 10-15min as opposed to upward of an hour of download and then install. Another is that I really can't be arsed to do all the things needed to make an online purchase where as if I am already in town, I can simply take a half a hour or so detour to the store.

As for the vulnerability of physical copies, in that regard Blizzard has done rather nicely, you register the game you bought and then, should anything happen to your physical copy, you can download it.

If there is one real gripe I have with physical retail stores, then it is that the PC shelves are getting sparser, losing ground to consoles, also more and more games are in most part on digital distribution nowadays, even the physical copies sometimes actually only contain some 10mb or less data, that is then used to download the actual game, utter waste of space.

 

[Soxafloppin]

If you play on Console I'd say Physical is better 95% of the time. I remember last year I bought Infamous 2 for £20 brand new, and on the PS store it was £50, in fact I think the first Infamous was more expensive than I got 2 for. If your buying older games some times digital would be better though, due to the ease of getting them and disks can be scratched.

PC I'd say Digital is better, though there will always be exceptions.

 

[FireAza]

For me, it depends on how the system runs the game. For most console games, the disk is a requirement of running the game since, well, the game's data is on the disk. In this case, I don't mind so much that I have to put a physical thing in the drive and I also get something cool to put on my shelves and look at.

PCs on the other hand, will normally install all the data to the hard drive, only requiring the disk for piracy protection. This makes the physical disk completely worthless after it's been installed and only becomes a pain in the ass, since I'm having to do something that's not required to run the game and exists only to satisfy the publisher. In this case, I'm much more open to digital copies of games, since it's basically the same thing minus the hassle.

 

[SecondPrize]

I like physical copies for books, because you can actually make use of them. For music, movies and games, I go with digital because it's just easier. If I need a machine to play/watch/listen anyways, why not just ditch the physical media and just have the machine?

 

[Ranorak]

If given the choice "Here is a game, do you want a digital or a physical copy?" I'd say physical.
BUT!

To me there are some other advantages to digital purchases.
I can instantly buy them, on the spot.

I don't have a game story in my town. So if I want to buy a game, I have to travel to the nearby city.
I can't get there in time due to work hours.

So I either have to order it by delivery, or buy a digital version.
Delivery still takes delivery time. At best the next day, at worse 2-3 days. (considering it's in supply at all)

A digital version can be bought at any time, and after the 2-3 hours of download can be instantly played.

Though, it should be noted that I am lazy and thus this works.

 

[MrBenSampson]

My internet has a monthly bandwidth cap, which is the primary reason that I'm not a fan of digital distribution. I'm also a console gamer, so I don't like the idea of losing access to digital purchases when Xbox Live is inevitably shut down.

I get most of my games from eBay, so I'm saving a lot more money than I would be had I downloaded them. I also enjoy being able to show off my collection of games, and sharing them with my friends.

 

[Juste Goose]

physical copies 5evur.

I don't see how taking up space is a con. I love having all my games lined up and alphabetized on my big shelf and little cabinet. I don't even use emulators for the most part, except for stuff like Earthbound, Conker, or Mega Man 7.

I've been in a lot of situations where I'm browsing a friend's shelf or a friend is browsing mine, only to hear "Aww, dude! You have ______? We should totally play this!" And then we do. And good times are had by all.

That doesn't really happen with Steam. Maybe because looking on someone else's computer is more of an invasion of privacy, or because if you see a game you like, you'll have to wait an hour for it to install. I wouldn't know, it doesn't happen.

 

[Creator002]

With PC, I prefer digital downloads. I do a majority of my gaming on PC and I don't have much physical storage space. I can remove and add games at will and, when the next generation comes out, I don't lose access to those downloaded games.
With consoles, I prefer physical copies. I can return them if I'm not enjoying the game or finish it within a week. I can trade it in if I'm bored with it and usually they have collector's or special editions.
Also, if I want a game on PC that's multi platform, I might buy it to try it on console and then sell it before committing to the PC version.

 

[Thoric485]

Very few contemporary titles have physical editions worth owning. Most normal editions are just a cheap plastic case, while collector's editions charge hundreds on top for shoddy toys/statues and DLC pamphlets. There are even a lot of titles for which the first pro of physical editions doesn't apply. They require Origin/Uplay/Steam or some other sort of online activation.

I find most old games and CD Projekt's standard physical editions optimal - cardboard box+manual+map for normal price and no online activation needed. While for newer games digital is a no-brainer - great sales, worldwide availability and no need to patch manually. GOG is also a great solution for experiencing older games.

 

[Denamic]

Cons:
>takes up space

By themselves, they hardly take any space.

Physical copies take up a shitload of space. Even as it is, I have a box full of games in storage because I can't fit them on my shelves.

 

[hermes]

You forget one big "pro" about digital: They are accessible shortly after release, worldwide.

It might not be a big problem for people that live or work at walking distance of a big enough store that gets enough supply of games on release, but if you are not in that situation, you often have to go out of your way to get a game, specially if its obscure enough not to be on every store. For other people, the situation is even worst, considering they have to order it from abroad, and deal with shipping, taxes and customs.

Getting the game online allows those people to play it hours after it released (instead of days), and for the price it says in the label.

 

[Aris Khandr]

I m a dirty hobo who has to carry everything he needs with him

This is basically me. I try to limit my possessions to "What I can fit into my car". So digital is a major selling point for me. I've got a physical copy of Pokemon X coming in the mail, because it was a gift. Before that, the last physical game I picked up was the CE for Star Trek Online back in February of 2010. I can't even remember the last time I bought a physical movie, and CDs only get purchased when they're both cheaper than the digital album AND the digital album comes for free with the CD. I just can't see the point in buying physical media anymore.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Eh. I can really go either way.

I move so much that the lack of physical items to move can be a significant advantage.
On the other hand, boxed copies are in many cases much cheaper. Especially for console games.

On top of that, Online based DRM (even that as relatively innocuous as steam) has burned me more times than I care to count.
(DRM in general has hurt me a lot - As someone who actually travels with a laptop for instance, both Steams unreliable offline mode, and the much older concept in which running a game distributed on a physical disk requires the disk to be in the computer's disk drive have both caused me a lot of problems.)

As to physical packaging, I'm quite fond of it. I kept a lot of it for ages, though an incident with a series of moves in short succession lost me most of my old game packaging (but not most of the disks), and thefts have cost me a lot of that as well, (even though I replaced the games themselves).

I do have to say in relation to that that modern game packaging is very disappointing compared to what was normal in the 80's and 90's.

Although the standard cardboard packaging from back then was a lot more fragile, and bulky, both the packaging itself, and the contents usually in such packaging was far more impressive and memorable than the modern practice of basically using nearly standardised DVD case style packaging.

Makes me all the more sad for having lost what packaging I used to own from that era...

 

[Zeckt]

Actually to refute the Duke Nukem argument I got Duke, Darkness 2 and Borderlands 1 goty together for 10$ so to me that is a very, very poor point. Not to mention the 12$ dlc never goes on sale on console, yet you can easily get it for 2.50 on pc.

 

[Zeckt]

physical copies 5evur.

I don't see how taking up space is a con. I love having all my games lined up and alphabetized on my big shelf and little cabinet. I don't even use emulators for the most part, except for stuff like Earthbound, Conker, or Mega Man 7.

I've been in a lot of situations where I'm browsing a friend's shelf or a friend is browsing mine, only to hear "Aww, dude! You have ______? We should totally play this!" And then we do. And good times are had by all.

That doesn't really happen with Steam. Maybe because looking on someone else's computer is more of an invasion of privacy, or because if you see a game you like, you'll have to wait an hour for it to install. I wouldn't know, it doesn't happen.

If you know your friend well enough to let him come into your home and look at your gaming collection, I think it would be even more likely you would have no problem with him browsing up and down an easy to read list with a search engine on your steam account. It makes no sense you would trust your friend to rifle through your physical belongings, but are uneasy about him going up and down a list. I just don't get that logic, I'm sorry.

The scenario you bring up does not simply exist, as last week I had a friend I know in real life and on steam notice we both have Unreal 2004 in our library without having to spend hours looking through a large game collection because steam makes common interest games between friends incredibly easy and we played that together for like 5 hours. If anything, the points you bring up are actually bigger negative's for physical copies.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Physical Discs
Cons:
>takes up space
>rarity of certain titles

I don't think either of these are cons. In fact I want my games to take up space since I am a collector, which is weird since you have game case listed as a pro as well.

As a matter of fact, this:

can take up all the space it wants. I also enjoy it's rarity; otherwise it wouldn't be special.

 

[Juste Goose]

If you know your friend well enough to let him come into your home and look at your gaming collection, I think it would be even more likely you would have no problem with him browsing up and down an easy to read list with a search engine on your steam account. It makes no sense you would trust your friend to rifle through your physical belongings, but are uneasy about him going up and down a list. I just don't get that logic, I'm sorry.

I have all my games lined up on a shelf in my living room, not in a bin under my bed or anything like that. People sitting on the couch often look over and see something they like. They're observing something that's in the room, not rifling through my stuff.

That situation has happened multiple times. Someone going into my room, logging on to my computer, and going through my Steam stuff has never happened. If I want a friend to see what I have on steam, I have to go out of my way to bring it up and show them, as opposed to just noticing something on a shelf.

The scenario you bring up does not simply exist,

Yes it does, it's happened to me, and I've done it at friend's houses before.

as last week I had a friend I know in real life and on steam notice we both have Unreal 2004 in our library without having to spend hours looking through a large game collection because steam makes common interest games between friends incredibly easy and we played that together for like 5 hours.

Cool, I'm happy for you. I won't deny that Steam shows you other people on your friend's list that own a game. Maybe that leads to more time spent playing with friends for you, (and if it did, I could see the appeal,) but it never has for me. I'd feel like I was bugging people if I randomly messaged them saying "Hey, I see you have ____, let's play it!" By contrast, if someone's at my house or I'm at theirs, it's already a social situation where we're looking for things to do together.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I think Steam sometimes has prices lowered after the game's initial release. At least, with triple-A and anticipated releases.

But really, I prefer digital. Yes, it takes up space. No, it cannot be damaged in any way shape or form, because it has no shape or form. Because it's digital.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Physical copies take up a shitload of space. Even as it is, I have a box full of games in storage because I can't fit them on my shelves.

That's why I said "by themselves", but yeah. I personally wouldn't care about that and would actually have it as a point of pride as a gamer that I have such a massive collection.