Sony: Gamers Don't Want Digital "Right Now"

[Terramax]

I did a poll on this site about a year ago asking what people preferred: digital or physical. The vast majority voted physical.

 

[Lightknight]

No, sony, YOU don't want digital. Same thing when microsoft says "gamers don't want -thing that gamers really want-"

Haha, no, that's very very wrong. Believe me when I say that Sony would very much have liked to do what Microsoft tried to do if Sony thought it could get away with it. Digital distribution means no manufacturing/packaging/shipping costs for the games and it means that retailers don't get a cut. More for Sony and more for the publisher. No, Sony actually learned some things from their customers and they're quite correct that we still want our disks as long as it takes hours and hours to download the game and as long as the prices remain artificially bloated when in digital stores. This is one of the very few times a "gamers don't want... X" has actually be right. Read the thread and other threads around here, Sony isn't wrong.

That being said, gamers would like it if we had enough storage space to store a ton of 50GB games and if it only took a few minutes or at most a few hours to download.

Microsoft's ideal world, FYI, is one where they house and stream the game to your console. Leaving us without even a digital copy in-house. But that's not them being evil, that's what any of these guys would prefer. Maximum profit and maximum control. It's good business to want it but bad business to make an obvious grab for it against customer's will.

M
First off, the default HDDs for both consoles is 500GB. That's all fine and dandy but a game like Uncharted 3 is 40Gbs. That's a current gen game, not next gen. I can easily imagine 100GB games or more with that in mind.

PS4 games are all going to be 50 GBs. The plus side is that you can at least upgrade the HDD. Small favours, I know.

It's a shame we don't have an infrastructure that will work, but hey. Americans don't like to perform services.

I imagine that's 50GB to start with. That'll probably be a thing of the past fairly shortly after this console generation gets up and rolling. But I agree, it is a shame that our infrastructure is so crappy. Even moreso because ISPs have grown stagnant on purpose. Offer as little as possible but charge as much as possible. This is why Google created Google fiber. The primary purpose is to light a fire under the... keasters (sp? I don't think I've ever spelt it) of the ISPs. You see large companies basically able to flip a switch to try and compete with google where it's being offered and it's just more proof that they'd been able to offer this service before.

Do you believe that had you bought disk versios of XBO games that they somehow wouldn't have fallen into the same category? It has been my experience that if one requires internet connection, both do.

Let me clarify my statement a bit. In the previous state of their DRM policy, indeed, disk or no disk would have probably been irrelevant, due to the 24 hour check-thing, which devs/publishers would have most certainly used as an excuse to make all their games online-only.

Developers would not have been able to use the 24/hour check in to argue that their games require always online play. That'd be silly. What they will argue is that the magic cloud processing is required to render the game properly and so that's what they're STILL going to use to implement always online gaming. You already saw EA try to call that with the SimCity debacle. Imagine a few years down the road when the XBO is trying to compete with the ps4 still but we're beginning to see the estimated 50% more processing power of the ps4. Think about how easy it'll be for the EAs to consider it necessary to port the game.

Now however, since the console will not require an internet connection, a disk-based game will have to either be perfectly playable offline, or at least explicitly state that they require an internet connection (so that you know not to buy them, unless it's actually a mupliplayer-only game). So, indeed, with their new policy, your future access to your games will be safe. In a digital-only console though, you basically have zero guarrantees that Microsoft will not brick everything you own whenever they feel like dropping online support. That's why, in a hypothetical fully-digital console, backwards compatibility will be an absolute must, so you can at least transfer your library between hardware generations.

They will not implement an always online requirement for digital copies but not disk copies. So if your game is cloud process based (I'll call it CPB for this discussion), then it won't matter where you got the game, it'll always be a CPB game. The only hope you'll have is if the next generation after this generation is powerful enough to make up for the difference in processing which isn't entirely unreasonable to expect. But that would require a bit of cloud-side emulation by the console.

I'm sorry, but it just means that your games will start being held hostage to always online gaming if CPB gaming is fully implemented. It does have tangible benefits to the producers and while I do personally have the will power to not purchase most EA games that pull this crap, there will always be titles that are sacred to me that are must-buys regardless.

It should be repeated then, that there's really no difference between digitally distributed and disk distributed games where backwards compatibility is concerned. The only difference may be that the PSN/Live stores know you actually bought the digitally purchased one if that ever helps anyone. If you're talking about them simply maintaining the files you purchased for future downloading, that shouldn't be a problem but I think that's a concern anyways. I mean, what happens if Steam ever goes under?

 

[Something Amyss]

Microsoft's ideal world, FYI, is one where they house and stream the game to your console. Leaving us without even a digital copy in-house. But that's not them being evil, that's what any of these guys would prefer. Maximum profit and maximum control. It's good business to want it but bad business to make an obvious grab for it against customer's will.

OnLive is their dream come true. Or would be, if they could make it work enough to get people to adopt it.

I imagine that's 50GB to start with. That'll probably be a thing of the past fairly shortly after this console generation gets up and rolling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't think you are. I do wonder, however. The 50 Gig size screams to me that it's something akin to a disc image, if this is the way they're going to work it. I therefore am curious as to what happens later on. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them paint themselves into a corner.

But I agree, it is a shame that our infrastructure is so crappy. Even moreso because ISPs have grown stagnant on purpose. Offer as little as possible but charge as much as possible. This is why Google created Google fiber. The primary purpose is to light a fire under the... keasters (sp? I don't think I've ever spelt it) of the ISPs. You see large companies basically able to flip a switch to try and compete with google where it's being offered and it's just more proof that they'd been able to offer this service before.

I hope it works that way. Though, TBH, I live in Vermont, so Google Fiber will get her just about the time I turn 200. Since they price based on local competition and provide services the same way, ISPs in this area will still be all "LOL fuck off" like they are now.

The other downside here is that American companies seem to prefer to do things like make laws or the like to undercut competitors rather than actually compete. Google's large enough to have the power to fight, but keep in mind US ISPs went before Congress with nonsense about how the internet would run out of space. We've had major providers back RIAA ploys to hit suspected pirates with viruses and the like.

I hope it doesn't come to this, but I could see them trying to take down Google that way, because competition is like, hard, man.

These are the guys who saw that user were getting more connected, and usage was up. Their response?

"Release the hounds!"

Come to think of it, this goes back to the issue of consoles and digital. One console has shitty digital services because all the other consoles have them.

 

[Superlative]

Heres a question: do you think digital sales of console games will increase if people are able to make physical backups of downloads?

I can burn my MP3s to a CD and i can print out my e-books if i really felt like killing a forest. the one thing i can't do is put a download from a console onto a flashdrive or disk (easily and legally). I wonder if giving players that ability would make sales jump.

 

[Crazie_Guy]

Consoles are the last thing I still want physical copies on. Digital is natural for my PC since it has a fast connection, terabytes of storage and vastly more games from more eras than could reasonably fit in my room. On handhelds I want one good game in the slot and the rest digital so I have my library with me everywhere. But a console is just made to be set up right next to a cabinet of proudly displayed game boxes.

 

[Ch3m1kal]

Heres a question: do you think digital sales of console games will increase if people are able to make physical backups of downloads?

I can burn my MP3s to a CD and i can print out my e-books if i really felt like killing a forest. the one thing i can't do is put a download from a console onto a flashdrive or disk (easily and legally). I wonder if giving players that ability would make sales jump.

Not sure if that's going to be available for consoles, but Steam does let you backup your games onto whatever medium you want, and you cand always run them in offline mode. While it would be interesting for MS and Sony to go the same route, i don't really see it happening, for this generation at least.
So ignoring issues like collecting boxes and art and all that, Steam is pretty much as good as we're likely to get in the near future.


For my 2 cents, i happen to live somewhere with fantastic internet speed (50mbit minimum with no caps), but very expensive games in stores. For example if i wanted to buy The Last of Us right now from a store, it would cost me 70$, with plenty of games costing 80$ or more.

So digital distribution is awesome for me because it allows me to buy games at the right price and, as someone whose Steam library currently stands at over 300 titles, saves me a ton of space on my shelves.

I do own a PS3 and about 60 games, but i've had to import most of them because of the ridiculous prices, which is why i'm looking forward to PS4 offering everything from PSN. I can't actually access PSN from my country according to Sony, but they don't mind too much if i lie about my location

 

[masticina]

Guys before you all go all praising Sony. This is still Sony, they still are a company seeking to make money!

Luckily with all the PR drama going around the console makers have been warned about things. That yes people like hard copies.

But if you buy a game on PSN well it will have DRM on it.

Lets not you know give all praise to Sony here they are just reacting to what the market is doing. And right now the market is revolting the idea of losing the hard copy. They are not the glorious leaders waving flags with those gamers who are fighting this war. With the game media who are putting this out.. oh no Sony is waving the flag yes.. but in a row behind the gamers not at the front. They haven't fought this war! They are just sympants to this war.. their "support" with the PS4 existed mostly out of not going as far as Microsoft did.

As jim said before Sony just didn't change.. they waited. While Microsoft when head in something that is boo-ed back.

Microsoft did wrong YES .. but Sony waited. That is what they did they just WAITED. They we're not at the front of this war! They we're watching who would win this war and would then adjust to such.

So why all the praise.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't think you are. I do wonder, however. The 50 Gig size screams to me that it's something akin to a disc image, if this is the way they're going to work it. I therefore am curious as to what happens later on. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them paint themselves into a corner.

A current dual-layer blu-ray disk can hold 50GBs. The blu-ray format is claimed to be "future" proof in that it's built to eventually be able to hold 100GB-200GB. But we don't know yet whether or not the blu-ray player will be capable of reading those 100GB+ disks.

Possible ways around this:

1. Partial online downloads. We would hate this, but this may be required just like updates are required to play some games.
2. Multiple disks... again. One to download some data, the next play the game with and have some other info so that there's no change game disk mandate halfway through the game.

I hope it works that way. Though, TBH, I live in Vermont, so Google Fiber will get her just about the time I turn 200. Since they price based on local competition and provide services the same way, ISPs in this area will still be all "LOL fuck off" like they are now.

$70 for 1GB up and 1GB down is nothing to sneeze at regardless of where you live. Heck, 100 MBs per second would be fantastic. I lived on just the internet for TV and movie needs (Netflix/HuluPlus) for two years until my cable company tried to charge me $70 for 16mbps. Now I'm paying another company $80 for comparable internet with two DVR'd TVs and a ton of channels. I don't know how much you're paying for internet or what speeds you're getting, but we're (US in general) fairly behind.

The other downside here is that American companies seem to prefer to do things like make laws or the like to undercut competitors rather than actually compete. Google's large enough to have the power to fight, but keep in mind US ISPs went before Congress with nonsense about how the internet would run out of space. We've had major providers back RIAA ploys to hit suspected pirates with viruses and the like.

I hope it doesn't come to this, but I could see them trying to take down Google that way, because competition is like, hard, man.

Google is the g-damn walrus where litigation is concerned. I wouldn't worry about it.

ISPs tried to tell congress that the internet would run out of space? Do they count on people being so technically ignorant that they won't even question that statement? Surely they meant something else would run out. Like their wallets?

Come to think of it, this goes back to the issue of consoles and digital. One console has shitty digital services because all the other consoles have them.

Fortunately it's google fighting for this. A company who actually has a vested interest in greater connectivity. They've been moving remarkably fast considering that google fiber has only been around for under a year and is now looking to expand. In places that they're threatening to go, the ISPs there are offering comparable packages to ward them off. That's really all they want now anyways. I really want google to take this seriously. I'd love to give them money for this kind of service.

 

[Something Amyss]

A current dual-layer blu-ray disk can hold 50GBs. The blu-ray format is claimed to be "future" proof in that it's built to eventually be able to hold 100GB-200GB. But we don't know yet whether or not the blu-ray player will be capable of reading those 100GB+ disks.

Isn't the Ps3 capable of reading 3X layers on its own? I though it could "theoretically" go beyond DL. If it can, the PS4 should be able to.

However, yeah, this is what I was getting at. That 50 gig cap seems to be what this is built around, and Sony might not be forward thinking enough to get around it.

Possible ways around this:

1. Partial online downloads. We would hate this, but this may be required just like updates are required to play some games.
2. Multiple disks... again. One to download some data, the next play the game with and have some other info so that there's no change game disk mandate halfway through the game.

Or multiple discs with mandatory installs all around.

$70 for 1GB up and 1GB down is nothing to sneeze at regardless of where you live.

I'm not sneezing at it so much as pointing out it won't get to us for ages, and the markets aren't very competitive here in the meanwhile.

ISPs tried to tell congress that the internet would run out of space? Do they count on people being so technically ignorant that they won't even question that statement? Surely they meant something else would run out. Like their wallets?

They've argued the internet would run out of space, bandwidth, and IP addresses. I think they do rely on people not knowing better, and they largely get away with it. Keep in mind that Congress is full of idiots who don't understand the technology in question to begin with. I forget which one it was, but one of my homestate Senator Pat Leahy's bills regarding copyright infringement and technology was so poorly worded it technically banned the internet (and ANY technology that relies on a peer to peer connection on any sort). Thankfully, it didn't pass, but Leahy pulls stupid shit annually, so it's really only a matter of time before we see his backwards ass try and take on some technology he doesn't understand. Maybe the cloud.

On a related note, have you seen the news where a lawmaker in Texas opposes funding for rape kits in hospitals because she thinks rape kits are a form of abortion? There's a lot of legislators sounding off on shit they know nothing about, so I could easily see Congress running around screaming "WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF INTERNET!"

Hell, Extra Credits, guys way more plugged into technology, are actually reciting "spectrum crunch" arguments that are sort of technically legit in the short term, but not so much in the longer run (as we have a tendency to improve our use of the available spectrum greatly with time).

I guess what I'm saying is" I see ignorant people. They're everywhere. Some of them don't even know they're ignorant.

Fortunately it's google fighting for this. A company who actually has a vested interest in greater connectivity. They've been moving remarkably fast considering that google fiber has only been around for under a year and is now looking to expand. In places that they're threatening to go, the ISPs there are offering comparable packages to ward them off. That's really all they want now anyways. I really want google to take this seriously. I'd love to give them money for this kind of service.

Yeah, their products are useless without connectivity, so it's worth the investment. I'm just saying I hope others don't try and stop the competition through bull.

 

[Lightknight]

Isn't the Ps3 capable of reading 3X layers on its own? I though it could "theoretically" go beyond DL. If it can, the PS4 should be able to.

The only information I have is an unconfirmed rumor that they can't go 4x layers to the 100GB mark. So if they can read 3X, then we'd be talking about 75GB since it's 25GB per layer.

Or multiple discs with mandatory installs all around.

Ugh... *shudders*

I'm not sneezing at it so much as pointing out it won't get to us for ages, and the markets aren't very competitive here in the meanwhile.

It's a snowball effect more so than you may think. As more areas start to get it, more areas start to demand it. Sure, you're probably looking at several years, but it may be sooner than you realize.

They've argued the internet would run out of space, bandwidth, and IP addresses.

Space relies on the individual servers that every website is hosted on. If any of them run out of space, they just need to upgrade their machine.

Bandwidth is dependent on the ISP's cable. If they don't lay good enough cable then it's their own fault when someone else enters the market that can do it better.

IP address, IPv6. And, more ready internet access doesn't necessarily mean more public IP addresses.

I think they do rely on people not knowing better, and they largely get away with it. Keep in mind that Congress is full of idiots who don't understand the technology in question to begin with. I forget which one it was, but one of my homestate Senator Pat Leahy's bills regarding copyright infringement and technology was so poorly worded it technically banned the internet (and ANY technology that relies on a peer to peer connection on any sort). Thankfully, it didn't pass, but Leahy pulls stupid shit annually, so it's really only a matter of time before we see his backwards ass try and take on some technology he doesn't understand. Maybe the cloud.

*sigh*, people, they be trippin'.

On a related note, have you seen the news where a lawmaker in Texas opposes funding for rape kits in hospitals because she thinks rape kits are a form of abortion? There's a lot of legislators sounding off on shit they know nothing about, so I could easily see Congress running around screaming "WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF INTERNET!"

I generally try to avoid Texas news unless it has Austin and the words Google Fiber in it.

Hell, Extra Credits, guys way more plugged into technology, are actually reciting "spectrum crunch" arguments that are sort of technically legit in the short term, but not so much in the longer run (as we have a tendency to improve our use of the available spectrum greatly with time).

Yeah, short term problem.

Yeah, their products are useless without connectivity, so it's worth the investment. I'm just saying I hope others don't try and stop the competition through bull.

If they do try, I hope they're publicly embarrassed.

 

[A-D.]

Well that guy gets it. Although i disagree with the concept of "just yet" so to speak. Physical media wont go away ever. iTunes hasnt made the CD redundant. Hell CD didnt somehow make normal audiocasettes unusable. DVDs didnt ruin VHS either, granted the market eventually moved to the better medium by itself, but they never actually somehow removed one medium so it can be suplanted by the newer, better one. Otherwise, we wouldnt have games on DVD, they'd all be blu-ray which can hold way more data than a DVD can now.

So yeah, people will still buy physical copies, either for the sake of nostalgia, pure collecting in a way. Some people just like having the option if nothing else, others prefer physical media with a box in hand and everything. Its not going to go away ever, it will be reduced, true, as more people move to digital, but its not really there yet and..honestly, its never truly going to be.

Also the only way to make people jump to digital is to reduce costs for the games sold on digital markets like steam and origin. Whats the point of digital being "the future" if in the future we still pay 60 bucks or whatever for the same game even though it no longer needs a physical disc, a box, shipping or anything else? Hell, in fact you can get games cheaper buying at a store at times. When Fallout New Vegas Ultimate came out, it cost 50 bucks on steam. I got it for 45 buying it at a retail store. Metro Last Light, 50 bucks, i got it for 44 instead, limited first edition mind you by buying retail. So if only for that, retail is still worth it, because its still competition and you can still look to get the best deal on a game. Even if you save relatively little on each purchase.

So yeah, drop digital prices by like 10 or 20 bucks, if its a 60 dollar game, indies generally dont charge even half of that (planetary annihilation excluded which costs 90..) and more people will buy it digitally either to save cash, or just for convinience. Maybe package all physical versions with some gadgets and maps and stuff, basicly, sell all collectors editions at 60 bucks and only physical. Two markets, both get value for what the publisher is asking.