Why digital distribution needs to take over.

Recommended Videos

GreyWolf257

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,379
0
0
Personally, I like to have my game on a disc, for reasons of my own. But I think games should also be printed onto a digital file from the disc, so that you have the best of both worlds (Something portable, and something incorporeal).
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
I would rather have a physical copy of my games so the company doesn't decide to fuck me over at some point by deciding that I've, "Installed it too many times."

Digital distribution needs to die. Physical copies of games with limited DRM help to protect the right of the consumer. Digital distribution gives the distributor, the game company, or both, a means to control a product that has been bought and paid for.
 

p3t3r

New member
Apr 16, 2009
1,413
0
0
digital distribution would suck because i can only download 4 gb per month most times that isn't even a full game.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Physical copies serve 2 major, useful purposes. 1, they accomodate people who never have access to decent internet. They are pitiable enough that they might as well not be screwed out of games as well. Second, physical copies serve to keep DD methods honest, since they have to compete with discs, and people who want a physical thing to hold on to. I was like that once myself, prefering physical copies, but then I got better. Basically, as long as there is physical copies, DD will be motivated to be so much better then physical copies.
 

Pseudonym2

New member
Mar 31, 2008
1,086
0
0
I usually like hard copies of games. The problem with Digital distribution is that the games are usually more expensive and there is little competition for PC and none for consuls. Plus, I find games can eat up hard drive space very quickly.
 

MrDarkling

Crumpled Ball of Paper
Oct 11, 2009
554
0
0
Well for a start no one has great internet speed and it's quite costly.
Not only that it effects the other end as well.
Did you know servers these days can pump more C02 into the air than a bus for a whole day.
(not directly ofcourse)
And servers are a ***** to keep cool as well so that is just more energy wasted.
 

Jon Etheridge

Appsro Animation
Apr 28, 2009
1,384
0
0
Well I'm all for digital distribution as an option but I prefer to have the hard copy. I'm the kind of gamer that trades or sells my games back in order to get another one. If everything was digital I couldn't really do that.

But I think DD is a great thing for indie developers and for game companies looking to re-release older titles on newer systems. Ultimately there is room enough for both.
 

Discon

New member
Sep 14, 2009
190
0
0
I'm scared of how my steam's game-list will look like in ten, or even five years. I already have like 20 games xD
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
tsb247 said:
I would rather have a physical copy of my games so the company doesn't decide to fuck me over at some point by deciding that I've, "Installed it too many times."

Digital distribution needs to die. Physical copies of games with limited DRM help to protect the right of the consumer. Digital distribution gives the distributor, the game company, or both, a means to control a product that has been bought and paid for.
Whereas I have seen physical games get more and more draconic DRM, I have seen DRM rapidly disappear from places like Steam and GoG. Having a thing like Steam encourages an account based system, accessible anywhere without limitations, as opposed to the stifling DRM of physical copies. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Pseudonym2 said:
I usually like hard copies of games. The problem with Digital distribution is that the games are usually more expensive and there is little competition for PC and none for consuls. Plus, I find games can eat up hard drive space very quickly.
So the problem is that it's too easy to get games on your computer with DD? And I'm not sure where you get the idea that DD is more expensive. I regularly get big name games that are relatively new for 5, 10 dollars. I buy games well over twice as often as I once did, and if anything, I pay less.
Discon said:
I'm scared of how my steam's game-list will look like in ten, or even five years. I already have like 20 games xD
::Thinks back on his game list with 179 games::

I suspect that eventually, as more and more people have massive game libraries, they will institute a better archive method on Steam then one long, alphabetical list.
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
I think you're assuming that developers wouldn't completely shaft gamers, given the chance. With a hard copy, the game is yours. You can play it whenever you like, you can play it at a friend's house, and if your console gets fried, you can play it on your replacement system.

With digital copies, you're entirely at the mercy of developers who are, by and large, only interested in making money. Sure, you can play the game on the console you downloaded it onto... But you can't play it anywhere else. If your console gets fried, tough luck. If the developer decides to shut down service, too damn bad. Heck, they could probably discover that your copy was "stolen" and deny you access altogether. No thanks.
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
tsb247 said:
I would rather have a physical copy of my games so the company doesn't decide to fuck me over at some point by deciding that I've, "Installed it too many times."

Digital distribution needs to die. Physical copies of games with limited DRM help to protect the right of the consumer. Digital distribution gives the distributor, the game company, or both, a means to control a product that has been bought and paid for.
Whereas I have seen physical games get more and more draconic DRM, I have seen DRM rapidly disappear from places like Steam and GoG. Having a thing like Steam encourages an account based system, accessible anywhere without limitations, as opposed to the stifling DRM of physical copies. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
Of course it holds water.

Not all physical copies of games have ridiculous DRMs. They may if they are from companies named EA and Activision, but they are only small parts of a bigger picture. Just look at companies like Stardock, Bohemia Interactive, and Gas Powered Games. All games from those companies/publishers offer physical copies of their games as well as digital distribution, and they use some of the least restrictive DRMs I've ever seen (such as FADE or a simple CD key). I would rather be able to keep the option of buying a physical copy of my games because I simply trust a CD/DVD to be there even if the company that made or distributed the game isn't.

It's funny how people that support distributors like Steam never seem to look down the road a decade or two. What happens when their servers fail? What happens if someone hacks your account and steals all of your purchases? What happens if the company simply goes bankrupt due to some other company being more successful and forcing them out of the business? There are far too many, "What if," statements for me to have any faith in that system. With a physical copy of a game, it is in my posession, I can choose to ignore updates that I don't like, and I can install/uninstall the game at my liesure (most games anyway...) without having someone bug me about it (although I am familiar with Bioshock and install tokens).
There is also the simple fact that some people can't handle digital distribution due to limited internet accessibility and bandwidth caps.

If you are really comfortable letting your purchase reside on a server that can crash, be hacked, or simply be shut down due to some fault or failure of the company that manages it, be my guest. With a physical copy I at least have the comfort of knowing that my game will still be mine 10, 20, or even 30 years from now - regardless of the state of a company hundreds or even thousands of miles away from me.

EDIT: Love the avatar by the way!
 

Pendragon9

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,968
0
0
Well, I see nothing wrong with hard copy games right now. Because in my fifteen years of gaming, I haven't gotten any scratched disks. So most of your argument, having been based on that, kinda doesn't affect me.

Also, I agree with everyone on the whole "lacking space to keep it all" point. Really, we're not made of gigabites here.

Also, my hard copy games get updated all the time. SO I don't know where you got that point.

Let's have digital distribution compliment hard copy, not replace it. Can't you make peace?
 

dekkarax

New member
Apr 3, 2008
1,213
0
0
tmujir955 said:
UberMore said:
tmujir955 said:
The problem with having games on hard copies is pretty obvious: it gets scratched. But did anyone think about the fact that digital distribution could significantly improve the quality of games? Think about it. When a hard copy of a game is put out, it is final. The company does not improve it (except for patches to get the game running well), but other than that, no changes to the actual game play are made. But with digital distribution, companies can freely update their software. For example, “Pocket God”, a game on the IPhone, is a game where you play God for a bunch of little people, and you can kill them in many ways. But the company allows people to suggest to them more ways of killing, and every update has something new added to it. (The game has had 27-ish updates).
Why not make all games like this? It seems only obvious.
I'm guessing you didn't read the "Experience Points" (well, I think it was Experience Points) on this actual subject.
Allow me to summerise.
Say you have a hard copy of an old game you used to play all the time, but for some reason you uninstalled it, you can easily re-install the game and play it again, just like new.
Now, say you had this same game, but only through Digital Download. If you uninstalled this game but a few years after it's release you decide to "dust it off" and play again, you can't, because the server that hosted the download has been shut down, so the money you spent on that game is now lost and you can't play it again, unless you buy yourself a hard copy, that is, if they ever made one.
Um, what the heck is Experienced Points?

And, to counter your statement: what if your disc is scratched?
You get it repaired. Lots of shops will repair scratched disk for cheap, there's one down the road from my house that does it for £2.

Anyway, I don't think digital distribution is the way forward, but that does not mean that it can exist side by side with hard copy. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
 

Croix Sinistre

New member
Oct 25, 2009
201
0
0
I say nay for DD. For the same reasons stated above, but mostly because while it may be cheaper to produce the game, sans disc, case, manual, etc. the amount of consumers who are within the ability to purchase it, greatly decreases.

Not everyone has a high speed connection where the can download a couple of gigs in a couple of hours. And worse yet, not everyone even has Internet access to begin with, and even if they did, it wouldn't be their computer or console their accessing it from.

DD may be the way of the future for some content, but not for full fledged video, software or music. While those areas are moving toward it, hard copies will always be around.
 

Lordmarkus

New member
Jun 6, 2009
1,384
0
0
My orange box hard copy has been updated loads of time and it somehow feels better with a wellstocked collection than some names one the screen.

And if the discs gets scratched, then you are just clumsy with them. Either they are in the computer/console or in it's box. Is it a hard rule to follow?
 

Xbowhyena

New member
Jan 26, 2009
335
0
0
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/

http://spiderwebsoftware.com/

Two very good examples of how games should be.
 

Mr. Cyanide

New member
Apr 16, 2009
14
0
0
Hmm, I suppose having a hard copy is nice... But sometimes I just don't have the space, but it depends really, I tend to buy based on price, for example I pre-ordered L4D2 on Steam for about £27, it would have cost me a little more to go out and buy a hard copy, my download speed isn't the best in the world, but that extra time invested saves me a bit of money, right?

I think the only time I will definitely buy a game on a hard copy is when I'm buying a collector's edition, it's nice to show that off :D
 

Supreme Unleaded

New member
Aug 3, 2009
2,291
0
0
tmujir955 said:
The problem with having games on hard copies is pretty obvious: it gets scratched. But did anyone think about the fact that digital distribution could significantly improve the quality of games? Think about it. When a hard copy of a game is put out, it is final. The company does not improve it (except for patches to get the game running well), but other than that, no changes to the actual game play are made. But with digital distribution, companies can freely update their software. For example, “Pocket God”, a game on the IPhone, is a game where you play God for a bunch of little people, and you can kill them in many ways. But the company allows people to suggest to them more ways of killing, and every update has something new added to it. (The game has had 27-ish updates).
Why not make all games like this? It seems only obvious.
How bought this, what if you computer or form of media crashes, there is no way to get back what you got. What if you want to bring the game to a friends house, can't do that either. What if you get hacked.

THe thing about scratched disks is all you need to do if get a disk cleaner on it, and boom its fixed. Thats what i do.

Also having a hard copy is just better becuase it acually feels like you bought something.