So here’s my take: I never want to play a game with other people unless we’re sitting on the same couch. Because of that, I have no need for any of my systems to be permanently connected to the internet. The requirement for always-online systems is just ridiculous. The full game should be on the disk, and the only time I should need an internet connection is to download DLC or if the dev team releases a patch that addresses major issues or improves the gameplay experience.
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
103 points (96.4% liked)
Games
16851 readers
658 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yup, I'm the same way. The only reason our Switch is connected to the internet is for game patches, and we get so few of them that we probably don't need it.
"Physical games" that dont run until patched with 5 day one patches because the game needed to be shipped with something.
Or you get a code lol
back in the 360/Wii days you could often download and install updates from a disc or USB stick since they still had to be digitally signed anyway.
Not an ideal solution but still no reason why we couldn't still do that to have offline copies of updates for preservation
Mainly because only a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage (physical media buyers) of the user base would do that so it is not worth developing a solution for it.
Rip the base game + patches in a zip rather than the bare CD for preservation...
Right now the CDs are basically plastic waste inside more waste, sealed inside more waste.
The problem with that approach is that the authentic disc is effectively used as your licence at the moment. There wouldn't be any effective way to stop piracy with offline zip files
What even are physical games in this day and age? Sure, you can buy a disk but if you still need to download a zero day patch that takes approximately a buttload of time to finish before you can actually start playing, then it isn't a physical game. Don't even get me started on Nintendo's links in a box. Perhaps we should start calling them physical DRM.
This is also about the second hand market.
Eh, Nintendo games are still pretty complete on the cartridge.
But the real value of physical games is that you can resell them. So even if they're essentially just "links in a box," you can still sell/loan that to someone else and they can play. You can't do that with digital-only media.
You can if it's DRM-free.
Not legally AFAIK.
weren't there a few titles where the disc was effectively nothing and the whole game just downloads anyway?
Honestly makes sense since you can then produce the boxes much earlier and ship them and go through all that physical distribution nonsense without worrying about patching from whatever is on disk to the actual finished product. Especially since I bet physical gamers want the game on day one too.
Call of Duty was one of them. Disc contained less than 100mb of data. You still had to download the entire game. If you bought it to only play a campaign offline, too bad.
Yeah seriously, physical media has been dead for awhile now. Last time I bought a physical game was 2008 (The Orange Box).
I understand why people are upset, but it's time to move on. If the server that is hosting the zero day patches shuts down, then your physical copy is as useful as a brick anyway.
I'm sure not many people care about physical vs digital per se. It's the arbitrary locks by servers, digital storefront, DRM etc. So that when you pay your money you have no idea what you are getting and what your rights are. Physical game media was a simpler time from that perspective (play in perpetuity, don't redistribute, cool cool that seems like a fair trade) and resulted in better pricing and experience for consumers.
I'd accept "move on" if the argument was just "muh pretty box" (god knows there are plenty of ways to buy pretty boxes of vidya IP) but consumer rights are surely worth fighting for, or we get needlessly bled for ever more dollars.
Yeah, the fact that everyone's fighting for physical media instead of DRM-free makes me skeptical that the argument is anything more than muh pretty box
Couldn't find a good primary source to dig into it. But from Ipsos:
"I believe the preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers reflects the potential value they derive from the pre-owned market," commented Ipsos director Ian Bramley to MCV, "which is holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets."
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/64-percent-prefer-physical-media-to-digital-distribution
I'm sure there's a lot of generational and market segment differences. I never really understood "collecting" games. But I guess people do that in digital too with their huge steam sale backlogs!
I don't have an Xbox, but on my Switch I can play the game without updating the game. I may not be able to utilize any online features, but if that server is gone I wouldn't be using them anyway.
Nintendo is a major exception to everything. This is about PC, XBOX and Playstation.
They will definitely be forgotten sadly.
Zero way they haven't already been forgotten. Microsoft wants everything online all the time now
A digital only storefront will be the end of gaming. We already saw it with the Vita.
People go to a store to buy the hardware:
"Wait, why aren't there any games?"
Well, it won't be the end of gaming, but maybe the end of console gaming. Why buy a console when you can get a wider selection of games with a PC?
This would make sense if Steam didn't exist and is arguably the most consumer friendly of the storefronts
And if people weren't increasingly choosing to not shop in brick & mortar stores anyway. The big high street game retailer in my country has mostly transitioned to being a nerd-culture merch shop rather than somewhere that actually stocks any games other than the Sims, CoD or EAFC.
I won't spend top dollar on digital games. I'm giving up a lot, so I demand lower prices.
I'm curious what the split is on new games though. I know there's a 90% digital metric that gets thrown around. But I think that's a lot of cheaper games and sales. I want to know what the split is on full priced games.
A lot of digital games can be sold for a cheaper "full price" than physical ones ever could though because of the inherent costs of the inefficient physical distribution network.
That's a good point. I haven't bought a physical game for a few years now and I'm certainly not buying anything digital close to full price. The majority is probably under £10.
Steam deck is digital only and is selling like hot cakes.
Steamdecks aren't dependent on physical stores to sell hardware.
That was true last generation of consoles but nowadays I suspect it is very different.
Amiibo have entered the chat