gaming Buying and collecting games: Digital downloads or physical copies?

[Nas 2,873]

Ever since they've been marketing them publicly in the late 70's, the best way known to buy a video games is the real, physical cartridge or disc bought from retail. The feel of buying the actual game with all of it's data, code, etc., packed into one tiny object that is really easy to store, carry around, and the like. Although, with the digital age of gaming among us, a lot of the our favorite games are only available via download on the online stores of consoles (XBOX Live Arcade, Nintendo eShop, PlayStation Network, App Store, etc.), and on those respective online stores exclusively.

 

While there's no possible way to store Angry Birds like we store all (and possibly most in the coming future) of our games from the past. But, in recent times, with digital downloads of programs, mostly games, becoming more and more popular, corporations have adapted to this, by allowing people to buy digital, convenient versions of games previously only available in retail, onto these online game markets. This will undoubtedly change the way we collect and store our games, if we choose digital over retail.

 

This is an article on Nintendo 3DS Blog, mentioning that Nintendo have decided to make most retail 3DS games alternately available as a download on the 3DS' eShop:

 

http://nintendo3dsbl...digital-release

 

What is your opinion on this? Not just Nintendo, but most popular gaming giants that have been making this decision? Which do you prefer? The traditional feel of walking into a store, and picking up a game, buying it, and checking out? Or do you like having a copy of your favorite game with you at all times?

 

 

My opinions:

 

Retail/physical copy: It's the traditional way, the way it's been since they've sold copies of games in stores sine the late 1970's. I prefer this way because, not only would I hate too see this tradition go extinct in the coming years, but I much favor having the game, and everything with it. The box (video game box art is a wonderful thing; it can say so much about it, and sometimes can be considered art), the manual, any other miscellaneous pamphlets, and of course, the game itself. The cartridge/disc with all the memories inside, whether they are memories already had, or are just waiting to be had.

 

Digital downloads: Yes, while it may be more convenient buying it faster online, while also getting the bonus of not having to change the cartridge/disc out every single time, no fear of losing the game itself, and the ability to have your collection right there, I still don't think it should be the dominant way of buying video games. I think the only games that should be digitally available to download, are games that are made exclusively for their respective online stores and platforms.

 

Verdict: retail/physical copies

Edited May 26, 2012 by One Reliable Gamer (NF160)

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

Without a physical copy, there is no items to collect.

Bytes are meaningless.

Ergo physical.

[Nas 2,873]

Wow....I was so caught up in making the post I forgot to make the poll I was thinking about....

 

EDIT: poll up.

Edited May 26, 2012 by One Reliable Gamer (NF160)

[Starshine 16,333]

I vote physical. You can't sniff the new packaging if you bought it online

 

One of the best part in collecting games is opening the fresh-mint plastic, and sniffing the hell out of the disc (or cartridge)

[Parties like Pinkie 385]

I'm not a huge knowledge base on the subject, but wouldn't digitally downloaded copies NOT work for consoles?

[Starshine 16,333]

I'm not a huge knowledge base on the subject, but wouldn't digitally downloaded copies NOT work for consoles?

 

Those silver-round things we use for playing games in consoles are enchanted by pixies. You can't get any pixie from anywhere other than from the magical gates they had under the games factories. Nah, I'm pretty they used some authorization something in the disc

 

---

 

On the second pool, they will never stop producing the physical copies. Our nerd souls need something physical to latch on. You can't sleep while cuddling your HDD

[Nas 2,873]

I'm not a huge knowledge base on the subject, but wouldn't digitally downloaded copies NOT work for consoles?

 

Digital downloads are another way to buy retail store-bought games. Instead of the actual disc, cartridge, box, case, pamphlet manual, etc., you get a digital file installed to your console. No major flaws have been reported as of now that involve them not working. Since they are transferred to your console like other digital game, though, any simple thing such as a wi-fi connection failure can stop a download, and any stupid, dangerous action such as spamming the power button (lol ), or any other dumb act, can corrupt the data, but it can mostly be redownloaded at full charge.

 

DDs maybe preferred for their convenience, as many games can be stored at once, and you won't have to deal with the hassles of switching the discs out.

[SrFrog 927]

I always prefer the physical copy of a game, mainly because my internet can't handle very large files. Secondly, there is just something special that digital versions can't replicate from actual physical media.

[CUINJALE 120]

I personally feel like physical copies of games - or any sort of media, for that matter - are a waste of space. I'm not particularly sentimental towards collector's editions or mint-in-box things, so it seems to me that the most logical step in the advancement of this technology would be to wipe the physical copies off the map completely.

[Bugz 159]

I'm kinda collector so I like to have physical copies.

 

Also can't get the feeling (and smell) of a new game when you buy digital one.

[Viscra Maelstrom 3,718]

physical is always a good thing, but it feels pretty useless going to the store and buy a game nowadays since it's usually accompanied with always-on DRM as well as, from what i've heard of, it doesn't actually install the game but actually is just another way to register you on their database and then downloads the game for you, even if you have the game in your hand. this is what i've heard of from what happens when you buy recent PC games, but i've heard about Bulletstorm for either the PS3 or the 360 forcing you to get registered unto their database in order for you to play the game.

[LowfatEnvelope 335]

I prefer physical when I can due to the fact that you can actually admire it and if the online service you got the game from goes out, you still have it. Also install speeds are much faster, which is a huge plus imo.

[Killian Jones 2,655]

Retail or Digital?

 

The current system is as follows. You often have the choice to buy a game digitally or go to a store. On both fronts, the game will set you back the same amount of money. 60 dollars for brand new game. Either way, most of these games are then attached to a service (like Battle.net, Origin or Steam) by redeeming the product key. The difference really turns into either being able to pay for the game and perhaps moments laters instantly being able to play it versus having to go out and get it, and receiving a box for it. In this current system it is favourable to simply go retail, as the purchased product evidently is more valuable then the downloadable counterpart. I mean, getting a box and disc is honestly something more then only having the game.

 

While I personally believe this to be a wrong approach to selling games. I am not inclined to buy to buy a downloadable version over the retail version because of this. But if the publishers decide to go with a bit more lenient approach, they could end up raking in a lot more cash for themselves.

 

How do I propose doing this. Make downloadable copies slightly cheaper, perhaps 5 dollars compared to what brick and mortar stores will sell for. Companies don't realize games are an expensive¹ form of entertainment. And digital does offer the ability to make allow this. Digital doesn't require the production of physical materials, only data and energy costs are involved, and these are far smaller then actually shipping stuff to stores and making the bloody discs.

 

Such a new system will change the current system. People who are willing to pay for luxury of having the box will nonetheless choose to do so. I often hear Limited Editions of games end up being sold out simply with pre-orders, so there is a market for gaming paraphernalia out there no matter what.

 

However some customers are likely poorer and would jump at the chance for cheaper games, and it is doubtful that digital distribution costs much more then making and sending the retail copies.

 

But that is my idealization, things aren't like this, yet. Perhaps once the industry learns, everything will be better.

 

---

 

¹ By expensive I mean comparitively to other forms of media entertainment like books and movies. However the cost is understandable considering games only have one sales wave, books have hardcover and paperback, while movies go to theater, then TV, then home release.

 

Games only have one chance to earn their investment back, so it's normal publishers want you to pay that much.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Tich

[MVC NVMXD JVRXD 2,406]

I get all paranoid with discs. If I get them, I always worry I'll scratch it or something. So digital.

[Starshine 16,333]

Oh shucks, Tich's post really made me miss all those good times in the past when you can't download anything to play on your console. That was the greatest moments of collecting games.

 

You can make your own bed out of all those nintendo and sega cartridge

[Nas 2,873]

Oh shucks, Tich's post really made me miss all those good times in the past when you can't download anything to play on your console. That was the greatest moments of collecting games.

 

You can make your own bed out of all those nintendo and sega cartridge

 

I know, right? The actual thing is just the way to go, and it brings back memories, as well as memories yet to be had. And, plus, I'd much rather have these:

 

 

Than this:

 

[Radiance64 7,053]

I prefer physical, and I think they'll always be around, despite the existance of physical downloads.

[BetaWolf 97]

The way I see it, having nothing but downloadable games would be bad for consumers. This gives publishers complete control over the product. We won't be able to borrow games from friends, rent them, or sell them when we're finished. The lack of competition from the used market will keep prices at $59.99 years from their release, rather than dropping to $39.99 or $19.99 a while down the road.

 

The scariest thing about downloadable games is cloud storage, however. What if every developer decides to stop letting customers store data locally? This may happen, as publishers do not trust their most loyal customers. Blizzard is already doing this with Diablo 3. When cloud servers shut down this could render entire legally purchased games inaccessible to the consumer.

 

Give me a cart or disc any day.

[Killian Jones 2,655]

The way I see it, having nothing but downloadable games would be bad for consumers. This gives publishers complete control over the product. We won't be able to borrow games from friends, rent them, or sell them when we're finished. The lack of competition from the used market will keep prices at $59.99 years from their release, rather than dropping to $39.99 or $19.99 a while down the road.

 

The scariest thing about downloadable games is cloud storage, however. What if every developer decides to stop letting customers store data locally? This may happen, as publishers do not trust their most loyal customers. Blizzard is already doing this with Diablo 3. When cloud servers shut down this could render entire legally purchased games inaccessible to the consumer.

 

Give me a cart or disc any day.

 

I'm not saying you are completely wrong, but one thing is misguided and the other is incomplete.

 

Downloadable games give the online retailer a lot of control, like Steam or Origin. In the case of the latter, Origin is owned by EA, a publisher, so there is would be right. On the other hand, there are more impartial online retailers like Gamergate and Good Old Games. The good thing about certain control, is for example version control, as done with games on Steam or Blizzards games. Makes sure everyone is playing the exact same game at all times. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when they revoke privileges. But for single player games, this becomes a non issue. Even though The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is Single Player game, the only issue I would have is when Steam takes away my game.

 

Your second issue is perhaps better. It is true you can't rent away doanloadable games. on the other hand, most PC games from the most recent years use a sort of key redemption method, which often means they lock you out in some way at any rate. So this only really applies to console games, PC games have never been returnable. However your claim that the used games market allows prices to drop is wrong. prices simply drop after initial consumer interest wanes. PC games drop in price. They simply do this because the product has become less valuable and the likelihood that a consumer would buy a 4 year old 60 dollar game as opposed to a new 60 dollar game is hard. Games become old fairly quick, and a lot of people want the most recent thing. But when prices drop, a lot of late consumers would be willing to shell out 30 dollars for a slightly older game. This is merely market movement.

 

Cloud Syncing isn't bad. Cloud only storage for pure single player games is not. For example my Saint Row The Third and Skyrim files sync with the cloud, meaning I can access them from laptop or desktop. which is awesome. And a very nifty feature. I can still play in offline mode, but when I do get online, it will make sure the files are in order. But I feel you are misinterpreting the idea Blizzard had with Diablo III. See back in 2000, Diablo II had single player and Battle.net, your single player characters are stored locally and you can play LAN with friends. But your battle.net characters are purely online, and you have to download them from Battle.net each time you access them. With Diablo III, Blizzard effectively scrapped the entire single player portion and forced everyone to be on the multiplayer no matter what. This was widely told and known, so anyone purchasing had a pretty good idea what they were getting into.

 

While I don't agree with Blizzard's decision to do this, as the old system was fine for people who did not want to participate in a global online community. And these people got duped by that decision and rightfully can be angry when the game fails. It was still Blizzard's decision. Albeit, a bad one.

 

Too bad the industry isn't in a good place right now, technically you don't own a game according to the industry, but you own a licence, a licence they can revoke or alter at their whim. It's not a fun place. But that is a whole other discussion.

[BetaWolf 97]

Yeah, I know the instance with Diablo II. They had Open Battle.net, which allowed you to use your single player characters, and (Closed) Battle.net, which stored your characters on their servers. Open Battle.net ran rampant with people who used character edits and hacked items. Locally stored content gave you access to edit values for your items and characters, allowing you to get your skills and weapons to stats that otherwise weren't possible. You could have, say, 99 for any skill, and items that raised those skills another 99, along with armor that gave you 897 defense. Closed Battle.net was a wonderful option for people who wanted to play games legitimately.

 

There was a point when one could trade PC games. Gamestop did allow this at one point, but stopped when heavier DRM was implemented. Older offline games can be activated any amount of times as long as you have the key and disc. Only one game in recent memory, The Witcher 2, lacks DRM (as of the very first patch released for the game.)

 

Your example with Steam is describing how things are currently. In the future, it might become so that saves are stored exclusively via cloud in order to prevent more savvy users from tampering with data. Tampering with savegames has allowed entire consoles to be hacked, if you look up the Twilight Hack on Wii.

 

What I'm saying is, letting things go digital gives them the power and authority to deny customers access to legal purchases. Even if it's just a license, the thought that the license will be worthless a decade down the road is terrifying. I have a console collection spanning from NES to Wii that amounts to almost 700 games. I can safely say that I'll be able to play them until they physically decay, or the circuitry goes beyond repair. It's not the same case with a Steam account.

[Strafe 594]

I prefer hard copies of my games, but I have to admit that anything non-digital will die out very soon. Look at the music industry, CDs just BARELY exist. I'm sure the same thing will happen for games.

[willinilly 134]

I love my discs and cartridges, but I don't know how long they will continue to exist.

I'm sure that they will endure for quite a while, but eventually they will just be ruled obsolete, at least that's what I expect.

[Typhoid Libby 1,265]

 

No and yes to that.

Go see what are the best sellers on Steam.

 

X-com bundle, I think is still the best selling game forever.

Meaning it is still making "profit" despite being one of the oldest games evar. Games do not have last sale date, only physical copies have.

 

And the reason games are not stocked in retailers is because physical copies take lots of space.

 

If my local would stock copies of ALL the games (Properly compatible for modern systems, of course.) forever, I would go bankrupt trying to get them all. Same as lot of other gamers.

 

Games do not have a last sale date, only physical copies of them because retailers cannot stock them.

Every physical copy that is not sold is a net deficit to a retailer.

And SSD is becoming cheaper and smaller all the time.

All it takes is one company to include a DOSBOX or equivalent emulator with that SSD device and a game and there will be a massive influx of new sales for old games.

 

Any "old game" for about 10-20 dollars in a USB/FireWire/Whatever drive with the original cover art is surprisingly interesting concept for a purchase, no?

 

Especially since all the Software is already there. All it needs is a cheap and small enough physical medium.

I would get this.

[Killian Jones 2,655]

 

Long term profit will only work out so well if a company exists for the long term. For publishers, immediate returns are very important, as immediate returns will likely warrant making sequels and other games as well as mitigating the risks. Many companies will not really care about the long run of their game, they need to turn the profit quickly, additional sales past that are closer to pure profit rather then. I'm thinking of the Kingdoms of Amalur situation. That game may easily see its profit in a year or two. However, 38 Studios right now has pretty much gone bankrupt, unable to return the money to it's investors. So in the short run it doesn't matter for the Amalur IP. It may become the best selling game of all time in 5 years.

 

in terms of brick and mortar stores, they will generally have all of the latest and a section where they still sell some older stuff, even very old stuff. I bought Fable The Lost Chapters this year. For a game that came out many moons ago, I find that slightly impressive. I would just like to point out, that I never said ALL games. And sometimes, stores may have games around off the shelf, which they keep in the back room. not a lot of copies. Not necessarily on shelf space. And it all depends on the size of the store and available shelf space. And it pretty much comes down to arguing semantics. You have to realize that chain stores often can back order stuff or simply have stuff sent over from sister stores in other towns.

 

The last thing you are mentioning is something GoodOldGames has been doing for some games. Selling old games, but making sure they work on newer machines. There are many developers and pulishers out there having gone defunct or lost rights to IP, so often, old gems may get lost. It is also up to some companies, like Nintendo to work on preserving this nostalgia. Digital format here works fine, because it would merely require a proper emulator. All content would be sold digitally decreasing manufacturing costs drastically.

[Discordian 6,015]

Honestly I'm indifferent. As long as developers and publishers don't try that "It's our game you just are renting it to play it so we can do what we want with it whenever we want" kind of crap I have no issues with digital. Digital games are just as much a part of my collection as a physical copy.

 

And as for the people who say "Physical copies are actual items to collect, digital is just bytes and bytes are useless" you do realize that physical games are made with bytes as well, right?

 

The only difference is there's either one individual medium they are collected on or one universal medium they are collected on. That's the only main difference not counting the possible rights issue "Is it my game or your game?"

 

Besides, physical media will likely never die out as long as the world stays the way it is. In countries like the US, England, Japan, Australia, etc. it's easy enough to have the internet to download what you need to but there are many people even within these countries who cannot access the internet and they will lose a lot of business if they go digital only.

 

In the end, as a game collector, I vote that there is no real difference between physical and digital media as long as things are kept as "You can keep the game as long as you want" like...not adding time limits on it or something.

 

I will fully admit, however, it would have been better for consoles to stay how they were in the PS2 era without internet except for the rare few games like Timesplitters.