Physical Disks Going Away

[KunoMochi]

Screw discs, bring back cartridges! :P

 

SD cards hold way more data in a tiny little package than a disc nowadays anyway. Plus they more durable and less susceptible to heat damage, scratches, and drive failures and have far less of a load time and can also save data on them.

[Vagrant0]

kintaro, thank you for the reminder that the world is a very big place. It's not 0.0005% of humanity in particular need of a social life. Sheesh.

There is a very big difference between having a slow internet connection and having no internet connection. No, most the world does not have a good connection or a good price for that connection. But this is exactly why you should try to be honest with yourself about your geographic situation and how it relates to internet service. Complaining to game companies about your connection or lack of download speed will usually just fall on deaf ears. Their launch model is based around digital distribution platforms for a large variety of reasons, they are not going to change their plan just because a region outside their targeted area does not have reliable internet. Pretty much the only instance where a company even took note of this was regarding the always-online functionality of the Xbox One, and even then it still requires a frequent connection to verify account information to keep working. Complaining to your ISP is more likely to lead to service improvements in your area... But only just barely. It's infrastructure that they need to spend a large amount of money on, so naturally pass on those eventual costs to customers. The reality is that for the most part, unless you can afford to move, you'll have to just deal with the internet connection you have. A 25gb game taking 20-60 hours to download is a shitty situation, but these are still first world problems. Just set it to download overnight, or do it in chunks while you sleep or do other things with your life. It's not an ideal situation, but you will just have to accept it when you go downloading these large games.

 

The 0.0005% is relating to people who are financially well off to afford a gaming computer, have enough leisure time to spend playing computer games, but who live in an area of the world with NO internet connection of any kind because of being geographically isolated from most the world or because of local turmoil. They get 0kb a second, no movies on netflix or even youtube, and, well, are probably doing something more meaningful with their time than taking selfies and playing Pokemon Go. I know this is a very difficult concept to understand.

[JimboUK]

Screw discs, bring back cartridges! :tongue:

 

SD cards hold way more data in a tiny little package than a disc nowadays anyway. Plus they more durable and less susceptible to heat damage, scratches, and drive failures and have far less of a load time and can also save data on them.

 

Rumour has it that the Nintendo's NX will be using SD cards rather than optical media.

[TheMastersSon]

 

kintaro, thank you for the reminder that the world is a very big place. It's not 0.0005% of humanity in particular need of a social life. Sheesh.

There is a very big difference between having a slow internet connection and having no internet connection. No, most the world does not have a good connection or a good price for that connection. But this is exactly why you should try to be honest with yourself about your geographic situation and how it relates to internet service. Complaining to game companies about your connection or lack of download speed will usually just fall on deaf ears. Their launch model is based around digital distribution platforms for a large variety of reasons, they are not going to change their plan just because a region outside their targeted area does not have reliable internet. Pretty much the only instance where a company even took note of this was regarding the always-online functionality of the Xbox One, and even then it still requires a frequent connection to verify account information to keep working. Complaining to your ISP is more likely to lead to service improvements in your area... But only just barely. It's infrastructure that they need to spend a large amount of money on, so naturally pass on those eventual costs to customers. The reality is that for the most part, unless you can afford to move, you'll have to just deal with the internet connection you have. A 25gb game taking 20-60 hours to download is a shitty situation, but these are still first world problems. Just set it to download overnight, or do it in chunks while you sleep or do other things with your life. It's not an ideal situation, but you will just have to accept it when you go downloading these large games.

 

The 0.0005% is relating to people who are financially well off to afford a gaming computer, have enough leisure time to spend playing computer games, but who live in an area of the world with NO internet connection of any kind because of being geographically isolated from most the world or because of local turmoil. They get 0kb a second, no movies on netflix or even youtube, and, well, are probably doing something more meaningful with their time than taking selfies and playing Pokemon Go. I know this is a very difficult concept to understand.

 

You got that right. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, other than claiming that people who live in poor and war-torn countries have more meaningful lives because of no internet access. Apologies in advance if that's incorrect and/or unfair.

 

IME the more meaningful of a life somebody has, the less willing they are to waste 25-60 hours of it downloading a video game, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with their geographical location. Especially when countless other game developers are still providing installable media for their $50 or $60 asking prices.

 

It's awkward (and often worse) debating with a moderator in a forum, my parting shot in this thread is that I stand by my original claim. Software developers who ask $50 or $60 per copy for a video game, or $150 for an OS etc, should at least include a $0.25 disc inside a $1 box.

 

Edit to add one related fact/opinion: boxed media has always been and imo will remain the simplest and most effective way to control software piracy.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[Vagrant0]

You got that right. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, other than claiming that people who live in poor and war-torn countries have more meaningful lives because of no internet access. Apologies in advance if that's incorrect and/or unfair.

 

IME the more meaningful of a life somebody has, the less willing they are to waste 25-60 hours of it downloading a video game, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with their geographical location. Especially when countless other game developers are still providing installable media for their $50 or $60 asking prices.

 

It's awkward (and often worse) debating with a moderator in a forum, my parting shot in this thread is that I stand by my original claim. Software developers who ask $50 or $60 per copy for a video game, or $150 for an OS etc, should at least include a $0.25 disc inside a $1 box.

 

Edit to add one related fact/opinion: boxed media has always been and imo will remain the simplest and most effective way to control software piracy.

 

 

My point is about priorities and value for your time that you have on this planet. No, that person sitting around at a bar for several hours a week is not necessarily having a more meaningful life, but they are doing something with their time that they likely enjoy and which is more practical given their life situation. If you'd rather sit in front of a computer and watch a progress bar for several hours, I suppose that is your choice, but cannot feel that it is a good use of time. What you want is not always what you get, and usually you have to make the best of the situation and just deal with it. Life is not fair and very few things exist for your benefit unless they benefit others more.

 

It may cost $0.25 to print a disc, but that is when you're printing thousands of them. That is also ignoring all the other production costs and shipping costs related to a product. When it comes to those $50-60 games of yesteryear... on average, more than 60% of the retail price was related to shipping and manufacturing costs. That is with bulk orders of tens of thousands of units. Afterall, if you are paying $160 for an OS install Blu-ray, you will probably expect that the physical box have useful things like system requirements, or other infographics in addition to appropriate labeling. These components of the box design has to be: done by an artist, voted on by a board, assembled by another artist, approved by another board, have information that is present in the graphics finalized... Then have the design contracted out to a box company to print the box (after a lengthy selection process regarding box materials, inks being used, country of origin, and distribution networks), have prototypes of the box art approved and signed off by a board (assuming that there is no need for corrections)... And that is only for one language. This is literally dozens of steps, and usually several months of planning just for a box to be produced. The logistics of all this is exactly why it costs so much and why it was previously impossible (or damn near) for indie developers to get anything published. With a large release, this is millions of dollars spent just on the physical media. With the majority of the Western Market moved to a digital distribution model, there is not enough demand for physical copies to make these production costs worthwhile any more. There is a reason why game companies are willing to part with 25-40% of their sale price and give it to Steam to handle the digital distribution and rights management (DRM) side of things instead of try and keep with a physical release model. There is a reason why many brick and mortar stores failed or have had to switch away from software in order to remain in business, even in regions where internet access is poor.

 

As for security... Nope. Physical product is extremely easy to steal and duplicate. This is where software piracy started. All it takes is one person with a large number of disc burners to take a purchased or stolen (stolen from a warehouse or store) product, duplicate the data on it, and sell it out of the back of their van. As business boomed, they formed contacts with other bootleggers, not only to avoid turf conflicts, but also exchange information, exchange software. When bulletin board sites popped up, they gained contacts with others in further reaches and started sending information digitally. This was the birth of IRC channels and Warez sites, where groups would start to compete to see who could release a working duplicated product first. These groups developed further with racing against beating various forms of encryption, drm, or activation. Even these days, physical copies are not secure and are often the first source of a leak before release. Games being swiped from warehouses, delivery trucks being forced off the road, it sounds funny, but this actually has happened. Even after the dust of a new release has settled, stolen game boxes from store shelves are an extremely regular occurrence, even with those annoying plastic boxes and wire cages that retailers use to deter theft. Those stolen game copies are lost money for the retailer, lost money for the publisher, and lost money for the developer. Physical product is far and away less secure, with or without online activation.

 

The digital model just works better for those people who make and sell games. Game companies don't care about how long it took you to download and play their game, they got your money anyway. More over, game companies don't have the responsibility to provide internet connection services. Even in boycotting those games, it is usually reported as lower sales in your region due to other reasons and just makes the game company less likely to even care about supporting your region the next time they release a game. It is a no-win situation on the point of the consumer, so either you let yourself be bothered by it, or you make due.

[TheMastersSon]

As recently as last year I've read of organized campaigns among indie game developers to disconnect PC gaming entirely from the internet, except for multiplayer use. There's absolutely no reason why the traditional distribution method (I pay you X, you send me a box+disc) can't continue to work, except corporate greed. There's also absolutely no reason why consumers who pay for copies of software should be chained to an internet connection before they can actually use it, other than the same corporate greed.

[Signette]

I consider myself pretty much oldschool too, and I have big CD/DVD collection of the old games, but at the same time I think era of phys. disks is over and should go away as main distribution method. There surely must be collectioner editions in box with art books and some other stuff, but not mainstream.

 

Digital distibution is a great thing actually, and I have found my perfect service here: it's GOG. I tend to buy games there as much as I can even if they seem overpriced compared to steam, because it's worth it in any possible way. I get the real game in my possession, not rent deal which depends on some online service, but installer, DRM free, which I can take wherever I want, install on any machine and play at my hearts content not worried about connection and etc. I think services like this are future of gaming and distribution, but sadly megacorps like valve, ubi and ea pushing their services way too aggressively and some of games are forcing you to use their particular services. With Ubi it goes often overboard as if you bought it on steam, you should run and be logged in both steam and uplay at the same time, which is ridiculous.

 

Considering regions with unavialable internet connection, well, that's complicated, because, as said above, distributors cannot take into account every possible case and phys. distribution generally hits the price plus adds to issues. But in any case phys. disks aren't completely out yet, so you can order your games or buy them in markets still. Doubt disks will die off completely one day, it will stay classic I think, just like vinyls in audio.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Signette

[Rodjama]

Isn't it annoying or even infuriating to anyone that video game companies are throwing away the physical disks? Now it's all digital. Paradox hasn't released a single physical disk that I know of, and even Bethesda's Fallout 4 is just a download disk. Without physical copies, you can't just hand the game to a friend or loan it out or sell it when you're done with it, which means that others have to buy the digital version online if they want to play it. I think it's stupid since the digital copies seem to only have one pro: They're easier to buy than physical disks because you can do it on your computer quick and easy, and have the game downloaded within the hour.

 

The physical disks are so much better, though. You can physically see how many games you have, you can share them with friends or resell them if you don't like them, you get the cool box art, and the physical disks are a thousand times easier to play on another computer because unlike the digital ones you don't have to download them all over again.

 

I understand that indie developers and very small game companies can't afford to make their own physical disks, but bigger companies that can, should (in my opinion).

I understand exactly what your saying and FO4 is available in my part of the world on 1 retail DVD disc but the catch is it's only part of the game.. rest has to be downloaded. That is fine IF one has reliable and affordable internet connection, something Bethesda "assumes" PC players have... I use to be very annoyed about this but as an individual, I have no control over it.

 

The move away from optical media like physical disks is just a technology trend in the computer world. Portable USB flash drives have seen the death of optical media like DVD etc. As far as long term storage is concerned though, optical media is still more reliable than data on potentially volatile Nand flash when it comes to archival storage potential

 

"Sharing" games with friends is frowned upon by businesses trying to make money on each and every product they make, and why should your friends get "freebies" of product when the business has put a lot of time and money into bringing the product to market in the first place? They are not running a charity, they're running a business to make money and ultimately end up keeping people employed.

The video game business is like any other business, making money is the name of the game (pardon the pun).

Edited July 26, 2016 by Rodjama

[TheMastersSon]

I've been around long enough that I've seen this copy protection movie played countless times, and put countless major companies out of business either practically or entirely. E.g. Lotus had the spreadsheet market cornered with 123 for many years, until their corporate bean counters (and organized lawyer movements like the BSA etc) pushed hard enough for copy protection to be implemented. And within just a few years 123 was relegated to dontbotherware by the market, because nobody wanted to hassle with its copy protection. Ditto Novell, and their copy protection scheme (tying hard disk controllers to specific Netware installations). They owned a major portion of the corporate networking market until then, and this copy protection was one of the major pushes for Windows at the time. Microsoft was literally giving Windows away at trade shows at the time to gain market share, I saw it first-hand. And no admin in his/her right mind wanted to hassle with Novell's copy protection.

 

My point is, the corporate profit motive is infinite and inexorable. Eventually and without fail, it converts a company from one that's focused on producing new product, to one that spends its time trying to protect its existing and past ones. It marks the starting point of decline for the company, and according to history is one of the most accurate indicators of a dying one.

 

The bottom line has never changed in 30+ years: honest people buy their software, and pirates don't, and nobody ever transitions from one group to the other. So every penny spent on copy protection is therefore a penny flushed directly down the toilet. Or more accurately, put in the pockets of lawyers, who have always been and can only be the only winners in this abject stupidity. If a product is worth buying, most people will. And this is enough to reward the companies who produce it. All else is greed and horseshit imo.

[Vagrant0]

As recently as last year I've read of organized campaigns among indie game developers to disconnect PC gaming entirely from the internet, except for multiplayer use.

Indie developers don't need to use any sort of DRM model. The definition of being an indie developer is that you are not tied to the hip of a AAA publisher to use whatever online or DRM component they have decided on (Origin, R* Social Club, Uplay, ect.). Even in using Steam as a publishing and distribution platform, many indie companies also sell directly through GOG, Humble, or their own site where Steam is not used for anything other than checking for a valid key and updating. In these cases, the application will run fine on its own from the program directory without even starting up Steam (Witcher 3 does this, among many others). This is a decision of the indie developer company itself and how they want to handle sales of their product.

 

Disconnecting entirely from the internet, is technically unrealistic for most indie developers, regardless how they feel about the internet situation... Again, for those matters of producing a physical product which you then have to ship out to thousands of customers world wide. About the closest they could come is by having USB memory sticks or something to sell at conventions, or sending out those sticks to reviewers, as some already have. But this process of preparing this physical media is still fairly expensive, which ultimately means either high prices (people not wanting to pay more than $30 for an indie title) or less money for the indie company.

 

The bottom line here, I think, is that you are looking at things solely from the perspective of how things are now in some parts of the world without considering that as time goes on, internet services will become more widespread and robust in the future. There is no sense trying to try and push inefficient, impractical means of doing something when the alternatives are becoming easier and easier as time goes on. Countries are working towards building up their internet capabilities constantly as more and more businesses are having higher and higher demands for bandwidth overhead and being able to serve their customers and clients.