A lot of negative things have been said about Digital Distribution, and I happen to agree with most of them. Many say that it represents an erosion of consumer rights. You cannot re-sell your digital games. You cannot lend them to another (well, not easily and not without significant risk). If the platform you bought your games on suddenly disappears, so does your right to access them (more than likely). We now stand on the verge of subscription models. This threatens to remove the concept of ownership altogether. Digital Distribution and digital spending can lead to overspending, as I have explored in previous blogs. I agree with all of these criticisms and I’m not here to argue against any of it. In fact, when digital distribution was first put forth, I was bitterly entrenched in this camp. But over time, changes have occurred in the model that has made me far more tolerant and now, on the verge of being in favor of Digital Distribution.
When Digital Distribution began, the dream of publishers was to sell a single copy of a game that could not be shared or re-sold, for $60, for years on end. Well, I’m assuming that was their dream. If I were them, it would have been mine. Luckily, this was a reality that the “market would not bear”, to borrow a common phrase. While they tried to sell the idea that paying $60 for a digital game was worth it for the convenience provided, gamers rightly scoffed at that rubbish and largely ignored them. No, the real momentum behind DD truly began when prices began to fall. Suddenly games could be acquired for prices that saw them transition from being significant investments to now being impulse purchases. The conveniences of owning a legitimate copy of a game for bargain bin prices even converted a few of those pirates on the way.
This fall in game prices was even more significant for me. I do not reside in the United States and as a consequence, I have to import all my games. This means that a game can cost me up to $80 a copy. So even when I get a physical copy for about $20 (which is as low as they usually go,), it still costs me up to $30-40 at a minimum. Now, thanks to Digital Distribution, I can get a game for $5. No shipping, no import duties no nothing. It’s a very welcome financial change.
Many complain about Digital Prices are usually higher than physical prices, especially near launch. The reason for that is simple. Unsold physical copies represent a loss of money spent on inventory that cannot be recouped. The majority of a game’s sales occur in the first few weeks after launch.Hence, retailers are far more motivated to get rid of copies, sometimes even at a loss. It’s better to get back 80% of the money you spent on inventory as opposed to none. Once a retailer buys their physical copies, it’s usually up to them to set a price. It’s not that easy on a digital platform as changes in prices may need publisher approval. None of us really know how prices are set on digital platforms, or how much prices can be altered without publisher approval, but it’s safe to say that retailers have a bit more freedom here. Lastly and obviously, there’s no “stock” to get rid of in digital distribution. You do have to pay for servers and other infrastructure, so those prices do have to eventually come down. At times though, “eventually” can seem to be a very long time.
For the most part, I tend to stick to cheaper prices for digital distribution. As a rule, I don’t really go beyond the $20 price tag. However, as with most rules, there are exceptions. These exceptions, for me, have to do specifically with PSN. The neat thing about PSN is that games can be shared between 2 consoles and between all the profiles on said consoles. This has allowed me to share the cost of purchasing new games with 2 other persons, hence effectively making the price of admission $20 each. That’s not bad at all. It also means that games that allow for co-op play don’t need to be purchased by us in duplicate (to the tune of $120 + taxes+shipping). This is something which is something we have done before. For these reasons, if I intend to buy a game at full retail price, PSN is my platform of choice and only for very specific cicumstances.
The statement that digital games cannot be re-sold is not entirely true though. It can be done, but not in any convenient way. It is possible, to purchase every game on a separate account and then re-sell the game, account and all, once you’re ready. I’ve actually done this before and though it carries significant risk, like if the seller reclaims his account, I haven’t had any real issues thus far. Well, apart from it being a huge pain to keep track of all those accounts and passwords.
Prior to this generation of consoles, I fluctuated between digital and physical copies of games depending on the genre and the costs of each. Now though, I am on the verge of going all digital, something I would never considered five years ago, not even for a second. The reason is twofold. Firstly, I spend a lot of time at work and I'm not at home a lot. This brings me to my second reason for going all digital - Remote Play.
When the current generation of consoles were released, my brother told me of his intention to buy a PS4 at launch. I sat down and explained why buying a console in the first year makes little sense. Two weeks later, he bought it anyway. Two weeks after that, I had to sit down and listen to his buyer's remorse. Kids today. Anyway, I already owned a Vita, so I decided to give remote play a try. I must say, I was impressed by how well it worked. It even convinced me to get a $50 PSTV and now I play ps4 at home and on the go without even owning one. While the Vita itself has a very decent library, the annexing of the PS4 library makes it an incredible device for me. Not everyone would have the means to utilize it in the way that I do, as some fairly high internet speeds are required to have a relatively smooth experience. Still, I’m glad that these two devices exist. Of course the main obstacle for me is the changing of disks. That’s not easy to do remotely. This finally brings me to the reason for going all digital. With a decent hard drive upgrade and an all- digital library, I should be free and easy right? Well that's what I thought but all of a sudden we have game patches that are larger than the hard drives that the previous gen hardware launched with. The publisher giveth and the publisher taketh away. Games themselves have also ballooned in size, but that's a bit more forgivable. At any rate, space is an issue, but a digital library is still far more convenient for me.
Of course the next step in the digital revolution takes the form of games as a subscription. We have already had the early casualties in the form of Onlive which never really got the publisher support needed to be successful. I think they just launched too early. They were ahead of their time and burnt through their money as a consequence. The situation reminded of the Dreamcast, which tried to pioneer online gaming but found that the supporting technology wasn't all there. Of course Onlive was recently acquired by Sony who now, with their PSNow service, leads the game subscription. ..eerm...game. They've also locked up a lot of the existing patents for this industry, which I am less enthused about. Monopolies tend not to be good for anyone, and I really can't see publishers rushing to help create one. Cornering the patents in this sector may not work out as well as Sony might expect.
While the subscription model does solve my hard drive problem, not residing in the USA probably means that it would never really work for me. The major issue that many bring up is that it goes even further in the process of eroding consumer rights. If games are launched exclusively on platforms like these, any form of true ownership is gone. Access to games could be forever locked behind a monthly fee. If it spreads to the PC platform, then you can kiss all your mods goodbye. This is where I draw the line - kinda. I don't mind the existence of subscription models as an option. In fact, if priced attractively, it could be a good way to preview or rent games. It's the prospect of games being forever locked behind these paywalls that worries me.
While I’ve grown to love Digital Distribution, that love isn’t unconditional. There are limits, and I still cannot come to terms with the total abandonment of the concept of ownership that seems to be inherent in the subscription model. Many of us have embraced the subscription model for our movies and Tv shows, due to the reasonable prices involved, but prices alone are not the issue here. It’s the prospect of never being able to make our own mods that really bothers me. While I welcome more options in the way games are distributed, I hope that this is what subscriptions become – one of MANY options via which I can enjoy my games.
With more reasons than ever to get back onto the field, MLB The Show 24 hits a home run!
Xbox's handling of the marketing for Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 is casting a huge doubt over the future of its developer, Ninja Theory.
They should be worried. They we told they were free to be creative to dev. a walking sim, and now Phil and the Lady are walking that back.
The lack of worldwide availability of Arrowhead Studios' Helldivers 2 on Steam is due to restrictions from PlayStation, not Valve.
To be clear though, Steam does not restrict use of their platform in any country. So, to say that Sony delisted games in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and other similar regions is disingenuous. The taliban doesn't allow video games in Afghanistan.
There are many restrictions in many countries. Painting this as a false dichotomy of Sony or Valve ignores all other layers of what is going on.
Just be honest in your journalism about what countries are left out. Those countries should a) have internet access b) allow the game.
There's literally almost 170 countries and mentioned 3, and Taliban banned PUBG only, do you seriously think that these countries that had games all this time, suddenly decided to ban games when Sony wanted to put PSN as a restriction
Sony would be stupid to let valve run the show. They would be bad at business if they did that.
I switched to digital a long time ago but it was because of the convenience haha. I just buy games and play them.
It won't catch on with me.
I like to own the games I buy.
I will eventually get a PS4, but I'll most likely never buy console DLC again, ever because now as long as I want to play PS4/One games online, I'll need a subscription to do so and that's not acceptable to me.
It is a mixture for me. I have a pretty good collection of games from pc, ps1 2 3 and 4. Xbox x360 xbone. Gc wii and wii u. I now keep all the consoles. I have a decent collection of paid digital games too, not including psplus and Gold.
I mentioned before that if I were to go all digital the system will have to be legislated. That purchased licenses must be accessible for pretty much forever. I do not think it possible while gaming on console as each new console changes even little things that are coded. But when we go all streaming, which we will eventually, I don't want to spend hundreds just to have it turn into vapor. If that is the case I will play mostly retro games which will include ps3 and such by then
I was seriously waiting for someone to use the old Strangelove title for gaming.