Would You Consider a Disc-Free Console?

Etherton said:
Shrugs, my PC has been disc'less for a few years now. Seems to be working out...
Click to expand...


I turned my LG GGW-H20L HDDVD/Blu-ray drive into a Esata device and I just used it to rip some CDs for the first time in 8 years lol
 
Last edited:
On a side-note - Yes, I do prefer my disc free console, the switch. Assuming we do hopefully stick with physical media for future consoles they should just switch to cheap micro-sd based cards like the Switch uses. Smaller, and much faster read rates.
 
Sonicks said:
It's not just the hardware they'd save on. There would be no distribution of physical media to speak of. No disc, no plastic casing, no shipping.

I think it's a bad idea for consoles to go digital only though.
Click to expand...

Well I did say hardware costs. For the Manufacturers Sony and MS the costs of including a drive are extremely low. The power supply doesn't need to really change to support them considering the current gen of hardwares power needs... and the costs on the drives are a very small % of the overall cost.

As for game publishers in most cases they don't really offer any sort of discount for the digital versions... so they are sort of saying the cost of media is negligible.

For the largest publishers its true the costs of media is very low... they spend more pushing retail chain promotions then they do on packaging.

In the PC world of gaming we do see nice discounts for Digital downloads at least from Steam anyway. For console gamers I don't think they have ever had any of those "savings" on physical media passed on to them. More likely to get a deal in a Wal mart bin then see a company like EA discount a digital download.

I believe we agree... when they go all digital as they likely will it won't be a good thing for consumers. None of those major publishers are passing any actual savings they may see on to us. They win... and I guess so do our ISPs. :)
 
I tend to play a lot of classic games, or at least replay games long after their release. For that reason I prefer having the carts/discs.

Out of convenience I purchased a party game via Nintendo's online store. (Super Smash Bros WiiU) It was fun for a few days, but then we were pretty much done with it. It would have been better to purchase the disc and then sell it to recoup some of the cost. It was a $70 game after all. However, instead it is permanently associated with my account and hasn't been touched for months.

Another angle: I purchased Super Mario Maker on my account since I knew I would never want to get rid of it. It's one of my favourite games, but there might be no future in this game. The game is very dependent on an online service for sharing levels, and the system for hosting those levels is based on quality/popularity. Perhaps in the distant future, those servers shut down. The game is designed to be an online, transient game with no significant content to populate a disc, thus I felt I had no reason to purchase the disc.

Consider Nintendo WFC (Wi-fi Connection) which was shut down years ago. Any online features are now dead for hundreds of games. It's no huge loss since they are much better played via local wifi, but future service shutdowns will have a more significant impact.
 
Mchart said:
On a side-note - Yes, I do prefer my disc free console, the switch. Assuming we do hopefully stick with physical media for future consoles they should just switch to cheap micro-sd based cards like the Switch uses. Smaller, and much faster read rates.
Click to expand...

Even though the news post says disc, I think it's pretty safe to say meaning was a console that could not accept physical media. The Switch isn't any different than anything else in that regard.

I think it's pretty safe to say though, that even if the next generations of consoles aren't ready to ditch physical media, you're not going to see a return to cartridges. The Switch did it out of necessity, that's the only way for it to be portable. There's already a number of sources talking down on the cost of manufacturing Switch carts. I have no idea what the actual cost to manufacture these things is, but when when a 32GB SD card retails for $10-$15, where as a 25GB BD-R retails for 50 cents (in bulk) and a 50GB BD-R DL goes for around $2 (again, in bulk), it's pretty obvious that there is is a substantial difference in cost going on. You're talking a very meaningful amount of money, especially considering popular titles would be produced in the hundreds of thousands, up into the millions. You can bet that publishers would be happy to pass that additional expense onto you (and I believe in the case of a few mutli-platform titles, they already have, commanding an extra $10 for the Switch version). Not trying to derail this thread, but don't get your hopes up for a return to home consoles using cartridges. Never going to happen.
 
Viper87227 said:
Even though the news post says disc, I think it's pretty safe to say meaning was a console that could not accept physical media. The Switch isn't any different than anything else in that regard.

I think it's pretty safe to say though, that even if the next generations of consoles aren't ready to ditch physical media, you're not going to see a return to cartridges. The Switch did it out of necessity, that's the only way for it to be portable. There's already a number of sources talking down on the cost of manufacturing Switch carts. I have no idea what the actual cost to manufacture these things is, but when when a 32GB SD card retails for $10-$15, where as a 25GB BD-R retails for 50 cents (in bulk) and a 50GB BD-R DL goes for around $2 (again, in bulk), it's pretty obvious that there is is a substantial difference in cost going on. You're talking a very meaningful amount of money, especially considering popular titles would be produced in the hundreds of thousands, up into the millions. You can bet that publishers would be happy to pass that additional expense onto you (and I believe in the case of a few mutli-platform titles, they already have, commanding an extra $10 for the Switch version). Not trying to derail this thread, but don't get your hopes up for a return to home consoles using cartridges. Never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I'll never touch another console when they make that choice. I'll stick purely to PC / Nintendo. I think Nintendo is the only one playing the long-game here smartly and will be the only guys left making true 'consoles' when everything is said and done. Microsoft w/ Windows 10 has already shown that the Xbox moving forward is just a cheap PC, and from everything made public about Sony I really don't see the PlayStation existing as anything more than a cheap entertainment PC down the road as well.
 
Mchart said:
Which is exactly why I'll never touch another console when they make that choice. I'll stick purely to PC / Nintendo. I think Nintendo is the only one playing the long-game here smartly and will be the only guys left making true 'consoles' when everything is said and done. Microsoft w/ Windows 10 has already shown that the Xbox moving forward is just a cheap PC, and from everything made public about Sony I really don't see the PlayStation existing as anything more than a cheap entertainment PC down the road as well.
Click to expand...

Man, I see the complete opposite. Physical media is on the decline no matter what. I'm sure consoles will hang onto disc drives for a while, but it's really to save face with those who are convinced that the ability to sell their games is some great value. Digital games don't get lost, they don't get scratched, they don't get borrowed and never returned. No slow, noisy drives. In the current market, physical media is an afterthought. But the notion of overlooking a console, or basing it's ability to succeed on the market on whether or not it uses cartridges over discs seems odd to me.

Where I definitely don't agree is that Nintendo is the only one playing smart. I'd say the exact opposite. I think the last truly good, successful Nintendo console was the N64. Even though it couldn't keep up with the behemoth that was the PS1, it sold well and was generally well received. By the following generation, the gimmick cycle started. The Xbox outsold the Gamecube, despite many people considering Microsoft an unwelcome addition to the console space. It looked like a toy. It felt like a toy. It was inferior in every way to the Xbox and PS2, and was nothing more than a necessary conduit to Nintendo's first party library. It was the beginning of Nintendo's third-party exodus. The following generation was an interesting one. Obviously the Wii sold incredibly well, having outsold both it's rivals. But I don't view it as as success. It was a gimmick. It's software library is probably the worst of any console, ever. It had some great first party titles, but the crap that was spewed out by every other publisher is an embarrassment. Nobody else was willing to make real games for the Wii. What ended up happening is everyone under the sun bought a Wii because it was a new idea. And then they played a few rounds of Wii Bowling and let it collect dust. Just about every friend and family member I had bought a Wii. Almost all of them played it for a few hours, and then regretted it. The only group it seemed to see sustained use with was youngsters, because shitty Barbie games appeal to them just fine. I firmly believe that the Wii U's failure was largely due to people having the opinion that they didn't want to get burned by Nintendo again, they didn't want another dust collector once the first-party content ran dry. I have a Wii U, and I like a lot of the games that Nintendo released for it, but I resent having to own it to play a handful of first party titles, and if it can't be played like a traditional console with the pro controller, I want nothing to do with it. In the end, I still consider the Wii U a gimmick console like the Wii before it. The Switch feels like more of the same to me. Not good enough to be a home console, not convenient enough to be a portable, but the only option if you want to play Nintendo's library.

As far as the other console teams not sticking around, I really can't see why you'd think that. Console gaming still rules the roost, and it grows in popularity every day. I believe the Xbox One is sitting somewhere around 26 million in sales? Interesting that in todays market that's considered poor, when a generation or two back, that would have been considered pretty good for a 2.5 year old console. And with the PS4 having sold double, it's well on it's way to being one of the most successful consoles ever released. Generally speaking, the PS4 has been regarded very highly, and Microsoft has really come around (and I think will continue to win people's favor as time goes by and scorpio releases). Nothing I've seen lately leads me to believe either company will have any difficulty releasing another round of consoles. Being a "cheap entertainment PC" is part of what contributes to their value. Developer support is better than ever with the current architecture. Hardware costs are very reasonable. Most gamers (read: not the sort who generally post here) prefer consoles to PCs. Much less expensive and more user friendly. Mark my words, traditional game consoles will remain the primary platform for video games, for as long as video games as we know them exist.
 
Viper87227 said:
Man, I see the complete opposite. Physical media is on the decline no matter what. I'm sure consoles will hang onto disc drives for a while, but it's really to save face with those who are convinced that the ability to sell their games is some great value. Digital games don't get lost, they don't get scratched, they don't get borrowed and never returned. No slow, noisy drives. In the current market, physical media is an afterthought. But the notion of overlooking a console, or basing it's ability to succeed on the market on whether or not it uses cartridges over discs seems odd to me.

Where I definitely don't agree is that Nintendo is the only one playing smart. I'd say the exact opposite. I think the last truly good, successful Nintendo console was the N64. Even though it couldn't keep up with the behemoth that was the PS1, it sold well and was generally well received. By the following generation, the gimmick cycle started. The Xbox outsold the Gamecube, despite many people considering Microsoft an unwelcome addition to the console space. It looked like a toy. It felt like a toy. It was inferior in every way to the Xbox and PS2, and was nothing more than a necessary conduit to Nintendo's first party library. It was the beginning of Nintendo's third-party exodus. The following generation was an interesting one. Obviously the Wii sold incredibly well, having outsold both it's rivals. But I don't view it as as success. It was a gimmick. It's software library is probably the worst of any console, ever. It had some great first party titles, but the crap that was spewed out by every other publisher is an embarrassment. Nobody else was willing to make real games for the Wii. What ended up happening is everyone under the sun bought a Wii because it was a new idea. And then they played a few rounds of Wii Bowling and let it collect dust. Just about every friend and family member I had bought a Wii. Almost all of them played it for a few hours, and then regretted it. The only group it seemed to see sustained use with was youngsters, because shitty Barbie games appeal to them just fine. I firmly believe that the Wii U's failure was largely due to people having the opinion that they didn't want to get burned by Nintendo again, they didn't want another dust collector once the first-party content ran dry. I have a Wii U, and I like a lot of the games that Nintendo released for it, but I resent having to own it to play a handful of first party titles, and if it can't be played like a traditional console with the pro controller, I want nothing to do with it. In the end, I still consider the Wii U a gimmick console like the Wii before it. The Switch feels like more of the same to me. Not good enough to be a home console, not convenient enough to be a portable, but the only option if you want to play Nintendo's library.

As far as the other console teams not sticking around, I really can't see why you'd think that. Console gaming still rules the roost, and it grows in popularity every day. I believe the Xbox One is sitting somewhere around 26 million in sales? Interesting that in todays market that's considered poor, when a generation or two back, that would have been considered pretty good for a 2.5 year old console. And with the PS4 having sold double, it's well on it's way to being one of the most successful consoles ever released. Generally speaking, the PS4 has been regarded very highly, and Microsoft has really come around (and I think will continue to win people's favor as time goes by and scorpio releases). Nothing I've seen lately leads me to believe either company will have any difficulty releasing another round of consoles. Being a "cheap entertainment PC" is part of what contributes to their value. Developer support is better than ever with the current architecture. Hardware costs are very reasonable. Most gamers (read: not the sort who generally post here) prefer consoles to PCs. Much less expensive and more user friendly. Mark my words, traditional game consoles will remain the primary platform for video games, for as long as video games as we know them exist.
Click to expand...

Never said they sold poor. What I said is that with Microsoft allowing Xbox titles on Windows and essentially merging Windows/Xbox the Xbox has basically become a cheap computer. Microsoft/Sony traditionally loose money on hardware sales, and Microsoft is resolving this issue by slowly integrating their platforms into one. They'll no longer have to worry about developing hardware, but still make bank off of Windows Store type of sales for exclusives. Windows 10 is the first step in moving the platform towards consumption / profits.

Sony just bleeds money, and I can't imagine they'll keep making hardware at a certain point.
 
Mchart said:
Never said they sold poor. What I said is that with Microsoft allowing Xbox titles on Windows and essentially merging Windows/Xbox the Xbox has basically become a cheap computer.
Click to expand...

They're all cheap computers by design, but a handful of titles under the play anywhere branding hardly changes the landscape for console gaming. Quite honestly, I think it's brilliant. I like being able to fire up Forza on either my PC or TV easily. And most console games are on PC anyway, you just have to chose one copy or the other. That really doesn't change the home consoles market in any way. For the $250 price tag that a PS4 or XB1 run you, you couldn't come close trying to build a dedicated TV gaming PC. An OEM won't be able to, and you wouldn't be able to build one (not that your average console gamer wants to bother with building a PC anyway). It's a different market. Both have their place in the world, and will continue to exist for a long time... all without having cartridge based games.
 
Viper87227 said:
They're all cheap computers by design, but a handful of titles under the play anywhere branding hardly changes the landscape for console gaming. Quite honestly, I think it's brilliant. I like being able to fire up Forza on either my PC or TV easily. And most console games are on PC anyway, you just have to chose one copy or the other. That really doesn't change the home consoles market in any way. For the $250 price tag that a PS4 or XB1 run you, you couldn't come close trying to build a dedicated TV gaming PC. An OEM won't be able to, and you wouldn't be able to build one (not that your average console gamer wants to bother with building a PC anyway). It's a different market. Both have their place in the world, and will continue to exist for a long time... all without having cartridge based games.
Click to expand...

Which means $60+ games as there is absolutely no competition on the Xbox/PS4 digital stores. It's a captive audience. Trust me when I say getting rid of physical media will only make pricing worse on consoles. At least you can resell physical games right now, and publishers are forced to drop digital prices to match retail when they have overstock of certain titles.

This is not like the PC market where there are plenty of different online stores all competing for your digital purchase via Steam/Origin/humble/etc. The deals will be near to non-existent and worse then they are now on consoles once they remove physical media. Publishers can't fucking wait for it. This is not something that will benefit the consumer, and you're insane for wanting it.

I really don't think you are looking at the full picture here. Unfortunately the next Xbox/PS generation will likely go digital only unless the Gamestop/Retail folks manage to strongarm Microsoft/Sony again. As much as people want to hate on Gamestop you can thank them for likely pressuring them to keep the current generation w/ physical media that could be resold.

And frankly it's laughable that anyone would think publishers would pass on the savings to consumers already used to paying $60 when they completely drop physical media. Again - There is absolutely no competition with digital sales on consoles. When the PS5 and XBONE squared come out and they completely drop physical media you will be forced to pay whatever insane price the publisher wants you to pay on the only area you can buy it from on your consumption device. I would argue that when this happens that building a PC may in the long run end up being cheaper then that $400 brand new at release console because AAA console games will rarely, if ever, see sales within the first year. So unless you are willing to wait two years after a game release to pick it up for $40 vs. $60 they'll be gouging you hard on consoles.

Meanwhile, a PC just as capable might cost $800 vs. $400, but you'll be able to pickup games during sales for $10-$20 sometimes even 6 months after release like you already can.

TLDR - The value of consoles will be greatly diminished when physical media is dropped, and no one besides shareholders of these companies should be wanting that.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
Which means $60+ games as there is absolutely no competition on the Xbox/PS4 digital stores. It's a captive audience. Trust me when I say getting rid of physical media will only make pricing worse on consoles. At least you can resell physical games right now, and publishers are forced to drop digital prices to match retail when they have overstock of certain titles.

This is not like the PC market where there are plenty of different online stores all competing for your digital purchase via Steam/Origin/humble/etc. The deals will be near to non-existent and worse then they are now on consoles once they remove physical media. Publishers can't fucking wait for it. This is not something that will benefit the consumer, and you're insane for wanting it.

I really don't think you are looking at the full picture here. Unfortunately the next Xbox/PS generation will likely go digital only unless the Gamestop/Retail folks manage to strongarm Microsoft/Sony again. As much as people want to hate on Gamestop you can thank them for likely pressuring them to keep the current generation w/ physical media that could be resold.

And frankly it's laughable that anyone would think publishers would pass on the savings to consumers already used to paying $60 when they completely drop physical media. Again - There is absolutely no competition with digital sales on consoles. When the PS5 and XBONE squared come out and they completely drop physical media you will be forced to pay whatever insane price the publisher wants you to pay on the only area you can buy it from on your consumption device. I would argue that when this happens that building a PC may in the long run end up being cheaper then that $400 brand new at release console because AAA console games will rarely, if ever, see sales within the first year. So unless you are willing to wait two years after a game release to pick it up for $40 vs. $60 they'll be gouging you hard on consoles.

Meanwhile, a PC just as capable might cost $800 vs. $400, but you'll be able to pickup games during sales for $10-$20 sometimes even 6 months after release like you already can.

TLDR - The value of consoles will be greatly diminished when physical media is dropped, and no one besides shareholders of these companies should be wanting that.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, digital games don't fall in price the way their physical counterparts do. This doesn't necessarily bother me. I view console games the same way I do PC games. If it's something I really want, I'll pay full price, in which case it's $60 whether I get it physically or digitally. If I deem the game worthy of another price... I'll wait. I typically don't care how long that wait is. Eventually, everything ends up the price I'm willing to pay. That happens a little faster on PC because of Steam's sales, but that doesn't matter to me. Bottom line is, if you want to pay less, wait. I've already accepted that my wait will be longer if I want it digitally. I'm good with that.

As far as your other points, you're fighting claims I've not made. I never said I want digital-only consoles. I said I don't care. Every console I own from this current generation on, is digital only (to me). I don't give a shit if physical media is supported or not. It does not affect me. I also never claimed that publishers would pass the cost savings onto consumers. I don't expect it, nor do I see a reason to. Honestly, I'm surprised games have stayed at the $60 price tag they have over the past 12 years, given the rising cost of game development, never mind plain old inflation. The only mention I ever made of cost was that there are a select few Switch games that cost more than their multi-platform counterparts, with speculation lying in the additional cost of packing a game on a flash card. Which is where all this started anyway... was the notion that any console not using a flash card isn't worth your consideration.

But I digress, enjoy your Nintendo consoles. The Wii U was my last one, and I look forward to the day that people stop buying Nintendo consoles. Mario could be pretty rad on PS5 or whatever the hell the next Xbox might be named.
 
Aireoth said:
You know it'll happen.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Its already happened. Haven't you heard of "cloud" software? You know... the kind that has absolutely zero benifit from having a requirment to be be online (aka phone home) to function!

Disgraceful rent seeking developers.
 
I do like the idea of having no physical copies, I do like the idea of having the consumer decide if they want a disc-less version , or maybe modularize the thing
 
There is nothing to consider... Its already here.. discs now a days are not discs as it was for ps1 or 2 for example.
 
I haven't bought a disc for several years now. All over the internet now.
 
Only if the console allows for easy upgrade of the internal hard drive. Like the PS4. Xbox One, they can fuck off in that regard. I don't want a stupid external, I want to be able to replace my internal.

But at the same time, it is nice to have the disc, since the value may increase with time. I've got Beatmania games worth 3-4 times it's original price.
 
Mchart said:
When the PS5 and XBONE squared come out and they completely drop physical media you will be forced to pay whatever insane price the publisher wants you to pay on the only area you can buy it from on your consumption device. I would argue that when this happens that building a PC may in the long run end up being cheaper then that $400 brand new at release console because AAA console games will rarely, if ever, see sales within the first year. So unless you are willing to wait two years after a game release to pick it up for $40 vs. $60 they'll be gouging you hard on consoles.

Meanwhile, a PC just as capable might cost $800 vs. $400, but you'll be able to pickup games during sales for $10-$20 sometimes even 6 months after release like you already can.
Click to expand...
QFT. Anyone who think gaming on consoles are cheaper just isn't paying attention. Some games the price drop can be more like 3 months. I only buy during sales now and it's never been cheaper. It's cheaper to buy games now than it was in the "good old days" and that's WITHOUT inflation.
 
I have used my XBOX One optical drive once to see if it worked. I do all digital download as I have on the PC for years... I don't sell my games, so I don't care. I don't have to store the media and the games are tied to my account, so I can just re-download if I need to.

It is hard to justify removing it since for some, having a bonus BD player is nice. I have a standalone BD player, do it doesn't matter to me though.
 
Megalith said:
Microsoft has finally admitted that its plan for letting game publishers limit the resale of used, disc-based games on the Xbox One was a terrible idea. At some point, Microsoft even thought about making the console disc-free, for some pretty obvious reasons. Going disc-free would invite a number of cons, such as increased publisher control and requirement for fast Internet, but some are wondering whether it could be a good idea for companies to release digital-only versions of their consoles.

With one less bulky moving part contributing to production costs (not to mention reliability issues/support costs), the disc-free versions of these consoles could probably sell for considerably less than their disc-bound counterparts (a decent PC Blu-Ray drive currently costs around $50 or more, for some context). Console makers might be willing to lower the hardware's selling price even further for the benefit of locking players into their online store, where sales don't go through a retail middleman (and where the royalty-free resale of used games, which some publishers compare to piracy, doesn't exist). The lower hardware-production costs could alternatively be folded into more built-in storage for the disc-free system, to store all of those big downloads.
Click to expand...


These kind of 'clever to the board of directors' ideas are why I like to buy from a 3rd party online retailer like Steam and won't buy direct. It puts someone with some weight between me and them.
 
Sonicks said:
Some is better than none.

Three decades later, the NES still works with its carts.

In three decades any and all digital purchases on an Xbox One will not function and will essentially be worthless. That's the type of 'ownership' he is speaking to. And this is using an existing console as an example.

In the future, if a console is released without a disc drive, there is no stopping the company that created it from giving a true End-of-life on the purchases made on it. For example, MS Releases the Xbox Two in 2020 as an all digital console. In 2026 when they release the Xbox Three, they decide they want people to move so they say all your digital purchases on the Xbox Two will work on the Xbox Three but only if you on the Xbox Three but not the Xbox Two. Essentially forcing you to buy into their new hardware if you want your existing money spend to have meant anything.

All digital gives them all the control they ever wanted and they have you hook line and sinker.

Keep physical media alive for ALL consoles.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a person who must not own a console and is talking out their ass.

If you buy a digital game on the Xbox one they will work 30 years from now just like they do today assuming your xbox still works. The way the system works is you have a home Xbox, this is whatever is considered your main system. Any game that you purchase is able to be accessed on that system without being on the internet. So any games that are on there should still work 30 years from now as it doesn't need to be online. You only need to be online for digital games if you are playing on a secondary console that you log into and download your games to.

Burticus said:
Yeah but those are all multiplayer games. To be expected.

And the GOG argument is fine, I'm talking about consoles. I haven't put an optical drive in my last 3 PC builds. But I have a USB/DVD-RW if I need it.

Everyone who's like "I only buy digital, I don't have any discs", hey thats cool. I do have digital games on PS4 too. But we're not all rich and want to pay $60 for games that might suck.

Speaking of sucking.... I'm looking at YOU, ME : Andromeda. Glad I got it on disc, cause this turd is hitting Ebay SOON. If I had got it on PC or PS4 Digital... I'm stuck with it. A $50 gaming mistake is gas in the tank, or a week's worth of groceries.
Click to expand...

I guess if anything it forces people to make sure that they are buying good games instead of buying crap. In this case add in EA Access and you could have tried a trial of ME: Andromeda and known it was crap and not to buy it if you feel the game is crap. $5 / month or $30 / year and you get access to games early as a trial version and get other games as play for free during your subscription.
 
I think that the whole media business would go into a route where if you purchase a game, a movie or music, you'll have the rights to re-download and play it anywhere you are for personal use. One ring to rule them all, one service to download anything.
 
I don't want a discless console, but mainly because streaming can't yet match 4K UHD HDR Blu-Ray, and that's the primary use for my Xbox One S's disc drive (as well as regular Blu-Rays). I buy all my games digitally already, but with the Xbox One as the center of my entertainment center, I wouldn't want to upgrade to a new version that couldn't play discs. That would be a step backwards.
 
Exavior said:
Spoken like a person who must not own a console and is talking out their ass.

If you buy a digital game on the Xbox one they will work 30 years from now just like they do today assuming your xbox still works. The way the system works is you have a home Xbox, this is whatever is considered your main system. Any game that you purchase is able to be accessed on that system without being on the internet. So any games that are on there should still work 30 years from now as it doesn't need to be online. You only need to be online for digital games if you are playing on a secondary console that you log into and download your games to.
Click to expand...

I own an Xbox One and I do buy a mix of games through Live and through physical media.

In 30 years, assuming the Xbox One even works (the 360 had a great track record for failures) the games will work on your console and your console only. Meaning, once the Live service is dead and unable to authenticate user accounts, you have no way to move those digital games out of your console. So, good luck with that. (I had this expirence on the 360 when my first one RRODed and every DLC that used to work offline on my first 360 absolutely needed Live service on my replacement 360 to even function, even after I used their license migration tool. So I'm not talking out of my ass, guy.)

By the way, when I moved and I had no internet for a week, I was literally taken aback at the fact that the Blu-Ray player app simply DOES NOT WORK without an internet connection. It opens and closes and states you must be online to use it. Seriously, try it yourself. "Always on connection" mentality is ruining 'next-gen' consoles. Again, who's to say that a theoretical digital-only console won't have such limitations? It's entirely in the company's hands how they choose that data to work and I do not want to sign away that kind of control.
 
I don't equate physical media as "guarenteed" permanent access, nor do I equate digital copies as "guarenteed to be unguarenteed" permanent access, due to the following:

1. There is literally nothing stopping any developers or platforms developing a system whereby your physical copy cannot play the game on its own, be it online authentication or simply the game on the disc is incomplete (it could be significant amount of assets, but it could simply be a small but crucial files that must be present to access the game), in which case, if the platform or authentication method shuts down, your discs are little more than collector's item, if not frisbee or collector's item. This is more true for consoles than PCs, since PCs are more likely to have pirated versions, and have more people who knows their way around getting those games to work again. Consoles might be possible, but AFAIK it's not as easy.

2. Physical media themselves can also degrade to the point where they'd become coasters/frisbees on their own due to bit rot (a process where the physical recording layer degrades to the point where the physical media cannot be used to play the game. This also happens to cartridges as well, but Bluray discs should be more robust due to the inorganic nature of the recording layer (assuming that they are all multi-layer or HTL single layer, and not the cheaper LTH single layer discs, treat the latter like CD/DVDs). So you will eventually have to make digital backups yourself, but that doesn't always work (EG PS1, which used a black disc instead of clear for other CDs).

Physical media for PC is all but dead due to concerns about piracy (Asian countries are pretty bad for this, I must admit), but also because they didn't move onto BR discs (due to the extremely slow, if any at all, adoption of BD drives in PCs), so makes storing large sized games very impractical (no one wants to go back to the 10+ floppy days again).

As for consoles, whether I want a drive or not would ultimately depend on if the drive has ANY use besides loading games onto the console (such as Bluray movie discs), no matter how remote. If there is, I'd prefer having it than not, depending on what it can be used for, otherwise, I don't care, since I would have to download digitals anyway (the only method of getting English games for me). But I will also say that whether the drive is present or not is a very very minor issue, because I have much bigger problems with consoles as of now (Region locks, game library, slow loading times and 30fps).

Lastly, I buy games for keeps, even if the game turns out to be shit and not worth my time, because I don't feel going through the process of getting a refund for those are actually worth my time.
 
Only if the console has a pricing structure like the "Steam" Store.

I've never sold any of my disc based console games, (but have given some away) so a disc-less console wouldn't affect me much.

Probably would be better in some ways since I won't have to wait 2-3 hrs after getting a disc at a midnight launch event so it can "install" itself to the hard drive of the console and then download a multi gigabyte "day one" patch when the update servers are stressed to the limit. But only if the downloadable games have as good pricing discounts.
 
the problem with keys and whatnot is that once the servers go down, you are screwed over. even with physical media...
 
MikeTrike said:
What, do they mean like this?

infinium-labs-phantome-console-front--%5Bfield_seo_keywords-formatted%5D.jpg
Click to expand...
Was going to post this exact pic haha.
 
Etherton said:
So, you're not on Steam? Right? :cautious:

The only reason I would want a physical disc is to resale a crap game quickly. You only have a few weeks to off-sale a recent game and make any return. Otherwise the Amazon and SlickDeals sales kill the resale value. Other than that, it can sit in my library until I play it or... well, sit there. Who cares.
Click to expand...

I have over 4TB of HDD space on my PC. Show me a console with that. You will have to delete games to make room for new games all the time on a console, fuck that.
 
Please forgive my ignorance if someone has previously made this argument, but with the recent shifts in how the US government and regulatory bodies are deregulating aspects of the Net in favor of helping ISPs make more money (article over-viewing new FCC chairman's stances and how they will break stuff or bill to block regulation against ISPs selling private user info) I think the focus on this subject should be:
Will we even be able to receive large quantities of content (e.g. a video game) without it costing us an arm+leg and/or maxing some made up datacap? /rant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top