I know this sucks, but idk how to feel about it. I had a large collection of physical games, much like I’d imagine most gamers do, only to one day come home and find it all stolen. Insurance pulled the rug on me, and I didn’t get much for any of it. Since then I’ve bought everything digital and, while I know it can happen, I haven’t had any taken from me since. Of course, buying all the games physically would have been way more expensive as some of them are rare collectables now. I’m just happy I get to play them. I know I could lose it all again on a whim of some CEO, but I just feel there isn’t any reasonable solution.
Make sure you guys keep receipts, take pictures, secure your games, and pay extra for any collectables insurance. And don’t let insurance dictate the aggregate value lost, itemize everything and get quotes. You’ll still get ripped off, but hopefully you can rebuild what’s important if it happens to you.
Thing is, if “digital” actually meant “own” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Is this one of those things where the old “block chain” could be helpful? Like, a mechanism for actual digital ownership where one can have reasonable assurance that the thing one has downloaded actually belongs to them? That, so long as there’s a unique key, one can access that digital item whenever one desires–AND can transfer that to someone else by way of sale or trade?
At the risk of now upsetting cryptobros (but no, I’m sure they understand all too well): we need laws. not blockchain. Even if the perfect solution was created (looks at physical), there is no incentive for publishers to use it.
And we’ve already seen what amazing things publishers have done with blockchain. /s
I’ve said this before it’s indefinite access you’re paying for when you buy a disc not ownership of the game. The only difference is, is that you don’t lose access to those games when you buy physical, when you buy digital your games access can be heavily modified.
So far, it’s been very rare for digital ownership of games not to stay preserved. Ex: You can’t buy games from the Wii U anymore, but can still install owned ones. Some games are delisted from Steam, but you can install them.
Notable exceptions: Online games (not helped by discs) and Sony’s big attack on movie licenses.
In terms of resale ownership, yeah, it’s not so favorable. I’m ambivalent on that, because resale motivated a lot of changes in games - more online, more perpetual GAAS, fewer short singleplayer experience.
I’ve never been one to sell games, but I give, lend, and borrow games frequently with my friends. This (and some locked away exclusives) are the only reason I still even own consoles. Sony et al have decided they don’t want my money anymore.
When your friends buy your game from you, and then that friend’s friend re-buys the game, those are lost sales. Your friends liked getting the game at a lower price, but if it was sold digitally for half your Used Price, everyone keeps their copy to play later, but the devs (okay, realistically in many cases; publisher) gets more money.
I’m not stating this to condemn you, honestly I’m far more fine with you trading with friends than the GameStop Used Market (a shitshow that wasn’t good for anyone); but you don’t build a compelling case for Sony to want to sell to you.
You seem really intent on inventing scenarios to dispute me. I own a RIDICULOUS amount of games. Games that I purchased directly, usually at launch. My friends do as well, we simply share or give each other some of the games. Or sometimes we lend them and that ends up convincing the other person to buy it. Sony and Nintendo have indeed gotten a boatload of my money over the years and that boat is sailing elsewhere.
I don’t keep my physical games, I buy and sell them regulary, so I keep my cost per game low, even for new titles. My problem with digital is that I cannot resell, it’s just a license I rent for full price
Reselling does nothing for Sony though, so losing the customers who are buying and selling used games isn’t a loss for them.
It’s like how people freaked out about how Netflix would surely collapse when they cracked down on password sharing, but it’s actually brought in a bunch more money for them. Losing viewers who aren’t paying for the service was actually a bonus. Even if there had been a bet zero change in subscribers, they’d save money from the reduction in traffic.
I think that for now Nintendo Sony and Microsoft are keeping old stores accessible even if it costs them because they calculated the negative PR would cost them more (people wouldn’t hoard digital licenses for titles that don’t have time to play if they knew there’s a potential to be removed from their account before first install)
Ubisoft instead had no problems in removing titles from the Uplay accounts, instead
I know this sucks, but idk how to feel about it. I had a large collection of physical games, much like I’d imagine most gamers do, only to one day come home and find it all stolen. Insurance pulled the rug on me, and I didn’t get much for any of it. Since then I’ve bought everything digital and, while I know it can happen, I haven’t had any taken from me since. Of course, buying all the games physically would have been way more expensive as some of them are rare collectables now. I’m just happy I get to play them. I know I could lose it all again on a whim of some CEO, but I just feel there isn’t any reasonable solution.
Make sure you guys keep receipts, take pictures, secure your games, and pay extra for any collectables insurance. And don’t let insurance dictate the aggregate value lost, itemize everything and get quotes. You’ll still get ripped off, but hopefully you can rebuild what’s important if it happens to you.
Thing is, if “digital” actually meant “own” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Is this one of those things where the old “block chain” could be helpful? Like, a mechanism for actual digital ownership where one can have reasonable assurance that the thing one has downloaded actually belongs to them? That, so long as there’s a unique key, one can access that digital item whenever one desires–AND can transfer that to someone else by way of sale or trade?
At the risk of now upsetting cryptobros (but no, I’m sure they understand all too well): we need laws. not blockchain. Even if the perfect solution was created (looks at physical), there is no incentive for publishers to use it.
And we’ve already seen what amazing things publishers have done with blockchain. /s
I’ve said this before it’s indefinite access you’re paying for when you buy a disc not ownership of the game. The only difference is, is that you don’t lose access to those games when you buy physical, when you buy digital your games access can be heavily modified.
So far, it’s been very rare for digital ownership of games not to stay preserved. Ex: You can’t buy games from the Wii U anymore, but can still install owned ones. Some games are delisted from Steam, but you can install them.
Notable exceptions: Online games (not helped by discs) and Sony’s big attack on movie licenses.
In terms of resale ownership, yeah, it’s not so favorable. I’m ambivalent on that, because resale motivated a lot of changes in games - more online, more perpetual GAAS, fewer short singleplayer experience.
I’ve never been one to sell games, but I give, lend, and borrow games frequently with my friends. This (and some locked away exclusives) are the only reason I still even own consoles. Sony et al have decided they don’t want my money anymore.
But they’re not getting “your money”.
When your friends buy your game from you, and then that friend’s friend re-buys the game, those are lost sales. Your friends liked getting the game at a lower price, but if it was sold digitally for half your Used Price, everyone keeps their copy to play later, but the devs (okay, realistically in many cases; publisher) gets more money.
I’m not stating this to condemn you, honestly I’m far more fine with you trading with friends than the GameStop Used Market (a shitshow that wasn’t good for anyone); but you don’t build a compelling case for Sony to want to sell to you.
You seem really intent on inventing scenarios to dispute me. I own a RIDICULOUS amount of games. Games that I purchased directly, usually at launch. My friends do as well, we simply share or give each other some of the games. Or sometimes we lend them and that ends up convincing the other person to buy it. Sony and Nintendo have indeed gotten a boatload of my money over the years and that boat is sailing elsewhere.
I don’t keep my physical games, I buy and sell them regulary, so I keep my cost per game low, even for new titles. My problem with digital is that I cannot resell, it’s just a license I rent for full price
Reselling does nothing for Sony though, so losing the customers who are buying and selling used games isn’t a loss for them.
It’s like how people freaked out about how Netflix would surely collapse when they cracked down on password sharing, but it’s actually brought in a bunch more money for them. Losing viewers who aren’t paying for the service was actually a bonus. Even if there had been a bet zero change in subscribers, they’d save money from the reduction in traffic.
Unironically, I can see physical game theft rising again as the supply is cut off altogether and plastic rot destroys what already exists.
Screwed from both sides.
Now Sony cuts out the middle man and steals it from you directly.
I had a couple hundred bucks worth of titles in my Amazon Digital Comics account when they shut all that down.
I think that for now Nintendo Sony and Microsoft are keeping old stores accessible even if it costs them because they calculated the negative PR would cost them more (people wouldn’t hoard digital licenses for titles that don’t have time to play if they knew there’s a potential to be removed from their account before first install)
Ubisoft instead had no problems in removing titles from the Uplay accounts, instead