Zombie James
Banned
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/would-you-consider-a-disc-free-console-option/
I'm not against the idea of offering a digital-only version of a console for people who don't care about what they'll lose, but overall there's still a lot of work to be done for digital-only to be a serious consideration for me. Right now, what we might gain in size and hardware costs we'll lose in flexibility and consumer rights and I'm not ok with that.
To be clear here, I'm not saying we should do away with games on physical media entirely. The industry probably isn't ready for that for a number of reasons we'll touch on below. Instead, I'm suggesting that Sony and Microsoft could offer new versions of their consoles, without a disc drive, to sell alongside the standard disc-enabled version.
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. All the major consoles now sell downloadable versions of every retail game, so the disc-free version wouldn't be missing out on any software. And without a bulky disc drive taking up space, a download-only console could be considerably smaller.
Those responses suggest there would definitely be some market for the disc-free option in the console market. But I also heard from plenty of people who wouldn't be ready to get rid of their own personal console disc drive just yet. The most common reasons included:
- Resale/purchasing of used games: Many respondents felt the savings on the disc-free console hardware would barely make a dent in the savings they already get reselling their old disc-based games when they're done with them. Others pointed out that disc-based games are often cheaper than their downloadable counterparts, whether via old games in bargain bins or deals like Amazon Prime's new game discounts (though downloadable console games are often subject to deep discounts as well). One respondent even noted that his monthly GameFly subscription would be useless on a disc-free console.
- Slow, unreliable, and/or capped Internet access: In many parts of the world (and even the United States), broadband quality isn't good enough to reasonably download games that can run dozens of gigabytes. Even where broadband quality is good enough, some people don't want to have to wait for downloads or worry about data caps on their home connection.
- Preservation: Downloads might be convenient now, but in 15 years, when your console or hard drive dies and the servers to redownload the game (and/or confirm your legitimate purchase) have been shut down, you might be out of luck. Disc-based games are more likely to "just work" in the long run, even if you have to buy replacement hardware.
- Travel convenience: Being able to simply loan a disc to a friend or take a disc over to someone's house is a lot easier than trying to lug an entire system along or signing in and downloading a game on a different console.
- Physical movies: No disc drive means no way to play your existing library of DVDs or Blu-Ray discs through the console.
I'm not against the idea of offering a digital-only version of a console for people who don't care about what they'll lose, but overall there's still a lot of work to be done for digital-only to be a serious consideration for me. Right now, what we might gain in size and hardware costs we'll lose in flexibility and consumer rights and I'm not ok with that.