Support NeoGAF

[SScorpio]

What I described is PlayStation and Nintendo stealing Steam's system and adding physical games to it.
E.g., "PlayStation moves to digital-only games via PSN with a 2hr money back policy. Same policy as Steam."

Because PlayStation as a brand is based on physical disc based games:
1. If you like the game you just check a box on PSN and they'll ship you the physical boxed game for a small fee.
2. Physical games would abandon steel books and custom boxes, rolling back to the PS2 standard with the higher quality box, high quality manuals, maps, etc.
3. Physical game discs do two things: install the full game and to tell the PlayStation what game you want to play as an alternative to picking a game from the home screen.

Other companies adopting Steam's 2hr return policy on games would be awesome.

But your physical ideas don't improve anything and are giant step backwards for preservation. You're arguing for consoles to get CD keys in the package along with an installer for the game. But the CD key can only be licensed to a single account and can't be transferred to a different account. For collectors to have pieces sitting on their shelves that they never play? Sure it's fine. For someone wanting to play a game that's no longer sold digital, well fuck them the physical version is useless as it could install the game, but they aren't licensed to play it.

PlayStation and Xbox's last two console generations do require installing the game to play. But there are still many cases where you could have your console completely offline and after the install from the disk, the game will just run like normal.

Your solution is the same thing all those weirdos who use physical NFC cards or some other method to launch a ROM on an emulator. If you must have a digital license to a game to play, the physical media is worthless. Even those crappy Switch 2 keycards are better in that multiple people can us them. But the servers and console need to be online to download the game in the first place.

 

[VGEsoterica]

Other companies adopting Steam's 2hr return policy on games would be awesome.

But your physical ideas don't improve anything and are giant step backwards for preservation. You're arguing for consoles to get CD keys in the package along with an installer for the game. But the CD key can only be licensed to a single account and can't be transferred to a different account. For collectors to have pieces sitting on their shelves that they never play? Sure it's fine. For someone wanting to play a game that's no longer sold digital, well fuck them the physical version is useless as it could install the game, but they aren't licensed to play it.

PlayStation and Xbox's last two console generations do require installing the game to play. But there are still many cases where you could have your console completely offline and after the install from the disk, the game will just run like normal.

Your solution is the same thing all those weirdos who use physical NFC cards or some other method to launch a ROM on an emulator. If you must have a digital license to a game to play, the physical media is worthless. Even those crappy Switch 2 keycards are better in that multiple people can us them. But the servers and console need to be online to download the game in the first place.

I do love the 2 hour thing. If the game is just crashing on me or otherwise janky we aren't stuck with garbage for our cash

 

[awwr999999]

For someone wanting to play a game that's no longer sold digital, well fuck them the physical version is useless as it could install the game, but they aren't licensed to play it.

The unified system would be built around two central pillars: game preservation and keeping game development profitable for studios.
Conventional physical media isn't sufficient to preserve games on online consoles and it undercuts studio profits via endless resale.
The PC model (Steam, PS4, PS5, etc.) of shipping unfinished games with updates makes it too complicated for most users to access games in their original state.

Game preservation requires a return to the original "PlayStation" (PS1/PS2) game model where games ship once, in a finished state, period.
Everything is done digitally via the PSN exactly as it would be done if having a physical disc pressed.
Every digital game released on PSN is physically backed by disc based data repos containing this original game.
Studios shipping a game on PSN agree to allow the PSN to activate and grant user licenses for that game in perpetuity.
Studios that want to update a game have to ship another game under another SKU.
E.g., GTA San Andreas = SLUS-20946, GTA San Andreas Special Edition = SLUS-20946P

Removing the possibility of updates and patches will improve console QOL in general and make it impossible for studios to censor existing games.
It guarantees the preservation of digital games in their original form by separating the user license from the physical disc.
This creates a situation where both the license and the game data have to be provided forever by the PSN.
Users with existing licenses will always need access to game data.
Users with existing game data (discs) will always need new licenses to be issued.
Game studios getting paid for each user license without losing sales to game resale will revitalize the game industry.

 

[SScorpio]

The unified system would be built around two central pillars: game preservation and keeping game development profitable for studios.
Conventional physical media isn't sufficient to preserve games on online consoles and it undercuts studio profits via endless resale.
The PC model (Steam, PS4, PS5, etc.) of shipping unfinished games with updates makes it too complicated for most users to access games in their original state.

Game preservation requires a return to the original "PlayStation" (PS1/PS2) game model where games ship once, in a finished state, period.
Everything is done digitally via the PSN exactly as it would be done if having a physical disc pressed.
Every digital game released on PSN is physically backed by disc based data repos containing this original game.
Studios shipping a game on PSN agree to allow the PSN to activate and grant user licenses for that game in perpetuity.
Studios that want to update a game have to ship another game under another SKU.
E.g., GTA San Andreas = SLUS-20946, GTA San Andreas Special Edition = SLUS-20946P

Removing the possibility of updates and patches will improve console QOL in general and make it impossible for studios to censor existing games.
It guarantees the preservation of digital games in their original form by separating the user license from the physical disc.
This creates a situation where both the license and the game data have to be provided forever by the PSN.
Users with existing licenses will always need access to game data.
Users with existing game data (discs) will always need new licenses to be issued.
Game studios getting paid for each user license without losing sales to game resale will revitalize the game industry.

So now anytime there's a patch for a game several thousand disks get pressed that Sony needs to store somewhere in case someone says they want one?

Requiring perpetual licenses would just make it impossible to release most games digital on that platform. License contracts have limits and for good reason. They can be renewed, but the cost to renew doesn't always match expected sales that would come from it. Bob over there wants one copy of this game. OK we need to keep licenses for the music, voice actors, backend tech like the game engine and 3rd party tools that were used, etc. This isn't possible.


This creates a situation where both the license and the game data have to be provided forever by the PSN.
Users with existing licenses will always need access to game data.

This is where we're at right now. Needing to be able to access patches and DLC for games. You'll never get a company to agree to providing something "forever" though.

Users with existing game data (discs) will always need new licenses to be issued.

This was the piece missing from your original argument, and it makes no sense. Why do new licenses need to be issued for physical media? The physical media itself is the license and it doesn't get tied to any one account. The ideal method is having it so you can put the game into your console and everything you need to play is there without any connection required to the outside world.

Game studios getting paid for each user license without losing sales to game resale will revitalize the game industry.

Again, this was what Microsoft tried with the Xbox One and got racked over the coals for it. You'd have a physical game and put it into your Xbox. It would then associate the license on the disk to your Xbox account. It would install the game off the disk, but you also now have a digital license for the game and can just download it fully off the Internet. You wouldn't need to insert the disk to play. There was discussion where you could then pay a fee that partially went to the game publisher to remove the license from your account and someone else could then use that disk and add the license to their account. The specifics were never detailed because Sony released a video showing their sharing method of giving a disk to your friend and he/she can now just play the game on their console.

 

[awwr999999]

So now anytime there's a patch for a game several thousand disks get pressed that Sony needs to store somewhere in case someone says they want one?

It's a digital return to the PS1/PS2 model with only finished games - no patches, no updates, no DLC period.
Monetization comes from selling users games, one game per customer.
1. Modern games only ship in an unfinished state because platforms allow them to.
2. DLC is a direct response to game sales being gutted by game resale and only exists as a means of selling users games that can't be resold.
3. Updates are used to force users to hold onto their games long enough to allow studios to make additional game sales before game resale undercuts them.
4. Forcing studios to ship complete games is the only way to make game preservation possible.

This creates a situation where both the license and the game data have to be provided forever by the PSN.
Users with existing licenses will always need access to game data.
This is where we're at right now. Needing to be able to access patches and DLC for games. You'll never get a company to agree to providing something "forever" though.

It's trading the forever that we have now (physical media eroding game profits forever via resale) for a future where physical media is bringing in profits forever via licensing.
Realistically at some point in the future the studio or PSN could stop hosting game downloads or stop selling physical games to save money but they'll never have a reason to stop earning passive income via selling licenses.

Why do new licenses need to be issued for physical media? The physical media itself is the license and it doesn't get tied to any one account. The ideal method is having it so you can put the game into your console and everything you need to play is there without any connection required to the outside world.

Buying games via online stores isn't going away. The upsides for consoles are everything that Steam already has - 2hr money back policy, no brick and mortar censorship blocking AO games and owning games forever.
New licenses need to be issued to keep making and selling single player games profitable enough for studios to abandon the unethical online game monetization schemes that are currently being employed.
Beyond the ethical aspect, studios perpetually working on the same game and users perpetually playing the same game and spending money on the same game is bad for gaming as a whole.
Users having a finite amount of time and money spending all of their time in one game and giving all of their money to one studio instead of spreading that same money and time around and experiencing multiple games while supporting multiple studios.

 

[CobraAB]

Nintendo never going to get a dime from me....

Probably sue me now...

 

[SScorpio]

It's a digital return to the PS1/PS2 model with only finished games - no patches, no updates, no DLC period.
Monetization comes from selling users games, one game per customer.
1. Modern games only ship in an unfinished state because platforms allow them to.
2. DLC is a direct response to game sales being gutted by game resale and only exists as a means of selling users games that can't be resold.
3. Updates are used to force users to hold onto their games long enough to allow studios to make additional game sales before game resale undercuts them.
4. Forcing studios to ship complete games is the only way to make game preservation possible.

It's trading the forever that we have now (physical media eroding game profits forever via resale) for a future where physical media is bringing in profits forever via licensing.
Realistically at some point in the future the studio or PSN could stop hosting game downloads or stop selling physical games to save money but they'll never have a reason to stop earning passive income via selling licenses.

Buying games via online stores isn't going away. The upsides for consoles are everything that Steam already has - 2hr money back policy, no brick and mortar censorship blocking AO games and owning games forever.
New licenses need to be issued to keep making and selling single player games profitable enough for studios to abandon the unethical online game monetization schemes that are currently being employed.
Beyond the ethical aspect, studios perpetually working on the same game and users perpetually playing the same game and spending money on the same game is bad for gaming as a whole.
Users having a finite amount of time and money spending all of their time in one game and giving all of their money to one studio instead of spreading that same money and time around and experiencing multiple games while supporting multiple studios.

Not all DLC is bad. Expansion packs or iterative standalone games that just expanded on the first game were a thing at retail.

Fewer and fewer people are buying physical copies moving the to the convenience of digital. The genie isn't going back in the bottle.

The best we can hope for is physical releases that work out of the box without needing to download a patch or unlock. Before Steam took over patches were downloadable as regular files off the Internet and are archived to this day. But no console lets you download the patch externally and then install it. So piracy will have to step in for preservation.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Everyone is so happy to run and hate on Nintendo but

1- it wasn't because of a used Switch 1 game, the game was MiG dumped and then resold
2- Nintendo unbanned them.

 

[alf717]

I bought five Switch game this past weekend from a yard sale, I'm still doing great fam wish me luck!!

 

[Rocky_Balboa]

Everyone is so happy to run and hate on Nintendo but

1- it wasn't because of a used Switch 1 game, the game was MiG dumped and then resold
2- Nintendo unbanned them.

In any case, customers shouldn't be inconvenienced too much because of Nintendo's poor security and anti-piracy policies.

 

[//DEVIL//]

In any case, customers shouldn't be inconvenienced too much because of Nintendo's poor security and anti-piracy policies.

Stop bitching like a Karen. Jesus, oh it's " so inconvenient, I am so triggered !! " How dare they ban a system that was running a game that was dumped (and they even unbanned the system too)

fuck man, some people are just weak sauce, and you are one of them.

 

[Rocky_Balboa]

Stop bitching like a Karen. Jesus, oh it's " so inconvenient, I am so triggered !! " How dare they ban a system that was running a game that was dumped (and they even unbanned the system too)

fuck man, some people are just weak sauce, and you are one of them.

Is it really "bitching like a Karen" if I say customers shouldn't be inconvenienced by company's poor security, policies and DRM? I feel like this is not an extreme take.

Also this applies to other companies too, not just Nintendo.

 

[L*][*N*K]

In any case, customers shouldn't be inconvenienced too much because of Nintendo's poor security and anti-piracy policies.

The customer wasn't inconvenienced that much you baby

 

[Rocky_Balboa]

The customer wasn't inconvenienced that much you baby

Personally I would find it annoying if I buy a game and my console gets banned. Then I have to contact customer support and spend time proving that I have bought a game and that I am not a pirate.

This would be actually quite easy to solve. For example Nintendo could set a threshold that if the same console gets 5 hits from duped games, then they would ban the console.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Personally I would find it annoying if I buy a game and my console gets banned. Then I have to contact customer support and spend time proving that I have bought a game and that I am not a pirate.

This would be actually quite easy to solve. For example Nintendo could set a threshold that if the same console gets 5 hits from duped games, then they would ban the console.

I would just call it bad luck, I mean what are the chances for the game that you bought to be MiG dumped? Very low right?? And at the end of the say isnt it the seller who is the bad guy here?? Emulating a game is legal but you need to own the game not resell it and keep the copy

 

[Rocky_Balboa]

I would just call it bad luck, I mean what are the chances for the game that you bought to be MiG dumped? Very low right?? And at the end of the say isnt it the seller who is the bad guy here?? Emulating a game is legal but you need to own the game not resell it and keep the copy

Definitely bad luck. I don't think MIG switch is not that popular.

Of course the person who duped the game is the bad guy. Same as people who steal from stores. Still companies have to think about their policies regarding theft/piracy. Some companies take it too far and then it starts to be an inconvenience for legit customers. For example there is reason why many PC gamers hate denuvo and it's not because they would like to pirate the game. It's because it's annoying and inconvenient.