Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*

[Cyan]

On the other hand, we can reach a point where an sd card is cheaper than paying the servers to transfer 1TB per user per game.

yeah, for a handheld hybrid or whatever, games in SD Card format might still be valuable. I got used to the digital stores and live in a rural area, I purchased the last physical game 9 years ago.

Steam makes it better to organize your stuff. Unless someone has Diogenes Syndrome I don't see the practicality of physical games nowadays.

Talking of which, imho, MS should embrace Steam..., many people are going to subscribe to pc gamepass even if they have access to Steam.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In the tweet, Christopher Dring, which has access to Europe sales data,...

From where? AFAIK the console companies don't make digital sales information available.

Edit: We can go to the publishers but then we see:

Digital vs. non-digital revenue share of major video game publishers worldwide 2023 | Statista

Digital channel now account for the majority of gaming market revenues worldwide.

www.statista.com

I expect that includes digital content like add-ons, but it's still hugely skewed and shows how much players value digital. A physical game without the digital isn't worth as much as the digital game without with physical.

Furthermore, discs are increasingly worthless because you always need a day 1 patch. In some cases the disc doesn't even include the game! Digital is now enabling pre-order downloads, so instead of needing to visit a store, you can preload the game and have it the day of release the moment you get home (or a couple of days early if the pay the Impatience Tax).

 

[Charlietus]

From where? AFAIK the console companies don't make digital sales information available.

Edit: We can go to the publishers but then we see:

Digital vs. non-digital revenue share of major video game publishers worldwide 2023 | Statista

Digital channel now account for the majority of gaming market revenues worldwide.

www.statista.com

View attachment 11545

I expect that includes digital content like add-ons, but it's still hugely skewed and shows how much players value digital. A physical game without the digital isn't worth as much as the digital game without with physical.

Furthermore, discs are increasingly worthless because you always need a day 1 patch. In some cases the disc doesn't even include the game! Digital is now enabling pre-order downloads, so instead of needing to visit a store, you can preload the game and have it the day of release the moment you get home (or a couple of days early if the pay the Impatience Tax).

First, that link doesn't even load. And even if those numbers were true, again for the second time, it includes dlc, microtransactions and digital only vs just physical. Is it clear enough?

Second, yes, NPD and GSD track digital sales, aside from Nintendo. How is that even a question?

Third, discs have resell value. Consumers get so much more value from physical it's not even a question. Digital only people getting less for the same or higher prices. It's pretty funny.

The thing about the day one patch... It's not true in 99% of cases. When was the last time you bought a disc? Are you just talking out of things you heard on the internet somewhere?

Ps: the link finally loaded, and I have gone and take a look at, as an example from that chart, to the ea quarterly results. And I didn't find any disclosure on digital vs physical game revenues in there, only this:
Which isn't that helpful. So I don't know where they are getting this data for all publishers, or if they are just estimates. Either way, not a great source.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay, can you provide some data beyond a tweet? I keep looking and struggle to find any direct "here's the %age digital and physical game sales" but keep finding things like:

GSD combined
34.2m video games were sold (down <6% YoY)

GSD digital only
<20m games were sold (down 3.4% YoY)

GSD physical only
14.2m games were sold (down 9% YoY)

First, that link doesn't even load. And even if those numbers were true, again for the second time, it includes dlc, microtransactions and digital only vs just physical. Is it clear enough?

Yes, I included that caveat. But now you have the argument that 10% physical revenue is greater than the game sales of digital, meaning >80% of all digital revenue is add-ons, not game sales. Perhaps, but that seems unconvincing (and doesn't tally with later data)

Digital only people getting less for the same or higher prices. It's pretty funny.

Added convenience is a plus. There's a reason why people do buy digital, even if physical was selling more. Don't talk like they are stupid for having different values to you. For many, buying a game cheap in a sale in a digital store is a better move than getting the game second hand at a CEX or GameStop.

The thing about the day one patch... It's not true in 99% of cases. When was the last time you bought a disc?

A long time ago, like many!

Are you just talking out of things you heard on the internet somewhere?

Yes, every time there's a big title. How many disc games do you have that haven't been patched? 'Day 1' is tongue in cheek - they all get bug fixes, and notably big updates. That version 1 Ghost of Tsushima you have on disc? It's had 43 patches. Spider-Man? 19. Number 15 included the fix "- Addressed an issue where enemies could fall off the Colexco building and not die, preventing progression, in the mission “Trust Issues.”" Would suck to play the game on disc Day 1 and have your game broken by a bug the digital version doesn't have...

Which isn't that helpful. So I don't know where they are getting this data for all publishers, or if they are just estimates. Either way, not a great source.

Neither do I. Do you know where your tweet is getting its data, though, or just taking it at face value? Here's another alternative fact to yours:


Can't find a more recent one. Separates digital software sales from add-on content.

And we have numerous stories over the months of decreasing physical copy sales in the UK such as constant FIFA boxed sales decreasing.

​

"Together with Call Of Duty, FIFA is always one of the most successful games of the year but FIFA 22 physical sales were down by 35% on FIFA 21, which was itself down on 42% over FIFA 20."​

And another:



So, no, I am unconvinced by your tweet without any supporting data. Please provide a 'great source'.

 

[Charlietus]

Okay, can you provide some data beyond a tweet? I keep looking and struggle to find any direct "here's the %age digital and physical game sales" but keep finding things like:

GSD combined
34.2m video games were sold (down <6% YoY)

GSD digital only
<20m games were sold (down 3.4% YoY)

GSD physical only
14.2m games were sold (down 9% YoY)


Yes, I included that caveat. But now you have the argument that 10% physical revenue is greater than the game sales of digital, meaning >80% of all digital revenue is add-ons, not game sales. Perhaps, but that seems unconvincing (and doesn't tally with later data)

Added convenience is a plus. There's a reason why people do buy digital, even if physical was selling more. Don't talk like they are stupid for having different values to you. For many, buying a game cheap in a sale in a digital store is a better move than getting the game second hand at a CEX or GameStop.

A long time ago, like many!

Yes, every time there's a big title. How many disc games do you have that haven't been patched? 'Day 1' is tongue in cheek - they all get bug fixes, and notably big updates. That version 1 Ghost of Tsushima you have on disc? It's had 43 patches. Spider-Man? 19. Number 15 included the fix "- Addressed an issue where enemies could fall off the Colexco building and not die, preventing progression, in the mission “Trust Issues.”" Would suck to play the game on disc Day 1 and have your game broken by a bug the digital version doesn't have...

Neither do I. Do you know where your tweet is getting its data, though, or just taking it at face value? Here's another alternative fact to yours:

View attachment 11550
Can't find a more recent one. Separates digital software sales from add-on content.

And we have numerous stories over the months of decreasing physical copy sales in the UK such as constant FIFA boxed sales decreasing.

​

"Together with Call Of Duty, FIFA is always one of the most successful games of the year but FIFA 22 physical sales were down by 35% on FIFA 21, which was itself down on 42% over FIFA 20."​

And another:

View attachment 11551

So, no, I am unconvinced by your tweet without any supporting data. Please provide a 'great source'.

I yield. Christopher Dring. The guy who reports the official sales numbers in Europe. The one who everyone makes news and articles about his reports. I guess GSD is not a good enough source.

Boxed: physical games sales (no used game sales btw).

Digital: Fortnite, warzone, apex, digital games on the psn-xbox live- Nintendo eShop, all microtransactions, add-ons, all games and indies that don't have a physical release.

I don't know what else to say.

 

[eastmen]

Digital only is inevitable unless a new storage format holding hundreds of GB or even a 1 TB comes out and is readily affordable. If we're not getting a huge increase in capacity it doesn't make sense to continue when that path in the future. I appreciate physical as much as the next person and will continue to buy games I want for collection purposes this way but for regular game use it simply doesn't beat the convenience of digital only.

Retail space on shelves has shrunk to a considerable level compared to decades last and doesn't have as much sway. It's sad in a way but that's just the overall market dynamic in many countries.

And has been pointed out PC physical sales have gone extinct for years now. Now I would attribute this to the convenience of simply downloading a game and installing it on a HD via a broadband connection. And millions sure that before a digital storefront via piracy. Once devs/pubs realized this was the way to go it was curtains for physical on PC. Sprinkle something about DRM and yeah.

On the other hand, we can reach a point where an sd card is cheaper than paying the servers to transfer 1TB per user per game.

yeah, for a handheld hybrid or whatever, games in SD Card format might still be valuable. I got used to the digital stores and live in a rural area, I purchased the last physical game 9 years ago.

Steam makes it better to organize your stuff. Unless someone has Diogenes Syndrome I don't see the practicality of physical games nowadays.

Talking of which, imho, MS should embrace Steam..., many people are going to subscribe to pc gamepass even if they have access to Steam.

I mean nvme for carts could be a reality soon enough since they can be supplemented as storage for dlc and updates. But it may take another generation or two


although thinking about it more. Most games are under 128gigs. So you could just ship a game on a 64-128gig nvme at some point. Perhaps change around Deluxe and collectors editions and ship a physical nvme with the game on it in those bundles instead of cheap nick nacks.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I yield. Christopher Dring. The guy who reports the official sales numbers in Europe. The one who everyone makes news and articles about his reports. I guess GSD is not a good enough source.

I have no idea who "Christopher Dring" is. Is there any reason I should? If there's pertinent information about who a person is that informs the conversation, it's useful to add it!

Your entire argument as "here's a tweet from a personality" and no actual explanation of your point, followed by dissing other people's points without extending your point to make it clearer. You assumed the knowledge you had of the information was shared and people not responding in the same way were illogical, rather than uninformed. And be generally condescending to those who prefer digital.

Furthermore, there's a conversation about that tweet asking what the numbers even are. Apparently Dring is citing a poll, not market research. There's also a different gaming culture in Japan with more physicality, I dare say, which is where data needs be brought in from other regions.

It's not as black-and-white as you interpreted and the conversation hasn't gone as well as it could have if tackled differently...

Boxed: physical games sales (no used game sales btw).

Digital: Fortnite, warzone, apex, digital games on the psn-xbox live- Nintendo eShop, all microtransactions, add-ons, all games and indies that don't have a physical release.

I don't know what else to say.

Find better data supporting your argument than an unexplained tweet from an unexplained personality about an unclear source! You can extend your argument in the pro-physical direction with the physical sales of Sony's first party titles. Here's a table of sales with digital breakdown.



Players prefer to buy the big-ticket items on disc, up to 80%! I think this is from the Insomniac leak. But then there's quite some discussion on just that, with some games selling far more digitally...

Regardless, I'll still say we'll end up all digital. One of the main reasons people like physical is because it's cheaper, but there's no reason for digital to be more expensive (indeed, quite the converse). The companies just like holding the price higher. However, physical isn't so much cheaper, but cheaper earlier, at least until you get into second hand. Digital copies are still discounted over time to drive sales. A $70 disk game will be $50 and then $30, but so will the digital version, just a lot later. What we don't see is digital prices plummet over two months as can happen with physical, which is good pricing for the consumer but poor business for the producers and something they want to avoid. When the console companies finally want people to swap to digital and the consumers aren't eager, they only need make digital $10 cheaper than store bought and a lot will swap over. That in turn will dry up the physical supply into the second hand market eliminating that physical price drop.

And on the point of 'archiving', if people want to buy physical to keep their game forever, there is no second hand market. There's only a second hand market if people want to play and then sell on, which is all about price sensitivity. Those two positive aspects of physical games are actually mutually exclusive which means if either-or is a dominant reason to buy physical, it'll undermine the other; they can only coexist in balance due to different people having different values.

Honestly, there's lots that can be said if we want to discuss this rather than just assert a perspective and talk down to those who think differently.

 

[Charlietus]

I have no idea who "Christopher Dring" is. Is there any reason I should? If there's pertinent information about who a person is that informs the conversation, it's useful to add it!

Your entire argument as "here's a tweet from a personality" and no actual explanation of your point, followed by dissing other people's points without extending your point to make it clearer. You assumed the knowledge you had of the information was shared and people not responding in the same way were illogical, rather than uninformed. And be generally condescending to those who prefer digital.

Furthermore, there's a conversation about that tweet asking what the numbers even are. Apparently Dring is citing a poll, not market research. There's also a different gaming culture in Japan with more physicality, I dare say, which is where data needs be brought in from other regions.

It's not as black-and-white as you interpreted and the conversation hasn't gone as well as it could have if tackled differently...


Find better data supporting your argument than an unexplained tweet from an unexplained personality about an unclear source! You can extend your argument in the pro-physical direction with the physical sales of Sony's first party titles. Here's a table of sales with digital breakdown.

View attachment 11553

Players prefer to buy the big-ticket items on disc, up to 80%! I think this is from the Insomniac leak. But then there's quite some discussion on just that, with some games selling far more digitally...

Regardless, I'll still say we'll end up all digital. One of the main reasons people like physical is because it's cheaper, but there's no reason for digital to be more expensive (indeed, quite the converse). The companies just like holding the price higher. However, physical isn't so much cheaper, but cheaper earlier, at least until you get into second hand. Digital copies are still discounted over time to drive sales. A $70 disk game will be $50 and then $30, but so will the digital version, just a lot later. What we don't see is digital prices plummet over two months as can happen with physical, which is good pricing for the consumer but poor business for the producers and something they want to avoid. When the console companies finally want people to swap to digital and the consumers aren't eager, they only need make digital $10 cheaper than store bought and a lot will swap over. That in turn will dry up the physical supply into the second hand market eliminating that physical price drop.

And on the point of 'archiving', if people want to buy physical to keep their game forever, there is no second hand market. There's only a second hand market if people want to play and then sell on, which is all about price sensitivity. Those two positive aspects of physical games are actually mutually exclusive which means if either-or is a dominant reason to buy physical, it'll undermine the other; they can only coexist in balance due to different people having different values.

Honestly, there's lots that can be said if we want to discuss this rather than just assert a perspective and talk down to those who think differently.

I'm sorry but it becomes frustrating when conversations bases that are pretty well founded get shut down for reasons that I struggle to understand.

Christopher Dring publishes and has access to sales data for Europe for the GSD.

Games Sales Data is the first video games chart providing sales data in both retail and digital markets. It publishes weekly reports of physical and digital sales over 50 EMEA and APAC territories.

The Digital data incorporates games from Activision Blizzard, Bandai Namco, Capcom, Codemasters, Dontnod Entertainment, EA, Focus Entertainment, Koch Media, Konami, Microsoft, Milestone, Paradox Interactive, Sega, Sony, Square Enix, Take-Two, Tiny Bull, Ubisoft, Ustwo and Warner Bros.

The Physical data comprises games from every publisher sold in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Retail charts are being displayed in both volume and value.

Territories covered by the scope of digital data charts includes Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kuwait Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and UAE.

As far as the insomniac data goes, I have mentioned it already multiple times. It's one of the strongest supporting arguments that consumer habits aren't changing that drastically, with the COVID period being the lowest "crisis" for obvious reasons, and the low percentages that it's losing in some markets is due to the presence of digital only consoles.

On "preservation", I don't really have a good opinion on it. If the game files gets shared on the internet by enough people I think it should be safe, and physical deteriorates over time, so that's not an argument in favor of physical as far as I can see. True preservation will always be on PC.
But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[function]

Cost per GB of distribution via online is only going to continue dropping faster than optical, and game sizes are only likely to increase - they're already often larger than 100GB (though maybe AI based compression/decompression can help?).

Sony's figures confirm that they make substantially more per game sale from digital than from physical, so it makes more sense to more deeply subsidise a digital only model and push these models to customers. This is only likely to make an optical equipped console less attractive in the future.

Nintendo games are typically smaller in GB terms than PS/Xbox games so they can get away with 16GB or smaller memory cards, and they don't require the super fast streaming performance of home consoles. If Switch 2 were to have 150+ GB games and need to have them installed on multi-GB/s NVMe drives, their current distribution system disappears off into the sunset. But then they wouldn't be so handheld friendly, so I don't think they'll be doing that next gen.

The PS5 now ships as standard without an optical drive. The Series S never shipped with one, and the Series X is getting a digital only version. If it gets a full refresh, it'll probably be digital only. Mobile is digital only. PC has effectively been digital only for a long time. Nintendo can only hold out as physical first for as long as their games are relatively small in size (still sub 50GB next gen?) and relatively modest in storage bandwidth requirements, and probably so long as they're a mobile device.

Next gen home consoles (or an Xbox handheld) won't be a happy time for fans of physical.

 

[Charlietus]

As long as the option is there, they will be fine. The moment they don't give the option, they will receive the worst shit storm since the Xbox one debacle. It would be a disaster. Not even considering the loss of shelf space and the consequences of that.

 

[QPlayer]

Cost per GB of distribution via online is only going to continue dropping faster than optical, and game sizes are only likely to increase - they're already often larger than 100GB (though maybe AI based compression/decompression can help?).

Sony's figures confirm that they make substantially more per game sale from digital than from physical, so it makes more sense to more deeply subsidise a digital only model and push these models to customers. This is only likely to make an optical equipped console less attractive in the future.

Nintendo games are typically smaller in GB terms than PS/Xbox games so they can get away with 16GB or smaller memory cards, and they don't require the super fast streaming performance of home consoles. If Switch 2 were to have 150+ GB games and need to have them installed on multi-GB/s NVMe drives, their current distribution system disappears off into the sunset. But then they wouldn't be so handheld friendly, so I don't think they'll be doing that next gen.

The PS5 now ships as standard without an optical drive. The Series S never shipped with one, and the Series X is getting a digital only version. If it gets a full refresh, it'll probably be digital only. Mobile is digital only. PC has effectively been digital only for a long time. Nintendo can only hold out as physical first for as long as their games are relatively small in size (still sub 50GB next gen?) and relatively modest in storage bandwidth requirements, and probably so long as they're a mobile device.

Next gen home consoles (or an Xbox handheld) won't be a happy time for fans of physical.

They will probably use realtime texture upscaling in the next generation. Perhaps it is still present here and there. I remember Ninja Theory talking about this years ago, did HB2 use this technique in some form?

In any case, this is definitely the future, lower resolution textures will be scaled up by AI, so games can stay around 100-150GB instead of 500GB.

 

[function]

They will probably use realtime texture upscaling in the next generation. Perhaps it is still present here and there. I remember Ninja Theory talking about this years ago, did HB2 use this technique in some form?

In any case, this is definitely the future, lower resolution textures will be scaled up by AI, so games can stay around 100-150GB instead of 500GB.

I mean I believe that's possible, but I also bought console mags in the 90's that claimed that fractal compression would mean the Atari Jaguar could match the Commodore CD32 for practical game data size.

Also, Cylons.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Physical is going away.

 

[see colon]

All of those surveys are meaningless. A survey of music listeners in 1998 said that 90% of them bought CDs and yet here were are. My nephews don't even know what a CD is.

My friend's kid bought a CD burner at a thrift store. He's 16 so his friends are just staring to get cars. Hand me down and older cars mostly, so they have CD players in them. They all knew CDs exist, probably never listened to them, but their mind is blown when this kid shows up with custom mix CDs. But at this point, that's a novelty. They all have cell phones, which means they have basically every ever made available to them at any time.

I think what's really holding back digital sales are the need for local storage and the long install times. Streaming might sort some of that out, but the obvious quality issues could be an issue. But perhaps we'll have a hybrid solution someday, where some of the game (like the engine and some core assets like the HUD) are stored and executed locally but data like textures and other assets are accessed via online storage. Honestly I don't know why they don't do this for FMV heavy games. I believe the only game that did was Quantum Break, and it was optional.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They will probably use realtime texture upscaling in the next generation.

Realtime upscaling seems implausible to me. You'd presumably need truckloads of silicon to pull it off well, and you'd be burning that silicon upscaling the same textures time and again versus just fetching the texture. However, you could generate ML derived assets at installation time to keep downloads small, or maybe JIT upscale to precache an upscaled texture. It definitely wouldn't play well with streamed assets though which is where we should be headed.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Physical is going away.

Great discussion needs more than assertions. You need your reasoning so it can be considered.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As long as the option is there, they will be fine. The moment they don't give the option, they will receive the worst shit storm since the Xbox one debacle. It would be a disaster. Not even considering the loss of shelf space and the consequences of that.

The next litmus test will be looking at sales of PS5 disc drives. Previously Sony had to guess which SKU, ODD or driveless, would be most popular, and even then they may have wanted to force the issues for cost reasons (if ODD has better margins, making more despite consumers wanting the cheaper driveless would ensure more drive-based sales).

Now all PS5's are drive free, we'll see if consumers want to pay extra for the optional drive or not. This also sets precedent for a more expensive next-gen - same launch price as PS5, $500, but without an optical drive which can be sold separately with a markup.

Nintendo's position doesn't really matter until they offer a direct replacement, high-tier console. Then they would offer a choice of physical media or not for gamers to choose machine. So long as they do their own thing, they can be isolated from the digital transition of the rest of the console market.

 

[cheapchips]

I remember Ninja Theory talking about this years ago, did HB2 use this technique in some form?

Nothing confirmed. We'll hopefully get some good tech talks from NT down the line. As far as I can tell tell, they didn't use their micro detritus work either. Not that there's much need for 'you haven't done the hoovering' dust clumps and pube detritus in Senua's world.

 

[Charlietus]

The next litmus test will be looking at sales of PS5 disc drives. Previously Sony had to guess which SKU, ODD or driveless, would be most popular, and even then they may have wanted to force the issues for cost reasons (if ODD has better margins, making more despite consumers wanting the cheaper driveless would ensure more drive-based sales).

Now all PS5's are drive free, we'll see if consumers want to pay extra for the optional drive or not. This also sets precedent for a more expensive next-gen - same launch price as PS5, $500, but without an optical drive which can be sold separately with a markup.

Nintendo's position doesn't really matter until they offer a direct replacement, high-tier console. Then they would offer a choice of physical media or not for gamers to choose machine. So long as they do their own thing, they can be isolated from the digital transition of the rest of the console market.

70-80% of all ps5's get sold with the disc drive already installed. Not much has changed for most people, I'd say that it's a more physical friendly solution surprisingly, since now you can upgrade your digital PS5 to a PS5 disk.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Source? Couldn't find anything but Amazon (UK) best sellers has PS5 Digital outselling PS5 Analogue.