Will we see an ALL DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION 9th gen? *poll*

[Cjail]

@DSoup

 

[pMax]

At 50 mb/s it's still obnoxious to download 60GB games, but as these blazing speeds hit (if my cable ISP is doing it I'm sure they all are) it'll be much easier.

I have effective 5/6 at home and I feel lucky (I had 0.64 few years ago) - no chances to see fiber as it is not even planned for the next years in my area.

So what kids in such areas should do? Skip consoles... or pick the one that offers BD support.
Plus, if you don't have flat traffic... ah well.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have effective 5/6 at home and I feel lucky (I had 0.64 few years ago) - no chances to see fiber as it is not even planned for the next years in my area.

Same. Earlier in the year I had a mostly stable 18Mbit DL ADSL2+ line with no prospect for fibre because I'm connected direct to an exchange and BT (the internet infrastructure folks in the UK) told me a while back my DSL line will get worse before a technical solution means I can get fibre. They weren't kidding, I currently can't get more than a stable 14Mbit connection. There are people way worse off than me though so I consider myself lucky.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The PSP Go's history has shown us that download-only consoles will face sabotage from retailers, and console makers still need retailers to sell consoles.

Download only wasn't what sunk the PSP Go, it was lack of day and date releases of title that sunk it. If you can't get a PSP game on release day because it's ONLY available on physical media, why buy it? Just to have to wait 2-6 months until a digital version is released? So, not a useable comparison.

This. And this goes back to the Xbox One u-turn where Microsoft basically blamed public opinion for having to change their digital purchase policy. They did not have to change their digital only policy and they shouldn't have; it looked like a good idea. All they needed to do was also continue to support games on disc as they always had been. These are not mutually exclusive policies. When Steam launched with it's initial DRM policies, full game installations on DVD did not disappear overnight.

As long as it's cleara to consumers, you can offer as many options as you like.

Huh? They were planning to support physical distribution. The optical drive and physically distributed games weren't going anywhere. The only major change was ownership verification every 24 hours. They were even working with publishers and retailers to allow resale of physical AND digital games. That last being something unprecedented in console, heck even PC, gaming.

And just like when Steam appeared. Any Steam release on physical media also allowed you to just throw away the physical media once installed. The physical media was just there for distribution. Yes, not all games were Steam enabled at first but it definitely represented the future of gaming. Despite all the public backlash they stuck with it. And now it's the way everything is done on PC basically. Too bad Microsoft didn't have the option to stick with their plans. Too bad Sony didn't have the balls to do the same as well.

Ah well.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Huh? They were planning to support physical distribution. The optical drive and physically distributed games weren't going anywhere. The only major change was ownership verification every 24 hours. They were even working with publishers and retailers to allow resale of physical AND digital games. That last being something unprecedented in console, heck even PC, gaming.

And that was the problem. People didn't want a disc only for distribution purposes.

 

[MrFox]

Yep, and I remember the narrative a few months before we got hints of what they were doing by Adam Orth (the poor fall guy, he didn't deserve this). Used games was stealing, lending and borowing a game was also stealing, so gamers were criminals who needed to be checked every 24 hours by an automated digital parole officer to make sure they are not stealing. If the digital parole officer was overloaded, all gamers were immediately considered criminals and unable to start a game. If the digital parole officer get shut down (division being closed after restructuring), all gamers become criminals forever, and all their games stop working completely.

The gamers said fuck you. Microsoft said deal with it. The gamers switched to Sony. Microsoft reconsidered.

How can this still be misunderstood?

 

[AzBat]

And that was the problem. People didn't want a disc only for distribution purposes.

Some people didn't, by there were others like myself that preferred it. MS problem was unclear messaging that snowballed out of control. They 180 their plans so fast that by the time people figured out they wanted their disc-to-digital plan it was too late.

Tommy McClain

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Some people didn't, by there were others like myself that preferred it. MS problem was unclear messaging that snowballed out of control. They 180 their plans so fast that by the time people figured out they wanted their disc-to-digital plan it was too late.

Tommy McClain

Yup basically they royally screwed up the messaging. Just look at the Adam Orth situation that Mr. Fox mentioned. Or how the vast majority of news articles on the internet about Microsoft's plans and implementations was completely incorrect. Yet they persist to this day.

Once you hear on it on the internet, no matter how wrong it is. It just won't go away.

In a lot of ways similar to how Steam's intent was completely misrepresented and misunderstood when the service launched.

Regards,
SB

 

[tuna]

This. And this goes back to the Xbox One u-turn where Microsoft basically blamed public opinion for having to change their digital purchase policy. They did not have to change their digital only policy and they shouldn't have; it looked like a good idea. All they needed to do was also continue to support games on disc as they always had been. These are not mutually exclusive policies. When Steam launched with it's initial DRM policies, full game installations on DVD did not disappear overnight.

As long as it's cleara to consumers, you can offer as many options as you like.

They didn't change any policies, they just never implemented some of the vague fluff they talked about.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They didn't change any policies, they just never implemented some of the vague fluff they talked about.

As I understand it (which is tricky because different MS execs were saying different things) they had no intention of selling conventional games on disc; discs would only be an alternative distribution medium to download and this isn't the case now.

 

[3dilettante]

Once you hear on it on the internet, no matter how wrong it is. It just won't go away.

In a lot of ways similar to how Steam's intent was completely misrepresented and misunderstood when the service launched.

The above does not seem to jive with the below. Is Steam's intent still misrepresented and misunderstood, or did that misunderstanding go away?

As an aside, this poll begs the question that the next gen is going to cater to the quaint notion that consumers should have local control of data. Where's the Azure/PSNow option?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The above does not seem to jive with the below. Is Steam's intent still misrepresented and misunderstood, or did that misunderstanding go away?

All of it hasn't so much gone away as faded from public view. Although it does rear it's ugly head again from time to time.

A recent example is in the contract terms for developers/publishers to release a game on Steam, they must agree that Valve retains all rights to whatever versions of the game are packaged to be sold on Steam. Basically wording that has been there since the beginning as it is essential in guaranteeing Valve the ability to allow users to redownload their purchased games at anytime even if a developer/publisher removes their games from Steam and prohibits the sale and distribution of said game on Steam. That was very important in the faff that came about between Steam and EA when EA removed all their games from Steam and prohibited their sale. Valve retained the legal rights to continue to distribute those games to people that purchased it due to that wording, but not to sell new copies. EA eventually allowed Steam to start selling the games that were packaged for sale on Steam about 6-12 months later.

However, what gets misrepresented on the internet is that this is all a power grab by Valve, and they are out to do evil things to developers and publishers. Like steal their work/IP or other ridiculous claims. It popped up when it launched and it continues to pop up from time to time.

Regards,
SB

 

[Pixel]

If we want the Irrational Games of the World to stay in business and graphics to get better and better, we need to cut out the middlemen, unfortunately its the 25% retail cut.

 

[Persistantthug]

If we want the Irrational Games of the World to stay in business and graphics to get better and better, we need to cut out the middlemen, unfortunately its the 25% retail cut.

I'm not following.

Are you saying Brick & Mortar retail is the reason that IRRATIONAL GAMES is out of business? And are you also saying brick & Mortar retail is also the reason for the way BIOSHOCK 1 and 3 looked?

Please explain, if you will.

 

[AzBat]

I thought his post was pretty clear. Developers deserve that 25% cut more than the retailers. More money to developers = developers staying in business.

Tommy McClain

 

[Pixel]

I'm not following.

Are you saying Brick & Mortar retail is the reason that IRRATIONAL GAMES is out of business? And are you also saying brick & Mortar retail is also the reason for the way BIOSHOCK 1 and 3 looked?

Please explain, if you will.

With developmetn costs going up and up, and profits going down, many publisher/developers in the industry are in a tight spot. I'd rather have Crytek, Konami, Irrational Games and Capcom of the world possibly stay in the console/pc business via a 25% boost in revenue by selling the majority of their software digitally, than exit for something like mobile or f2p.

 

[BRiT]

It would also be better for developers and publishers if second hand sales generated money for them as well, but we know how consumers reacted to that.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It would also be better for developers and publishers if second hand sales generated money for them as well, but we know how consumers reacted to that.

Because it's basically without precedent for the manufacturer/producer of an item you buy to take a cut of the profit should you choose to sell or gift it.

The real or imagined erosion of rights of ownership crossed a line for some people. If you read the small print of games the publisher really only gives you a licence to use the product in certain ways but in many country's common law you still own it in the traditional sense because software licensing agreements do not dovetail with basic consumer rights.

It's a pickle!

 

[Persistantthug]

With developmetn costs going up and up, and profits going down, many publisher/developers in the industry are in a tight spot. I'd rather have Crytek, Konami, Irrational Games and Capcom of the world possibly stay in the console/pc business via a 25% boost in revenue by selling the majority of their software digitally, than exit for something like mobile or f2p.

But how is going fully digital gonna help them when that strategy would seemingly and likely result in fewer people buying their games?
Console gamers like physical better than digital and Brick and Mortar is key to physical distribution.

So how would taking games away from Gamestop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc help?

I'm still having a hard time following your sentiment.

 

[Gubbi]

Console gamers like physical better than digital and Brick and Mortar is key to physical distribution.

Some console gamers like physical better than digital. The rest of the world has gone digital (remaining console gamers, PC-, tablet-, and phone-users)

Cheers