4 ms·

It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can j

It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option.

ffhhttt 3y ago
There is a huge difference between subscription services like Xbox game pass and streaming
lelanthran 3y ago
> It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option. Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. So, sure, some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument that "Well, I play every game only once, for 90m, before moving on to the next, so we should enforce my preference onto everybody!" The majority of gamers don't play more than a handful of games in a year. There's just no time. You find a game you're into, your pour most of your hours into that game.
- fxtentacle 3y ago
  "You'll own nothing and be happy" It described life in an unnamed city in which the narrator does not own a car, a house, any appliances, or any clothes, and instead relies on shared services for all of his daily needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes. Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership.
    - IIsi50MHz 3y ago
      > seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes. True. Although, satire does tend to exaggerate to make its point. (I'm assuming the indicated source is at least in part satire, not having yet read it.) Related to rent vs own: public libraries are (in a sense) renting, just paid for either indirectly or by other people. > Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership. Until they try to play something from the past, and can't, because it relied on a game server, streaming server, or some other kind of remote asset that was not preserved. This portends a greater loss of shared culture compared to that which can be backed up or archived. Some people might be working on that, but I expect most will be made preservable only by rare rights-holders or illicit propagation.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Maybe people consider that eventually they die and that everything is rented in a sense...
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Maybe people consider that eventually they die and that everything is rented in a sense... Nope. If you own something you can leave it to your kids. If you rent it, you can't.
- maroonblazer 3y ago
  With the new model, consumers have two options now, instead of just one. They can rent the game or they can buy it. How is that not better?
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Because tomorrow, they'll take away the option to buy the game. Everyone in the games industry is excited about streaming specifically because making everyone rent their games is long-term more lucrative. We've done this dance with streaming video in the past. First renting was cheaper and easier. Then renting was the only option, and it stopped being cheaper or easier.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >Then renting was the only option, and it stopped being cheaper or easier. 1. you can still buy the blu-ray for any given recent movie. For non-movies, the alternative was cable, which you did not own. And hoping that they'd release a collection on DVD/BD 2. Despite all the price hikes, streaming is still more bang for your buck unless you only watch 1-2 movies a month. And still much more convinent. We;re not at this point in time in video, so i'm not worried about games in the next 20 years hitting that.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        You didn't own cable but you could certainly record it. So we've taken a big step back there.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. In that case the consumers have worked against their best interests for decades in other mediums. You can even argue as such in the PC market where physical media has also lost. >some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. in the same way in that you can still buy a CD or even record of a recent song, I'm sure you'll have physical media for quite a while. But we should also face reality and realize that most people are fine renting media, so it should be no surprise if companies start to tailor towards the majority. >You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument sure: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/mobile-games-now-account-for-33-of-installs-10-of-time-and-74-of-consumer-spend/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/mobile-games-now-account-f... >In the U.S., users generally have eight games installed per device; globally, we play an average of two to five games per month. we should never discount the mobile market in these discussions. nor teenagers.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    So rather than han paying 8 times for their games, the players are paying many dozens of times more for the same experience? I fail to see how this is a good thing.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. Remember that many of these aren't people who would magically jump in and play Skyrim if the mobile industry suddenly disappeared, even if Skyrim was given to them. It's a completely different audience. Once again, this is deluxe entertainment, and the overall impact of spending more money on a hobby isn't the end of the world. I'm not going to judge how others use their free time and disposable income.
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. That wasn't your argument. If you wanted to argue that, you should have done so from the beginning. Your argument was that it is more beneficial for players to pay many times the price of any game they play often.
- greatfilter250 3y ago
  [dead]
goosedragons 3y ago
Actually you could take that $60 game and sell it for another. And if you didn't buy an absolute stinker you could often get a pretty good amount of cash/credit back if you traded it shortly after release. We also used to have these places where for about $6 you could rent a game for a few days and decide if you want it to own. They often stocked a lot of the hot new release and they didn't need to enter special deals with the publisher for it to be available. If we had better rights over the stuff we buy digutally we could have stuff like this again.
autoexec 3y ago
> I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable It is more desirable. So is not having to be connected to the internet to play your games. So is not paying for something that can be taken from you at any time for any reason without reimbursement. So is having a copy of your game that can't be edited or censored at any time (including silently) and which can always be played in its original form. Also desirable is the ability to modify or patch the games you paid for however you like, even in ways publishers wouldn't approve of. So is the ability to let a friend borrow the game. So is the ability to resell your games. So is the ability to pass them down to your kids or grand kids. When all you have is "gaming as a service" you'll be giving up a hell of a lot more than a disk or a box on your shelf. Companies love cloud/subscription based gaming because it gives them far more control, gives them new ways to collect data on users and new ways to push ads at them, and it allows them to force gamers to pay for their games over and over again instead of it being just a one time purchase. I don't care how "casual" a gamer someone is, they will never be better off giving up so much in exchange for so little, especially since what little they do get is all subject to change at any time, just like the ongoing costs will be.
- PretzelPirate 3y ago
  I certainly like all those features, but would rather have them in a digital form. I want to download the media to my hard drive, store it on my NAS, back it up in any way, and be able to install it from those sources whenever I want. I also want licenses to be maintained outside of walled gardens using digital signatures, which I can also maintain my own copy of. As long as I present my license file along with signed game media, I want my console or PC to be able to run that game. I should also be able to lend, sell, and trade the digital license to anyone along with a copy of the media.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I don't mind digital if it's done right. I like GOG because you don't need their client, you can just download all the installers and manuals directly.
- jamjamjamjamjam 3y ago
bavell 3y ago
What are you talking about?? Owning a physical game is not at ALL what we are discussing. I buy 2-4 games a month, all through steam and OBVIOUSLY they are all digital downloads, no physical copies. Going from an ownership model to a rent-extracting subscription model is a HORRIBLE idea that almost no one wants (just execs who see $$$ and few gamers living in cities with low-latency high bandwidth internet)
nocsi 3y ago
It’s like the twilight zone in this thread. You argued that buying physical games is throwing away money. Then proceeded to say subscription services are actually better. Kinda absurd, if I don’t like any games on game pass then that’s money down the drain. No refund. If I buy physical games, I can & do sell them for half or even double what I bought it for. Games are an asset. Humanity is doomed if people really down want feeding trough entertainment, not caring what they play/watch and paying monthly for the experience

ffhhttt 3y ago

There is a huge difference between subscription services like Xbox game pass and streaming

lelanthran 3y ago

> It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option. Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. So, sure, some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument that "Well, I play every game only once, for 90m, before moving on to the next, so we should enforce my preference onto everybody!" The majority of gamers don't play more than a handful of games in a year. There's just no time. You find a game you're into, your pour most of your hours into that game.

fxtentacle 3y ago
"You'll own nothing and be happy" It described life in an unnamed city in which the narrator does not own a car, a house, any appliances, or any clothes, and instead relies on shared services for all of his daily needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes. Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership.
  - IIsi50MHz 3y ago
    > seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes. True. Although, satire does tend to exaggerate to make its point. (I'm assuming the indicated source is at least in part satire, not having yet read it.) Related to rent vs own: public libraries are (in a sense) renting, just paid for either indirectly or by other people. > Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership. Until they try to play something from the past, and can't, because it relied on a game server, streaming server, or some other kind of remote asset that was not preserved. This portends a greater loss of shared culture compared to that which can be backed up or archived. Some people might be working on that, but I expect most will be made preservable only by rare rights-holders or illicit propagation.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Maybe people consider that eventually they die and that everything is rented in a sense...
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Maybe people consider that eventually they die and that everything is rented in a sense... Nope. If you own something you can leave it to your kids. If you rent it, you can't.
maroonblazer 3y ago
With the new model, consumers have two options now, instead of just one. They can rent the game or they can buy it. How is that not better?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Because tomorrow, they'll take away the option to buy the game. Everyone in the games industry is excited about streaming specifically because making everyone rent their games is long-term more lucrative. We've done this dance with streaming video in the past. First renting was cheaper and easier. Then renting was the only option, and it stopped being cheaper or easier.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >Then renting was the only option, and it stopped being cheaper or easier. 1. you can still buy the blu-ray for any given recent movie. For non-movies, the alternative was cable, which you did not own. And hoping that they'd release a collection on DVD/BD 2. Despite all the price hikes, streaming is still more bang for your buck unless you only watch 1-2 movies a month. And still much more convinent. We;re not at this point in time in video, so i'm not worried about games in the next 20 years hitting that.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You didn't own cable but you could certainly record it. So we've taken a big step back there.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. In that case the consumers have worked against their best interests for decades in other mediums. You can even argue as such in the PC market where physical media has also lost. >some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. in the same way in that you can still buy a CD or even record of a recent song, I'm sure you'll have physical media for quite a while. But we should also face reality and realize that most people are fine renting media, so it should be no surprise if companies start to tailor towards the majority. >You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument sure: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/mobile-games-now-account-for-33-of-installs-10-of-time-and-74-of-consumer-spend/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/mobile-games-now-account-f... >In the U.S., users generally have eight games installed per device; globally, we play an average of two to five games per month. we should never discount the mobile market in these discussions. nor teenagers.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  So rather than han paying 8 times for their games, the players are paying many dozens of times more for the same experience? I fail to see how this is a good thing.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. Remember that many of these aren't people who would magically jump in and play Skyrim if the mobile industry suddenly disappeared, even if Skyrim was given to them. It's a completely different audience. Once again, this is deluxe entertainment, and the overall impact of spending more money on a hobby isn't the end of the world. I'm not going to judge how others use their free time and disposable income.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. That wasn't your argument. If you wanted to argue that, you should have done so from the beginning. Your argument was that it is more beneficial for players to pay many times the price of any game they play often.
greatfilter250 3y ago
[dead]

goosedragons 3y ago

Actually you could take that $60 game and sell it for another. And if you didn't buy an absolute stinker you could often get a pretty good amount of cash/credit back if you traded it shortly after release. We also used to have these places where for about $6 you could rent a game for a few days and decide if you want it to own. They often stocked a lot of the hot new release and they didn't need to enter special deals with the publisher for it to be available. If we had better rights over the stuff we buy digutally we could have stuff like this again.

autoexec 3y ago

> I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable It is more desirable. So is not having to be connected to the internet to play your games. So is not paying for something that can be taken from you at any time for any reason without reimbursement. So is having a copy of your game that can't be edited or censored at any time (including silently) and which can always be played in its original form. Also desirable is the ability to modify or patch the games you paid for however you like, even in ways publishers wouldn't approve of. So is the ability to let a friend borrow the game. So is the ability to resell your games. So is the ability to pass them down to your kids or grand kids. When all you have is "gaming as a service" you'll be giving up a hell of a lot more than a disk or a box on your shelf. Companies love cloud/subscription based gaming because it gives them far more control, gives them new ways to collect data on users and new ways to push ads at them, and it allows them to force gamers to pay for their games over and over again instead of it being just a one time purchase. I don't care how "casual" a gamer someone is, they will never be better off giving up so much in exchange for so little, especially since what little they do get is all subject to change at any time, just like the ongoing costs will be.

PretzelPirate 3y ago
I certainly like all those features, but would rather have them in a digital form. I want to download the media to my hard drive, store it on my NAS, back it up in any way, and be able to install it from those sources whenever I want. I also want licenses to be maintained outside of walled gardens using digital signatures, which I can also maintain my own copy of. As long as I present my license file along with signed game media, I want my console or PC to be able to run that game. I should also be able to lend, sell, and trade the digital license to anyone along with a copy of the media.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I don't mind digital if it's done right. I like GOG because you don't need their client, you can just download all the installers and manuals directly.
jamjamjamjamjam 3y ago

bavell 3y ago

What are you talking about?? Owning a physical game is not at ALL what we are discussing. I buy 2-4 games a month, all through steam and OBVIOUSLY they are all digital downloads, no physical copies. Going from an ownership model to a rent-extracting subscription model is a HORRIBLE idea that almost no one wants (just execs who see $$$ and few gamers living in cities with low-latency high bandwidth internet)

nocsi 3y ago

It’s like the twilight zone in this thread. You argued that buying physical games is throwing away money. Then proceeded to say subscription services are actually better. Kinda absurd, if I don’t like any games on game pass then that’s money down the drain. No refund. If I buy physical games, I can & do sell them for half or even double what I bought it for. Games are an asset. Humanity is doomed if people really down want feeding trough entertainment, not caring what they play/watch and paying monthly for the experience