Chances are, if you're a fan of video games, you've more than likely gone to a store to pick up the latest hot fall game release. If not, then you likely have purchased a game online and had it shipped to your door. From the older cardboard boxes housing bulky game carts, to the plastic cases that hold thin game discs, we've seen multiple forms of video games throughout the years. While the form of its delivery has changed, what hasn't changed is the fact that if you want to play a game, you need to get a cart or disc.

That is, unless you buy digitally.

The advent of digital games has changed the entire industry. The previous console gaming generation introduced the idea of being able to download older retro titles, or even smaller indie-developed games by simply connecting to the internet and paying through a digital storefront. Shortly after that, we began to see fully fledged major releases on both Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, and later, the Nintendo eShop. During those years, there was a heavy push for being able to have your library of games be playable without even getting up to change the disc. Not everyone was willing to take that step, however, with a large portion of players preferring their beloved boxes. PC gamers might be more at-home with being invested in a digital only library--they're familiar with forgoing physical releases. If you play only on a computer, there's a chance that you may not even own a single hard copy of a game.

To counter the rise of the "digital age", many people were outspoken about only supporting physical releases. This led to small publishers like Limited Run Games becoming incredibly popular, and providing fans with official boxed copies of smaller titles that wouldn't normally be put on such a format.

Even if you do purchase a physical game these days, you might find yourself forced to download it to your system anyway, and in the Nintendo Switch's case, sometimes the full game doesn't even fit on the game cart itself. SD flash storage and HDD prices are falling more and more with each passing year, and it makes going all in on digital gaming a more appealing option. Especially in regards to the Switch, because while it is considered a home console, it also has a portable function, and having to carry multiple cartridges on the go alongside it can be considered cumbersome.

Though a full-digital future isn't imminent--the chances of the next generation of PlayStation and Xbox ditching discs entirely is unlikely--it appears that the industry is certainly trying to move towards that goal. Representatives and analysts from influential companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision all believe that in the next decade, physical games will be a thing of the past. More niche games have even managed to make their way stateside purely on fact that a digital-only version would be much more financially viable, compared to having to release it on store shelves.

What are your thoughts? Have you already made the jump to a digital world? Or are you a collector, and the thought of not being able to buy a physical copy of your favorite games pains you? If such a future time comes and you're forced to play digital-only, will you be okay with that? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[xpoverzion]

I have no problem with it. I pirate all my games, so technically I have been using digial releases for years.

 

[bahamut920]

Nothing. I've already switched over to mostly digital on all platforms because I don't need the physical clutter in my life any more, and because without a car, it's much easier and cheaper to just buy games digitally. Even home consoles have large enough hard drives (and/or or the option to connect externals for more storage space) to hold at least a small library of games I play regularly, and portables have smaller games and (for the most part) use super cheap SD or microSD cards for storage, so owning more than one per system is a possibility. The one system where I've been frustrated going all-digital is the PSVita, with its exclusive (and super expensive) memory cards. Just one more failure to add onto Sony's pile with that console, I guess.

 

[duwen]

Everyone's forgetting arguably the most mainstream and popular gaming platform: phones and tablets. And I never heard of a physical game for that, albeit it is possible with Bluetooth, WiFi Direct, or an OTG cable... So you probably already know what my answer is.

Phone/mobile games are a prime reason why digital-only should NOT become the norm... there are so many titles for android and iOS devices that are now incompatible with current OS revisions - sure, you could keep a phone/tablet on Android 1.6 - 4 to have those games playable, but imagine the shit Nintendo would get if it turned out that any of the 3ds's initial eshop releases were no longer playable on later fw's.
I certainly never buy mobile titles because I believe they should all be considered temporary at best.

 

[Deleted User]

I personally like getting games in both digital AND physical format. I like to get the smaller games in digital format, while I get the massive games in physical. I just like saving space. If games were only released in digital format, I wouldn't be TOO upset, but I'd still be pretty pissed off.

 

[aykay55]

I mean on the one hand digital is obviously the better option for several reasons. You can't lose or break a digital game, like you can with a disk or cartridge. You can't redownload a disk/cartridge if it is/gets corrupted. A game loads faster off of internal storage or a drive when compared to a disk or cartridge. Companies make a much smaller profit off of physical games. The game you want might not be in store, and shipping it will take 2 days (with Amazon Prime). On the other hand you can't resell a digital game.

 

[WiikeyHacker]

in truth i'd just play the games i have that way i keep more money

 

[EmBlaze]

Phone/mobile games are a prime reason why digital-only should NOT become the norm... there are so many titles for android and iOS devices that are now incompatible with current OS revisions - sure, you could keep a phone/tablet on Android 1.6 - 4 to have those games playable, but imagine the shit Nintendo would get if it turned out that any of the 3ds's initial eshop releases were no longer playable on later fw's.
I certainly never buy mobile titles because I believe they should all be considered temporary at best.

Consoles have the same problem whenever a new generation takes over, albeit it's more slower and predictable usually. PC has mostly digital games distribution, yet backwards compatibility doesn't seem to be a jarring problem.

I don't see why it's such a big problem, the games people still want are mostly still there. Phones/tablets aren't even close to dedicated gaming platforms (and evolve rapidly), so you really shouldn't expect the same level of support.

I don't think the main problem is digital-only. A dedicated digital-only gaming platform can do better than physical games IMO, you don't need to stay compatible with older physical media. Someone has to do it right of course.

P.S. I'm curious which games are so good that you would downgrade to Android 4 or below for...

 

[x65943]

I mean on the one hand digital is obviously the better option for several reasons. You can't lose or break a digital game, like you can with a disk or cartridge. You can't redownload a disk/cartridge if it is/gets corrupted. A game loads faster off of internal storage or a drive when compared to a disk or cartridge. Companies make a much smaller profit off of physical games. The game you want might not be in store, and shipping it will take 2 days (with Amazon Prime). On the other hand you can't resell a digital game.

And that's my issue with digital only gaming.

Value equals what someone else will pay for something. If you have something that cannot be resold - it is in a sense of no value.

So buying physical feels like an investment and buying digital feels like renting. You rent for years and never gain anything.

 

[aykay55]

And that's my issue with digital only gaming.

Value equals what someone else will pay for something. If you have something that cannot be resold - it is in a sense of no value.

So buying physical feels like an investment and buying digital feels like renting. You rent for years and never gain anything.

You can't say you haven't gained anything, you gained entertainment. If you get an expert you could translate that entertainment to an amount of money, but that is besides the point. You haven't gained nothing.

 

[Deleted User]

pirates would be happy
but im indifferent
unless its a large game i prefeer digital

 

[DuoForce]

If movies still get physical releases than Video Games will as well. We have atleast 25 years before gaming goes fully digital

 

[DarkKaine]

It would suck for sure. I always buy the good games from developers I want to support, then leave the game sealed and play the "pirated" copy. Some of these games are quite valuable these days, that wouldn't have happened with digital releases. There's no guarantee the servers will forever stay up and if you're able to download everything in 10 years from now. It's impossible to share your game with a friend without connecting your account, and you usually end up paying more for a digital release than a physical one unless there's some sale. Shouldn't digital games be cheaper instead of the same price? Yet they aren't. The only argument is convenience, it's late at night stores are closed,you buy it digital. Other than that I see no reason to ever buy digital. At least the PC has some nice deals for digital downloads thru G2A and steam sales.

 

[duwen]

A game loads faster off of internal storage or a drive when compared to a disk or cartridge.

Off of disk - yeah. Off of a cart - depends on the system, but in every instance I can think of, no, they don't... in fact a cartridge should have faster access than harddrives or sd cards.

Consoles have the same problem whenever a new generation takes over, albeit it's more slower and predictable usually. PC has mostly digital games distribution, yet backwards compatibility doesn't seem to be a jarring problem.

No, they don't. Consoles never get updates that break compatibility with their existing library.
On mobile it falls to the titles developer to ensure their app is updated to work with future versions of the OS. Many devs just don't bother. Unlike with consoles, where the platform provider (Nintendo, Sony, MSFT) has to ensure their firmware updates maintain compatibility, the mobile providers (Google and Apple) have no responsibility to ensure apps aren't broken by their updates/upgrades.

P.S. I'm curious which games are so good that you would downgrade to Android 4 or below for...

There aren't any mobile games I'd personally consider "that good", but that's mainly because I don't consider mobile gaming to be comparable to traditional console/pc gaming.
However, there have been times when I've been pissed off that a game I'd wanted to try on mobile was incompatible with whatever version of Android was current at the time. An example that comes to mind was the android Do Don Pachi game (I love shmups).

 

[x65943]

You can't say you haven't gained anything, you gained entertainment. If you get an expert you could translate that entertainment to an amount of money, but that is besides the point. You haven't gained nothing.

Yes you gained something in the short term - like the fleeting taste of a hamburger that is here right now and gone in a few minutes.

But - afterwards there is no value because the digital nature of the game artificially restricts you from trading what was in years past a physical good.

And because you cannot trade your digital game - you do not possess anything of value.

 

[duwen]

Yes you gained something in the short term - like the fleeting taste of a hamburger that is here right now and gone in a few minutes.

But - afterwards there is no value because the digital nature of the game artificially restricts you from trading what was in years past a physical good.

And because you cannot trade your digital game - you do not possess anything of value.

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy than that - essentially you're saying there's no value in eating other than flavour.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy than that - essentially you're saying there's no value in eating other than flavour.

Nope, after you eat you can still sell the product package.
And later you could even sell your dung, you know, as fertilizer.
Yeah, food has a lot of after value! /s

 

[Zonark]

I’d probably stop playing console games. I really love to collect the artwork and such

 

[DarkKaine]

Here's something else to consider; the big three surely wouldn't neglect the user base that still goes to stores and happen to bring a game with them because they randomly stumble upon it. Also what else are they gonna do? Sell the consoles in stores but no games? That's corporate suicide right there.

 

[EmBlaze]

No they don't. Consoles never get updates that break compatibility with their existing library.
On mobile it falls to the titles developer to ensure their app is updated to work with future versions of the OS. Many devs just don't bother. Unlike with consoles, where the platform provider (Nintendo, Sony, MSFT) has to ensure their firmware updates maintain compatibility, the mobile providers (Google and Apple) have no responsibility to ensure apps aren't broken by their updates/upgrades.

Yes, I get your point and have sort of alluded to that on my second paragraph (which wasn't quoted). But I did specifically say "when a new generation takes over".

At least recently, backwards compatibility of the previous generation is rather lacking, and there has been no physical media support AFAIK. That may be because of hardware limitations or streamlining, but once the PS4 took over the PS3, only some digital PS3 games remained. For games released later in a console's lifecycle, their availability can be pretty "temporary" IMO.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here's something else to consider; the big three surely wouldn't neglect the user base that still goes to stores and happen to bring a game with them because they randomly stumble upon it. Also what else are they gonna do? Sell the consoles in stores but no games? That's corporate suicide right there.

Provide some digital download codes on something like a Google Play gift card with the games' artwork and information. Could also be bundles to save more space and resources. Just a thought.

 

[duwen]

Yes, I get your point and have sort of alluded to that on my second paragraph (which wasn't quoted). But I did specifically say "when a new generation takes over".

At least recently, backwards compatibility of the previous generation is rather lacking, and there has been no physical media support AFAIK. That may be because of hardware limitations or streamlining, but once the PS4 took over the PS3, only some digital PS3 games remained. For games released later in a console's lifecycle, their availability can be pretty "temporary" IMO.

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense for those who ditch the last gen as soon as the shiny new systems come along; last gen isn't supported by new gen (recent backwards compatibility implementations aside), so your old library of titles is useless without the system they were made for.
I personally collect physical releases for a ton of systems that date back four decades... every physical game I've bought is still perfectly playable on the hardware it was made for - everything from data cassettes for the ZX Spectrum to disks and carts for current gen.
The flip side of that is that there are titles as recent as last gen (hell - this gen if you consider PT an actual title) that are now unobtainable unless you rely on hacking and piracy.