[CoolestBeans]

The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit. Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around. So it's an irrational response but an understandable emotional response. It's a final marker of an era that realistically ended more than a decade ago. That video games are not an island: an enclosed experience of just you, the game, the console, the controller, the TV, and a bunch of wires connecting it all together. When we were kids, you had this little disc that exploded out into a world that was all your own to explore and experience. Now it's not all your own. When you bought a PlayStation 2 and some games, your relationship with Sony could end at any time and nothing would change in your day-to-day gaming experience. But today, buying a console is an ongoing relationship with the manufacturer every microsecond you play a game. And most people don't want to admit that. And ending disc production forces us to admit that old era has been dead and gone. More frighteningly, we helped it along every step of the way by overwhelmingly preferring digital downloads and always-on online games.

[zeroq]

> The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit. Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.

On the contrary. It's been a very long process of boiling the frog.

I bought a physical release of Spore in 2008 and the game allowed itself to be installed a couple of times. Few years later I bought a single player RPG game for which I still own the CD but I'm not able to play it because I tied it to an online service and lost my credentials. All the games I own on Steam can be gone in one second and my children probably won't be able to get access to them even if they don't require online accounts, for which very many does.

There's a huge disconnect between online games that require servers to be played on - in which case it's sad but understandable that one day these will be gone and unplayable - and vast majority of games that are single player that still require players to be online and have credentials to some 3rd party applications.

GOG is the only vendor that actually lets you to own your games.

Steam is the only company that play fair with their customers, but I can easily see the future in which Gabe passes out and Tencent buys the company.

> But today, buying a console is an ongoing relationship with the manufacturer every microsecond you play a game.

We are fully aware of that, and that's precisely what we are opposed to.

I can buy an old PS2 with collection of games, plug it to a monitor and have fun with no hassle and without an internet connection. 10 years from now PS5 will be a dead brick, even with a bag full of games.

[augusto-moura]

Steam's policy is that an already published game can only be delisted, allowing old owners to still play the game. I still own the original versions of Skyrim (before Anniversary edition, definitive edition, and all other *ditions), and I can still download it and play it, even though that version is not available for purchase in the store anymore.

Xbox and PSN don't have such luxuries AFAIK, after a game is removed from the store you cannot keep downloading and playing them.

PC is the last bastion for gaming freedom, a place to patch your game to use community servers. And for better or worse, piracy and emulation is always an option for the games that have any restrictions

[chillfox]

Nintendo still sells games fully on the card that can be played offline.

(yes, they are allowing third party publishers to use key-cards, but their first party games are fully on the card)

[wolvoleo]

Yes but they can force new versions with limited functionality. Like when they deleted half the music from GTA San Andreas.

On GoG you can choose to install every older version they've distributed (though GTA is not on there obviously)

[augusto-moura]

The GTA case is because js technically an update from Rockstar, not specifically Steam's fault here. There are always to downgrade a game, but true, it is not as easy as GoG.

[wolvoleo]

No it's not steam's fault but they do allow it to happen.

[zf00002]

Steams policy means that Marvel Heroes, a game that was shutdown and its developer closed, can still be downloaded by prior owners and used on the private servers.

Kind of interesting but I also had a game on GOG that got delisted and had to get a refund because it got removed.

[benoau]

> Steam's policy is that an already published game can only be delisted, allowing old owners to still play the game. I still own the original versions of Skyrim (before Anniversary edition, definitive edition, and all other *ditions), and I can still download it and play it, even though that version is not available for purchase in the store anymore.

No. Their policy is:

> This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

And their disclaimer disavows any rights you have to use the software or for it not to become broken.

And they prohibit transferring your account or licenses in any fashion, which means they are at best only going to become void when you pass.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement*

[augusto-moura]

I'm not talking about licenses or owning the game, I'm talking about if a publisher removes a game for whatever reason, you don't immediately lose access to that game, you can play it forever after. That is their current de facto policy, with probably a few exceptions.

The discussion on wether you truly own a licensed game is a different thing from what I said.

[benoau]

Developers/Steam are expressly allowed to break the game in-place so even that is an imaginary "right".

[musicale]

With the exception of a few (regrettable) "game key" cards, physical Switch 1/2 games are usually playable offline with just the game card and the console.

This is part of the appeal of Nintendo consoles - you don't need to connect them to the internet, and they are still terrific for local multiplayer.

[throwatdem12311]

On the Switch 2 the game key card only needs the internet to download the game initially. Once it’s downloaded the GKC authorizes the license totally offline and you can play offline like any other cartridge. You’d only need internet for online features like any other game.

If you have another Switch with the game already on it you can even download the game from that Switch using the “match version” feature and then play with the GKC to authorize the license, no internet required.

[Keyframe]

That's what I do at home. We have few switches (2 and 1) and a stack of games. Whenever someone wants to play something they get the card and play and return it afterwards for others to enjoy. No internet needed except for initial switch 2 setup when you turn it on for the first time.

[JTbane]

Also you can resell Switch cartridges.

[firefax]

>The discs have been a formality for longer than most gamers understand or want to admit Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.

I can see where you're coming from, but having recently replayed my childhood copy of MGS, all I can say is don't ask me for Meryl's codec number.

[garciansmith]

> Sony is discontinuing disc sales as a response to how gamers are buying games not the other way around.

I disagree. They are using that as an excuse, when in reality they simply desire more control. When Sony releases their sales numbers they never compare physical and digital sales of games that are offering both, but rather compare physical sales to everything digital including DLC and digital-only games to make the percentage of digital sales seem higher. You can't ever get a real comparison when there are options for both. Since it is true that physical sales are declining, they feel that they can do so without significant push back. Disc sales are still significant, and even besides the big companies there are tons of smaller companies that would gladly continue to order discs for indie games, limited editions, collectors, etc.

That said, I think you are quite correct about the "ongoing relationship with the manufacturer". This is just another step in the direction of seizing total control over things that people once considered that they owned.

[CoolestBeans]

Just going off vibes, I think if Sony could sell a physical media from now until the end of time they would. This is a company that engineered a tiny optical drive and little DVDs encased in cartridges that slot in for their portable game system. Whenever you read about a format war, one side is almost always Sony. This is also a company that like took a full month to recover their online services. My point is I think Sony is a follower and not a leader in this space. If they could print discs and license the tech to deal with them from now until the end of time they would.

[underlipton]

The through-line there is not a love for optical technology, but a desire for control. UMDs and MiniDiscs and the like existed because Sony thought that they could impose a monopoly on the market. On the contrary, after so many losing bets, you would think they'd be tired of trying, and looking for another way to get the same end (lock-in).

[chocochunks]

Most PS5 games still have the entire game on the disc and can be played offline. Sony also dumps DLC and microtransactions sales into the "proof" of digital being higher on top of digital only games. And they completely ignore used games. From what I heard for a lot of games that have both a digital and disc option it was closer to 60-40.

[pmontra]

I'm still perfectly happy with my solo racing games on PS2, not that I play them much anymore (or I would have bought ought a PS3 4 or 5.)

I never understood why I should prefer driving against some punks that spend their evening crashing into the other players on purpose or wait for online races to start.

But anyone is different.

[underlipton]

I think you misunderstand. The disc was the practical tie-down and compromise that allowed gamers to stomach what was happening. Whether or not gamers actually took advantage of the opportunity, the fact that there was a disc out there that they could physically pick up and buy meant that console game publishers (and, by extension, non-indie PC game publishers) couldn't descend into the depths of perma-Early Access-dom, or sell you a "game" that was really a pre-order.

If physical releases actually go away, that dystopia comes to bear. Console publishers think that this is a step in the direction of further control over their library, which is laughable. They're killing the compromise, the other side of which was, "Gamers will mostly respect console DRM and not flood the zone with "Explicitly Fuck You" piracy." These companies are about to learn a hard lesson.

[pessimizer]

I don't buy this a bit. Pirates weren't holding back until they got really upset about something. There will be absolutely no punishment for this change, because it is a minor change for the people who stuck them through the PS2->PS3 transition (and far beyond), and the people who were raised in a world where you didn't own things.

If some secret torrent of piracy is somehow unleashed, they'll just unleash a secret torrent of lobbying to increase penalties and investigation, and a secret torrent of partnerships with and cross-ownership of ISPs to unleash a secret torrent of surveillance.

I'm pretty sure I was the only one who dropped consoles entirely when they told me that the PS3 was going to have to be online. All my PS2 stuff still works, and I bought a couple more to make sure I'd always have parts. Pretty much everybody else liked gaming more than they liked their professed belief systems.

This won't even be an adjustment. Maybe they could give you a cardboard disk with a QR code on it that you can slide into fake little slot, in a very pretty box that says "Collectors Edition" on it. Or a DVD with a single encrypted text file on it that has your license number.

[underlipton]

>Pirates weren't holding back until they got really upset about something.

They weren't pirates until now. This is radicalizing hubris.

>If some secret torrent of piracy is somehow unleashed, they'll just unleash a secret torrent of lobbying to increase penalties and investigation, and a secret torrent of partnerships with and cross-ownership of ISPs to unleash a secret torrent of surveillance.

This has never worked. On the contrary, for most of the history of rewriteable media in most of the world, bootlegging has been the norm, and IP owners are powerless to stop it save providing a more convenient alternative.

>Or a DVD with a single encrypted text file on it that has your license number.

This could have been an option before they made their power grab. It's too late now. They've killed the goodwill and "face" that made the prior paradigm digestible, and exposed the strategy to too many people who wouldn't have faced it earlier.

[boesboes]

horse shit