AmzRigh said:I don't think you can justly dismiss an entire classification of control when the technology is still in its infancy, especially when said technology, while imperfect, is an overwhelming financial success. What exists of motion controls are, by no means, the pinnacle of what motion controls are capable of; to abandon a technology before it's fully developed is to waste was was learned from it.snowman6251 said:I want to share two opinions on the things they discussed.
1. Motion controls. I think they, or at least the wii, was an absolutely worthwhile experiment. It might have ended up being the best thing that happened to gaming. It wasn't. Far from it. Motion controls, frankly, suck and BADLY. We need to drop them. They're a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.
A physical copy is at least as, if not more, vulnerable than a cloud copy. Physical copies (be they disc, cartridge, card, etc.) can be lost, damaged, or otherwise rendered unplayable; it's still lost access to a game that you paid for. Granted, it is still, in most cases, something that the player has some degree of control over. You might say that's a fair risk.snowman6251 said:2. Cloud Gaming. I'm not huge on this either. I've used digital distribution services like steam and frankly I much prefer having a physical copy of my games. It's not just me liking "having" things either. Valve goes out of business, steam's servers go down, and I lose access to my games that I paid for. The same could be said for Onlive or any other similar service. I don't like that idea. I understand many game's online multiplayer will go down in the future but to lose access to the game entirely for similar reasons is a scary thought. I don't like that. I'd much rather just get a disk.
However, physical publication comes with its own costs: manufacture and shipping. This cost accounts for a significant portion of the price passed on to the consumers. To cling to an old idea with significant problems, rather than seek a new solution, is, again, quite shortsighted.
For example: an independent validation source. Perhaps some sort of platform-specific (or even platform independent, if we could swing that degree of cooperation) "key" -- a physical or digital item that would store verification of ownership for all an individual's digital acquisitions, not in the possession of the publisher or platform, but in the possession of the end user or a third party (perhaps a dedicated validation firm). Of course, redundancy is the best insurance against losing data, so the software distribution platform should keep record of this, as well; both are insurance against a loss of the other.
With regards to your second comment, the problem however is that while that could work for a steam like service, that wouldn't work for Onlive, or other cloud gaming services. With a steam like service you could buy and download the game, install it, and permanently have it in theory. With cloud gaming however you never actually download the game. You stream it off the host's servers. Therefore if those servers were to go down you'd lose all your games and never have a way to access them again.
Physical copies do come with a risk of breaking but I personally take VERY good care of both my software and hardware, because they are expensive and I don't want to screw them up. Anything short of a fire or natural disaster will do no harm to my games as I keep them in pristine condition. That might not be true of everyone but at least in those cases it's their fault, not the company they bought the game from going under.