Downloadable Games: Worst Idea Ever

[Semitendon]

Recently, a trend has emerged with the idea of making virtually every media downloadable.

Movies, books, television, newspapers, comics, and games are all starting to follow this model.
Eventually, the plan would appear to be, to make these media be available in downloadable format only. Physical copies would no longer exist.

This is a gaming website, so for the purposes of this thread, we can focus exclusively on games.

Here are some problems with making games downloadable:

1. Price Gouging: We all know that you can download DLC, and game companies are already jacking prices for in-game items. Call of Duty is coming out with their abysmal "Elite" membership, and everyone is aware of EA implementing their "codes" for play.

If games move to an exclusively downloadable format, game companies will be able to put a price tag on every single aspect of the game. Consider: If you think prices are unfair or too high now, what are the odds that the companies will not abuse the prices when they literally have complete control over their game?

2. Limiting gameplay: X-box has a number of games available on their arcade LIVE system. You can't play those games unless you are online. Other forms of media are already entertaining the idea of having downloadable content being made as " single use, or limited time use".

Consider: What happens if your internet, or their servers, go offline? What will you think if you are made to pay for multiplayer, and an additional payment per mutliplayer game that you play? What will you think when you play a single player game, and then have to pay for the entire game again 6 months later, because your downloaded copy of the game has expired?

I believe these are the two biggest problems that downloadable games will inevitably produce.

The trade off that we as consumers receive for this? Convienence, speed, and space. It is more convenient and quicker to download games than to drive to the nearest store and buy it. It does save space, as you no longer have the physical game boxes taking up space on a shelf.

However, I believe that the benefits do not come anywhere close to matching the negative potential of downloadable games.

I know that this is the "future". We all want the tech at the latest, greatest, fastest levels. But, I honestly believe that we are rushing headlong into screwing our own pocketbooks for the sake a few inches of space, and a few mintues of time.

For Discussion: Now that I have laid out some potential problems, and have listed the benefits. What do you think about the trend, and future of downloadable games?

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I don't care for donwload at all, except for demos. I preffere solid media, just like I preffere the feel of holding a real book whilst I read.

If a time comes when the world goes this way in gaming, I'll just play on old consoles.

Though, I dunno if the world's gone to switch right away, remember the PSP Go? Sure, that was price and all, but still, not many people could see the value in it and it pretty much failed.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Well, I have to say as a steam user since it's inception.... You have nothing to worry about on PC. The digital download standard has been set for the most part. Unless Msoft releases firmware that grants the user the ability to swap out his/her hard drive for any Laptop hard drive I highly doubt we will be seeing any digital only distribution this console cycle.

1. price gouging - Already happens. IDK if you are aware, but, the games you get on consoles for the most part are 10-30$ less on PC through digital distribution means. You already get gouged if you are a console player.

2.limiting gameplay - an online only game is online only. I can play any of my single player arcade games offline so you must be referring to games that are only online multiplayer... if not then please give examples. I own a ton of arcade titles and not one of them (sans battlefield 1943 since it has no single player) requires me to be online to play.

Saving space - Actually, on consoles HDD space is a premium price these days. I can get a three 1tb HDDs for my PC at the same cost for 1 250gb Xbox HDD. Shelf space is cheaper then an xbox 360 hdd.

 

[gritch]

I'm not extremely well versed in downloading many games but I think i have a bit to contribute here:

1. I don't see companies blatantly charging more than $60 (at least here in the US) for a game even in a downloadable format. What seems far more likely (and is already happening to an extent) is developers releasing "half-finished" game for full retail price and then adding DLC for purchase. Things such as subscription fees are already fairly regular (xbox live anyone?) and I think they'll always be certain companies that will take this approach.

Perhaps a "cost per game play time" would be a better system to implement and having all games in a purely downloadable format will probably help with this. I will admit however that it would be very difficult to quantitatively measure how long it takes one to finish a game - especially those with a strong multiplayer aspect.

2. I think for any downloadable content a factor for me is to have a complete version of it saved locally. Cloud computing is great - when it works. Nothing makes me angrier than not being able to even play single player because the DLC I download requires I be connected to the internet and my internet is down (such was the case with the DLC from DA2). If I buy a game I want to be able to access it whenever and where ever I want, with or without an internet connection.

But on a plus side losing/destroying a hard copy of a game basically means you have to re-buy it. If one were to have their data corrupted they could always re-download the game again free of charge.

I definitely see this trend of downloadable games continuing. So long as I can have a copy of it locally I'm fine with it. I doubt it will increase prices much higher than they already are and it'll be far more convenient.

 

[Stall]

1. If downloadable games will lead to price gouging, then why are PC games, a platform where a majority of sales are from digital distribution, 10-30 dollars cheaper than console games? Even further, why aren't indie developers gouging the price of their games... many of which are exclusively available from digital distribution services?

2. Steam has an offline mode. It lets you play games you downloaded offline. This is a non-issue.

You know what else I gain from downloading my games? I save money.... a shit ton of money. On Steam sales, I can buy bundles that WOULD cost me 200+ dollars for only 60. Yes, that clearly is not a reason to use digital distribution . The only downside to downloading games is that you can't play them right after you buy them.

The benefits FAR outweigh the drawbacks. Digital distribution is the future, and a glorious one at that.

 

[Yamikotai]

X-box has a number of games available on their arcade LIVE system. You can't play those games unless you are online.

Yes you can, unless they're based around online multiplayer of course.

 

[LookingGlass]

I agree that both points are bad for the industry. If we move toward games that are released bare bones and most of the content comes in dozens of pieces of downloadable content, effectively making you pay for it like an MMO, that will be awful. If they start to charge us per play or per hour or per month for single player games, that will suck.

But these aren't problems inherent to having downloadable games -- it's about whether companies choose to be dicks to their customers for the possibility of making more money (and it would be a risk for them because people could just say fuck it and not play their games at all).


And on the other side of things, downloadable games do the industry a world of good. Think about indie developers, particularly first time developers and very small teams. They simply do not have the money or means for worldwide physical distribution of their games. Without digital distribution, we simply could not have a lot of the indie games we have today. And if that were the case... well, to quote Farnsworth, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore".

 

[J-dog42]

My biggest issue with downloadable games, is something most of you probably don't have to worry too much about and that is data usage. I have 60 gig a month between five people, so we really have to be careful what we do. Once you take into account everyone's television shows and stuff, you have to think twice before even downloading a demo.

 

[Majorlagger]

I think i big advantage that hasn't been mentioned is this.

have you ever been at friends house or on a trip and you really wanted to play a game or show off a game but couldnt because it was at your house? with cloud gaming no matter where your at or what comp your on (limited to your computers hardware of coarse) you can play the games you own and share them

 

[Majorlagger]

Edit: accidental double post

 

[MightyRabbit]

Well the people really taking advantage and making successes with digital media are either small time indie devs, or mid-sized companies both smart and small enough to turn on something resembling a dime to realise that digital media is a vast land of choice and if you're not cheap, convenient, easy to use & stocking a killer catalogue you'll pretty much be burned in effigy.

Also, indie devs currently represent the most inventive, innovative frontier of gaming. The bloody nose they've given the mainstream giants has left them either trying to get a share of this new frontier or earning much fan hate by railing against it.

In addition to being cheaper, more convenient, faster, easier and enabling a broader area of experimentation for both purchasers (cause you might just try out that £10 you'd ignore if it was £40) and developers (who don't have to worry about pleasing some heartless megacorp) it's genuinely shaken the industry up.

And with the torid mediocrity its fallen into recently with bland, uninspired, graphics obsessed games & really dickish business practices, the industry *needs* something to challenge the old guard to adapt or die.

And it won't really die, it's too big for that.

But the cons you mentioned? Megacorps have already learnt that if you go charging ridiculous amounts, we'll just go buy Angry Birds or something instead. And servers going down? First of all, only a specific subset of games require an active connection to play, and if you're so interested in buying a game, wouldn't you either wait or cart your system to somewhere with free Wi-Fi?

For example, taking your laptop to a friend's house or Starbucks or your uni campus so you can download whatever cool new title is doing something ten times more interesting with one mechanic than the entire mainstream's Christmas release schedule?

I'd say that digital distribution is one of the best things to ever happen to gaming, and really with the internet so ubiquitous, if it doesn't happen now, it'll just happen a few years later. I just wish it got this big sooner.

 

[DannyJBeckett]

I vastly prefer solid-media, to the point where I'll actively look for a CD over buying an mp3, but I must admit I've downloaded my fair share of DL-only games.

It all comes down to a matter of cost. If a developer can't afford to put the extra money into solid-release, then it's a massive help for them to get their product out on a digital medium. Look at most of the DL-only games out there. They're from indie developers who wouldn't be able to afford to sit and burn their games to disk themselves, let alone go full-on factory-scale printing. And then there are games that would just be a waste of a disc. Most discs can hold enormous amounts of data nowadays, so putting out a disc release for a game that takes less than a gigabyte on your HDD is impractical.

I've gotta say, I'm a little perplexed as to why the PSN and XBLA do downloads for games that got disk releases only 2 years ago. What's the point? It's cheaper to download them, sure, but one yellow-light or red-ring of death and you've got to download it again, whereas if you go out and buy the disk for under £20 you've got it for good.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Saving space - Actually, on consoles HDD space is a premium price these days. I can get a three 1tb HDDs for my PC at the same cost for 1 250gb Xbox HDD. Shelf space is cheaper then an xbox 360 hdd.

I am really hoping Microsoft fixes that during their next console generation. I know the ps3 uses a laptop hard drive and you can very easily replace it. They even included a backup feature so people could do just that.

Why would they fix it? It's exactly the same hardware, only MS set the 360 up to look for a piece of proprietary firmware on the HDD. If it doesn't detect the firmware it chunks a shitfit. That little piece of firmware is what forces people to fork out for 'official' 360 HDDs...

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I'm not extremely well versed in downloading many games but I think i have a bit to contribute here:

1. I don't see companies blatantly charging more than $60 (at least here in the US) for a game even in a downloadable format. What seems far more likely (and is already happening to an extent) is developers releasing "half-finished" game for full retail price and then adding DLC for purchase. Things such as subscription fees are already fairly regular (xbox live anyone?) and I think they'll always be certain companies that will take this approach.

Perhaps a "cost per game play time" would be a better system to implement and having all games in a purely downloadable format will probably help with this. I will admit however that it would be very difficult to quantitatively measure how long it takes one to finish a game - especially those with a strong multiplayer aspect.

2. I think for any downloadable content a factor for me is to have a complete version of it saved locally. Cloud computing is great - when it works. Nothing makes me angrier than not being able to even play single player because the DLC I download requires I be connected to the internet and my internet is down (such was the case with the DLC from DA2). If I buy a game I want to be able to access it whenever and where ever I want, with or without an internet connection.

But on a plus side losing/destroying a hard copy of a game basically means you have to re-buy it. If one were to have their data corrupted they could always re-download the game again free of charge.

I definitely see this trend of downloadable games continuing. So long as I can have a copy of it locally I'm fine with it. I doubt it will increase prices much higher than they already are and it'll be far more convenient.

1. On your first point, yeah DLC can be used as an excuse to half arse it. But think of it this way... before the advent of DLC games would be chopped to meet deadlines (unfinished content gets dumped, we the gamers would never see it unless its incorporated into an expansion, especially for console games)... this problem is more prevalent now, due to the developement time of a standard 2011 game is 2 years for what should be a 3-4 year production cycle. Now we can get "chopped" content, or planned content post release via DLC and still get a relatively complete game within a 2 year deadline. Whats more, DLC develops on the Expansion idea, by prolonging the experience over shorter intervals.

Subscription fees exist for Xbox because they pay for active moderators, unlike PSN where it's virtually lawless unless someone complains. It's totally pointless mind you, as abuse, cheating and general asshatery is still prevalent even under supervision (more so even). PSNs plan (the plus membership) has a better vibe to it. As a member (which im not) you get early demos, chances to enter betas, deals on new and old games, free trials and so on... it's a pretty good scheme that doesn't affect the content available to normal non subscribers (they get all the networking/shopping content bar the online data storage).

That said... DLC pricing is still an issue, we only have to look at map packs and cosmetic changes to see that.

A pay per play scheme would never really catch on. A lot of People prefer the notion of "owning" a game rather then renting one, especially if its a game they would like to revisit (which I imagine most devs aspire to achieve, rather then a throwaway "fix"). You could argue the MMO model proves the opposite, but even now that model is being changed to F2P because it's a better model (microtransactions allow you to "own" specific items in the game... the gamitself is free). Pay per play would be fine if we wanted an Online rental model, which I think is being considered by certain big wigs in the industry.

2. On your 2nd point. The need to be online (an evolution of the oh so ignorant DRM) is bogus and has to change. What moron thought that would solve anything. It delays piracy marginally, and with each successive game that comes out with that system, the margin decreases. The only virtue of it is... I can't think of anything actually.

Steam does it properly. Online is needed for activation, which opens up MP and other content. But an Offline mode is stored away so you can play it even without internet. Though even then it bugs out...

Just to add, as it's related to a degree, EA's online pass (and the like) is based on the argument that 2nd hand sales eat away at their prospective profits (supported even by Heavy Rain devs too). Greedy as it is, they have right to earn money from their own products and it only affects MP content, the Content most supported post release. Unless GameStop and their contemporaries change this model to benefit the developers and producers, there will be changes that damage the Retail industry, and customer satisfaction, for years to come.

The trend will continue as you say and will likely lead to the demise of the Retail market (not any time soon though). Chances are, the Retail markets will be bought out, or invest in digital retail and keep themselves afloat by adding extra perks (as they are now) to their retail copies. Also, Online backups are a great tool... unless it runs on GfWL which has limits on installs (unless that has changed recently).