New gaming technology
- Thread starter sadpolice
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like to collect games. I like to really own my own copy. Not just some data that I've been granted to use by the developers. I like to go to the game shop and look around, sometimes I'll find an old gem that I'll buy. I enjoy that. Like I said, I collect games. I buy them and keep them for as long as possible. If I ever want to play an old classic from the 90's I'll just get it off the shelf and put it in.SICK0_ZER0 said:
OnLive is cool though, it's more like renting from what I've heard. It's cool in it's own right. But you can probably already tell that digital distribution gets on my nerves. And to the guy who said that games can get damaged, well everything can get damaged. I'll take my chances that a sperm whale doesn't just appear in the sky above my game collection. In my entire life I don't remember ever losing or severely damaging a single game, but I've had to reinstall windows several times in the last few years. I guess I'm just a careful person.
There's no hate on people not keen on digital downloading, but you called it stupid, so I responded in kind. Personally, whenever possible I prefer having a game as a digital file that I can either store on an external, and/or re-download whenever I need it.SICK0_ZER0 said:
That said, I also like having hard copies, if for no other reason than it looks nice stacked by the wall along with everything else. But as you pointed out, it's also a decent fail-safe for a backup of everything if you need it, and useful if you want to loan it to a friend or something.
Pirating isn't really a valid argument against it either, games which exist exclusively as retail hard copies get pirated online just fine. If anything, digital distribution can inhibit piracy by requiring you to use a 3rd party program (Impulse / Steam, etc..) if you ever wanter to patch your game, or possibly even to obtain it in the first place. But, Pirated copies will exist regardless, if somebody doesn't want to pay for their game, they won't. Where it's available won't change that.
Anyways, the only solid argument I fully agree with is download limits. I know from personal experience how useless a digital download for games can be if you're on a slow connection, or one with a monthly limit on download capacity. In cases like that, having a hard copy is vital. Although, if the digital download consisted of an actual, independent installation file for the game, then you could store it in whatever backup capacity you like anyways. But that particular method would certainly encourage piracy, so it tends not to be quite so convenient.
Okay, I didn't watch the video because i don't care to watch the video, but I did read the previous article which explained what we're talking about. [http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/onlive-killed-the-game-console-star/]
Near as I can tell, it's a new download compression thing, right? Essentially allowing one to play games online with a processor somewhere else actually running the game for you while you play at home or wherever.
So far there has been a lot of flack on the con side because many prefer to own the actual, physical media as opposed to some kind of digital download. And I usually agree with this sentiment. I'm old enough to remember when consoles had a faux wood grain finish and the idea of owning the media I buy is deeply ingrained.
On the other hand, I can see the advantage to something like this and how it may gain quite a bit of ground. And I see it every time I look at my DVD collection, which is probably easily dwarfed by the collections of many here, but still sizable. And I never watch any of it. Occasionally I may pull out a movie to watch, but by and large, I don't watch them. I watch what's on TV instead. Even if it's a movie I already own. Heck, I own several movies I haven't even watched yet.
All my collection does is take up space. Because that is what collections do. Even people who regularly watch the stuff they own, unless they only have a handful of titles, they can't watch everything they own. So they watch something and everything else just sits there on the shelf, gathers dust, and takes up space. It's all just clutter.
Services that allow you to download media like this will be a paradigm shift as a next generation grows up that is not used to buying physical media object, but subscribing to services that provide entire libraries that can be used at will.
There may be downsides to this, naturally, but I think those are outweighed by the upsides. Such as to removal of the clutter in your house. I mean really think about this. Imagine that the media is just as easily accessible as digging out the disc from you collection, so that functionality remains, and then measure the space your media collection takes up in your living room: books, music CD's, DVD's, game disks, etc. and then think of what you could do with all of that space.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have an entire room filled with junk and most of it can be provided by a monthly service fee instead.
So, while I can appreciate many here who still prefer to have the physical media object, all i can say is, guys, one day we'll all be dead and the next generation that is already used to just downloading songs to their iPod as opposed to buying music CD's will hold the floor because they'll be the audience that the industries need to service. Not us.
Near as I can tell, it's a new download compression thing, right? Essentially allowing one to play games online with a processor somewhere else actually running the game for you while you play at home or wherever.
So far there has been a lot of flack on the con side because many prefer to own the actual, physical media as opposed to some kind of digital download. And I usually agree with this sentiment. I'm old enough to remember when consoles had a faux wood grain finish and the idea of owning the media I buy is deeply ingrained.
On the other hand, I can see the advantage to something like this and how it may gain quite a bit of ground. And I see it every time I look at my DVD collection, which is probably easily dwarfed by the collections of many here, but still sizable. And I never watch any of it. Occasionally I may pull out a movie to watch, but by and large, I don't watch them. I watch what's on TV instead. Even if it's a movie I already own. Heck, I own several movies I haven't even watched yet.
All my collection does is take up space. Because that is what collections do. Even people who regularly watch the stuff they own, unless they only have a handful of titles, they can't watch everything they own. So they watch something and everything else just sits there on the shelf, gathers dust, and takes up space. It's all just clutter.
Services that allow you to download media like this will be a paradigm shift as a next generation grows up that is not used to buying physical media object, but subscribing to services that provide entire libraries that can be used at will.
There may be downsides to this, naturally, but I think those are outweighed by the upsides. Such as to removal of the clutter in your house. I mean really think about this. Imagine that the media is just as easily accessible as digging out the disc from you collection, so that functionality remains, and then measure the space your media collection takes up in your living room: books, music CD's, DVD's, game disks, etc. and then think of what you could do with all of that space.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have an entire room filled with junk and most of it can be provided by a monthly service fee instead.
So, while I can appreciate many here who still prefer to have the physical media object, all i can say is, guys, one day we'll all be dead and the next generation that is already used to just downloading songs to their iPod as opposed to buying music CD's will hold the floor because they'll be the audience that the industries need to service. Not us.
