Why online distribution will suck

[alinos]

Easy they evaporate. As they should.

Sure some underfunded people buy secondhand games because it's the only way they can experience these titles.

But as with the most common argument against those who say i pirate because im poor in a piracy thread. You aren't entitled to play these games. You pay for your access or not at all. And in this case, your not paying the developer anything which means technically speaking you sit in the same space as a pirate for doing so. The only difference being you gave your money to gamestop(or somewhere else).

If you can't afford all the games you want maybe you should be planning what you buy. Instead of going i need all my games at release how about buy the ones you enjoy or believe will get you the highest amount of playtime(thus meaning you need to buy games less often). And then you get to the Steam sales which happen 2-3 times a year(plus any other cheap sellers like GMG,Gamersgate etc.) and buy these games when they are on special

Not to mention that technically speaking pricing should drop

A) because they don't have to account for the risk of used copies being sold
B) because they are just hosting a bunch of 1's and 0's.

As someone who live's in australia and as a result publishers have been forcing "Australian Pricing" on steam because retailer's are complaining that they can't compete when they sell for 100AUD, and steam sells for 50US. So they started charging 90US for those title's.

But the fact is that most of the time these retailers don't compete anyway. I had a friend who still like retail go to buy Dead Island on launch day from EBgames, Walked in wasn't on the shelf asked the guy behind the counter. and we were literally told "Oh we didn't order any in, No one pre-ordered and since we can't resell them they aren't a high priority, we can get you a copy in a week if you want"

 

[FoolKiller]

If everything goes online all the time, I will permanently become a retro gamer. I like the physical copies. Many times, even in the last five years, I have not had access to high speed internet (either lack of funds or availability) and so I rely on gaming being the single player thing it was for me.

There are literally thousands of games in existence that I can play without ever going online if I have the consoles. I think I will stick to that once it becomes online all the time.

 

[intheweeds]

Personally, I am torn. I do like my physical copies, but I have a lot of Steam games and it's nice to not have to find yet another place to store yet another cool box. But that is as far as I care about the distribution method.

Does the used game market need to exist? No. You can buy games from others on Craigslist for a decent price (actual used value) and online sales are crazy good sometimes.

Seriously though, I want to go to the Gamestop everyone else is going to where used games are significantly cheaper. Where is this alleged store? It certainly isn't in my city! If the book is missing or there is no cover, sure they'll knock off two bucks, but used is not much cheaper than new. You think you save money by giving them your old games, but it's actually more expensive for you since you are giving them more games then they are giving you value in return.

For instance at my Gamestop (which is an EB Games being in Canada), MW2 is 49.99 new(still) and 39.99 used. Ignore the prices online, they are not applicable in store (they even say 'online only' below the price). Sure this is a CoD game, but the same thing applies to all other games I've noticed. How broke do you have to be to buy the used copy in that situation? If $10 makes the difference to you, maybe you should spend your money on food or something because you clearly have some serious cash-flow issues. Some games are even worse for new/used value. Why is everyone so stressed about losing used game sales? Do you all just enjoy being ripped off?

Is this just my stores? Why don't we all just en masse take our used games to Craigslist and sell them to each other for an actual fair price? Seriously, why is anyone defending this market?

Games are expensive, they always have been. Suck it up. I'm not playing Deus Ex right now because I have a family to take care of. I will get it when I get it. Sure I could trade in my used games and get it cheaper, but like I said - it isn't cheaper. Do this two or three times and suddenly you have three games on your shelf where there were twenty before and you are still broke. What are you gonna play then?

 

[Project_Xii]

Errrmmm... when has anyone EVER sold a PC game for any decent amount of money? Especially ones that involve CD keys and more recent DRM.

I got 600 games on my Steam account, and I'm glad they're mine forever. I only paid pittens for them after all: almost nothing over $10. It means at any point I can download, install and play any game I want, without having to look for the hard copy, patch it, fix it, whatever to work with the lastest OS's. Easy, convenient, and I'll have the entire catalog to pass onto my kids one day and make sure they enjoy the history of video games.

DD is the way of the future. Assimilate or get left behind. The Borg demand it.

 

[Moochkin]

buyin PC games online doesnt really matter anymore as most stores now wont accept them as trade in's due to the codes being linked ot one PC or account now. So in effect PC gaming industry has buggered itself for second hand games.

SO stick with steam as youll not be able to get nay money for any games you have anyway.

 

[Vrach]

Yeah, if you wanna sell your games, you're better off with the retail copy. That said, I've seen fantastic deals with digital retailers. So fantastic that you might as well do a "retail price - second hand sale" and get a similar amount. So yeah, that's exactly what I generally like digital downloads for, either buying games that are dirt cheap on some sale (nabbed KOTOR, Saints Row 2 and such that way) or buying games that I know will be keepers for a LONG time to come (Battlefield 3, Skyrim etc.)

 

[Iron Mal]

Mention a single car that doesn't require any maintainence or spare parts ever. I can find multiple games that doesn't have DLC or online subscription so yeah.... its flawed.[/quote]

Why must you be so literal? Are you unaware of how a metaphor or analogy is supposed to work?

Almost every product producing industry out there has to deal with the issues surrounding second hand sales (and have been doing so for a long time before ganing even existed) and yet it's never posed a mortal threat to their future or well being.

Why is this suddenly different with video games?

 

[zehydra]

But they were also cheaper than retail (most of the time for me, anyway)

 

[Magnethead]

I dislike online distribution because the internet here is fairly shoddy (Australia-wise). It's either running slow, the cap is pretty strict or just drops out sometimes.

AFAIK Steam games are hosted on 3FL in Australia, so if you buy through Steam you might want to look at moving to iinet. 3FL is part of their freezone(quota-free).

And no, I don't work for iinet

 

[Dastardly]

Without 2nd hand game sales, publishers could charge as much as they wanted. $80 or $90 games wouldn't be out of the question. 2nd hand sales keep the market in check.

I still cannot see for the life of me how a used game is different from a used book, a used CD, or a used weight set.

Would you buy a game for $80 or $90? No? Neither would most people. And that's why publishers aren't charging that. You can price a game however you want, but if you're not moving them from store shelves, you're not making money.

The real problem here is the used market right now. Gamestop/etc. is able to undercut new copies of the game by only charing $5 less. You ought to be asking why they are charging that much when a secondhand copy costs them pennies to put on shelves. If the secondhand market would charge secondhand prices, they might start "keeping the market in check." As it is, they're guilty of what is referred to as "artificial inflation."

As to what makes used software different from many other used products: This is to actually help clarify the difference. I'm not against used sales of anything, so I'm not saying used games are bad or illegal (just that the current pricing is bullshit).

A used car, or any other physical good, has undergone a certain amount of depreciation. If I buy a new car, let's say it'll last for 10 years. If I use it for 5 and then sell it, that person is getting a car that's only good for 5 years. Also, it's not going to be a top-notch machine, since it has some wear and tear on it. Since they are getting less product, the price also comes down to match.

A used game, barring cataclysmic damage to the disk (in which case no one's likely going to buy it anyhow, so it would be a moot point), contains the exact same software as it did originally. Software doesn't "depreciate." While that's one of the great things about software, it also hurts sales -- now it's not "Do I buy a 10-year car or a 5-year car," but rather it's, "Do I buy a 10-year car, or a 10-year car at a lower price because this guy selling it to me didn't have to pay the original cost?"

And we tend to think, "Score! See -- it's forcing companies to lower their prices!" But that's not thinking this all the way through. Let's say you create a product. And, all told, the materials cost you $10 and it took you 10 hours. You charge $25 for the product to recover the cost of the materials and to receive what you feel is a fair value for the time you spent... and a bit of profit, because that's why you're making the thing.

Now, if someone wants to sell your product used, they can charge just one dollar less than you. Even if that means charging $9, which you cannot beat. This would be fine if that "used product" was of lower quality... but software doesn't depreciate. They're selling something of exactly equal quality.

Suddenly, you're competing against your own product, but at prices you literally cannot beat because you have to pay for materials/production/packaging/etc. That is, in no uncertain terms, unfair competition. There is no possible way for you to beat them on price, and they are selling your product (at full quality).

So, that's why publishers are trying to look for ways to ensure a "new game" is worth more than a "used game," when they're effectively the exact same product. Surely you can't blame them for trying.

But what you can do is blame used game sellers for keeping prices high on used games for no reason other than "We know you'll pay it." Don't pay $55 to buy it used. Pay $60 for it new, and demand that the retailers lower the price on used games by half. Then you'll start seeing pricing models change across the board.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Two words: Music Industry. Digital distribution is happening in most industries that deal with digital products, and business will certainly change. However the music industry is a good example of how things will go. People are better at adapting than you might think and it shouldn't be much of a problem for them to change their models when digital distribution becomes the main method of getting games into gamer's hands. In a sense you're right, the second-hand retailers will be phased out like CD stores are being phased out right now, but that's just part of culture and social economics, business changes with the times just like it always has.

Digital is better, and that's really all there is to it.

 

[Dastardly]

Almost every product producing industry out there has to deal with the issues surrounding second hand sales (and have been doing so for a long time before ganing even existed) and yet it's never posed a mortal threat to their future or well being.

Why is this suddenly different with video games?

With cars, it's not even about parts and maintenance. That's folks using the wrong aspect of the product to form this analogy.

If you buy a car new, you get a new car. Let's just say, hypothetically, that this new car will last you 10 years before things start to break and need replaced out-of-pocket (not unreasonable, with current warranties). That's for a new car.

If you drive it for 5 years and sell it, the buyer is only getting half what you got. They are getting a lower quality version of the new product, because the item degrades over time. We're talking about "depreciation" here.

So, no matter what, the manufacturer has a lead on used car sales. They can say, "If you buy new, you're getting a longer-lasting product." As a result, used cars sell for way, way less than their new counterparts. That allows for both products to fairly compete, because the consumer is choosing between quality and price.

Software doesn't depreciate. If I buy a used copy of some Mario game, I don't get an older, fatter Mario that can't jump as high. I don't have to replace all of the flagpoles due to rust. It's the same game at the same quality. This means that software publishers are forced to compete with their own products... but the competing sellers don't have to worry about production/distribution/advertising costs. They can sell the product below cost and still make money.

Would you want to be stuck trying to sell the exact same product against somebody who can charge a lower price than is mathematically possible for you? Of course not. You would look for ways to ensure that the new product is, in fact, more valuable than the used product. You recognize that you can't stop used sales, but you attempt to provide incentives to buy new (other than "just because").

Or you stop creating a product that the "other guy" can sell. You don't want to be in the business of stocking your competitors, especially when they can undercut you at every turn. Digital distribution ensures that each person gets what they paid for--the software, which can last forever in the same state--but that they can't then resell this same-as-new product at a price that the publisher is mathematically incapable of beating (ie, less than the cost to make it).

Of course, nearly no used game sellers charge that low a price... yet no one stops to ask them, "Why not?" We're too busy yelling at the people who actually have to put money on the line to create this product.

 

[GraveeKing]

We point and laugh and the retail shops and go HA! YOU'RE OLD FASHIONED.
Everything has it's day, gaming has become more and more online, it's only a matter of time before it takes over - Personally I see it as a good thing, and the way I see it - if you a buy a game it should be for yourself anyway right? So trading or selling it on to a friend is losing the developing studio potential money, so yeah well. I know where I'd rather see my money going to....
Oh god I'm going conservative god help me.

 

[runic knight]

Car Analogies

I find two flaws here. First is that you on one hand claim prices for used games should be much lower, yet say that the product received doesn't depreciate and as such it is a bad thing for Used games to be sold at just under new price. A bit of clarity there might be needed.

Secondly, you often make the claim about the competition between new and used sales, but in a somewhat disingenuous way. When someone is reselling, they are not making a profit, they are mitigating a loss. The money for the game was already previously earned by the company who sold it in the first place, so second hand sales do not stop them from making money, but merely reduce the profits. Think of companies selling the rights to sell a product to other companies, with the number of products you have right to sell being 1 (your copy, as per ownership). Seems to be the same point, but bare with me. With exemption of piracy copies, there will need to be the same number of copies originally sold as resold once with hard copies. The game companies still made their money. So the question becomes is the reselling costing them another sale? I don't think so. The time taken to wait on a price drop means many games would be passed off for buying new for something else cheaper in the hear and now. Often the price difference between resell and new is what gets games into new hands they otherwise wouldn't touch because of limited funds. Why roll the dice on something untested if it is not priced competitively to a more trusted franchise?

For those entitled enough to say "if you can't afford it, don't get it in the first place", you are idiots plain and simple. These experiences with games that otherwise would have been passed over helps create games that are classics, or help redeem good games that were passed over for being not well known, thereby offering a balance of quality recognition in the game industry as opposed to just big sellers determining the path of games. A lot of games can come to mind as such, some even developing a following enough to merit sequels that otherwise would never have been thought of. Resale offers a broader audience, an audience that IS responsive to quality and who help encourage growth and diversity in the industry in a way different then just big name recognition and churned out remakes year after year. Madden, anyone? And while many call out steam's sales as an alternative, I wonder if that is not just a digital example of a garage sale? They bought the rights to sell it, a copy of sorts and now sell it for vastly cheaper at times. If some games didn't require you to be online obligatory to play them, I'd say it was golden.

Resale exists as a byproduct of selling something with tangible form. You take that form away, and of course you will kill the resale. But I really don't think that is a good thing. There are as many people said before benefit to hard copies and resale. While I certainly do not find fault with anyone who likes digital sales (I enjoy steam myself), there is still appeal in hard copy and certainly purpose in reselling.

 

[imnot]

I have never sold or traded a game in my life. If i buy something, it's because I want it forever. Whether it's a hard copy or not.

The main problem I have with digital distribution, is the shitty internet I have to deal with here.
It takes me 2 days to download an 8gig game -_-

Dayum, I thought I had it bad 6 hours to download a 4gb, and a 20 gb internet cap means I use up several days worth of internet :/

And your avatar is to bright and flashy!

OT: I agree

 

[sivlin]

They die out and either move into the online distribution business, another sector of the gaming production, or simply start a new sort of business. I hate to sound entitled but when it comes to games, it's really all about the customer and the player. I don't think this will negatively effect the production of games and all it really does is kill off something that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

They die out and either move into the online distribution business, another sector of the gaming production, or simply start a new sort of business. I hate to sound entitled but when it comes to games, it's really all about the customer and the player. I don't think this will negatively effect the production of games and all it really does is kill off something that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

2nd hand sales don't need to exist? Really? REALLY? So things like Craigslist should be illegal? Used car dealerships hurt the car business? Garage sales are destroying the economy?

Really?

Your car comparison is massively flawed. Car manufacturers make a great deal of money, maybe even the majority, on servicing, parts and finance. A 2nd hand game is effectively the same as a new one, a 2nd hand car is considerably different to a new one.

Without 2nd hand game sales, publishers could charge as much as they wanted. $80 or $90 games wouldn't be out of the question. 2nd hand sales keep the market in check.

I still cannot see for the life of me how a used game is different from a used book, a used CD, or a used weight set.

Used games sales have no impact on game price except for possibly making it higher due to perceived loss of sales on used games.

 

[Dastardly]

I find two flaws here. First is that you on one hand claim prices for used games should be much lower, yet say that the product received doesn't depreciate and as such it is a bad thing for Used games to be sold at just under new price. A bit of clarity there might be needed.

A fair question. In this sense, I'm talking about "fairness." People like to point out that publishers downing on used sales are being unfair. I also like to point out that it is, in fact, unfair of publishers to stick on this $60 price point and expect people not to find (legal) methods to bypass it.

But in this instance, I'm talking about the fact that used sellers have no tangible reason to charge what they do for used games. They do it simply because they can. They have no reason to charge anything that "just a teensy bit less than new." If we're going to point fingers at anybody as being unnecessarily greedy, it's these folks.

Now, obviously, I agree that the product itself isn't different (as it stands now). I fully recognize the conflict between the realities of software (no depreciation) and the financial problems posed by used sales of software (unfair competition). That's why I'm in support of publishers finding ways to ensure that new products in fact have more value than used products. This allows both markets to exist in the same way that other (real) goods have managed -- there is a difference in price and in the inherent value of the product. This allows for the necessary price difference, but without having to appeal (as I did earlier) to a simple sense of "fairness."

Secondly, you often make the claim about the competition between new and used sales, but in a somewhat disingenuous way. When someone is reselling, they are not making a profit, they are mitigating a loss.

Not quite. When someone is reselling, they have already made their money on the first sale. Then they buy it back at a fraction of the price and sell it at a profit again. There's nothing illegal about this double-dipping, but "loss" in no way enters the picture for the reseller.

Now, used sales are (in a way) about the first buyer recovering some of the remaining value of the original product. Even in these cases, the buyer often acts as though it's a "loss" for each dollar lower than the price they paid -- this is why so many people are mystified when they have to sell a house for less than they paid for it in order to move it. People often forget that in using the product, they not only "got (at least some) of their money's worth," so to speak, but they also consumed some of the value of that product. (See above for how this issue can be resolved with games).

So the question becomes is the reselling costing them another sale? I don't think so.

It can, in a very real way. If Gamestop buys X copies, the publisher sends them X copies. Gamestop then sells those X copies. Let's say they then buy all of them back and resell them (for sake of a simplified example). They've now sold X+X copies. If even a handful of those people would have bought it new had X+X copies been available to begin with, those are "lost sales." Of course, they're nearly impossible to measure, but it's clear to see it can happen.

To me, though, that's not the issue. It's the unfair competition, and the artificial inflation of used game prices. Why should Gamestop be allowed to charge $55 for a game that cost them maybe $20 in store credit? Simple answer: Because we let them. And why should publishers not be allowed to add single-use codes to their games in order to ensure that a new copy has more inherent value than a used copy, so as to incentivize new buyers?

After all, the publisher serves its customers. Used buyers are not directly the customers of the publisher. They're the customers of the person/store they're buying from. The publishers obligation is to increase the value-per-dollar for its own customers first. If the "convenience" of online distribution is one of the services they want to offer, I say that's within their rights. I also think that single-use codes are a fair way (as long as the content those codes provide is balanced within the scope of the game).

Resale exists as a byproduct of selling something with tangible form. You take that form away, and of course you will kill the resale. But I really don't think that is a good thing. There are as many people said before benefit to hard copies and resale. While I certainly do not find fault with anyone who likes digital sales (I enjoy steam myself), there is still appeal in hard copy and certainly purpose in reselling.

I agree. Resale can contribute to later new sales. But, of course, there are also those people who only ever buy used -- since, as it stands, the product remains the same. It is better to create the same two-tiered market every other product enjoys, so that there is a real, measurable reason to buy new (and also still the price break of buying used). But publishers certainly can't be expected to structure their entire business plan in a way that mostly benefits used sellers.

The answer, as is almost always the case, is somewhere in the middle. We're not there yet.

 

[runic knight]

A fair question. In this sense, I'm talking about "fairness." People like to point out that publishers downing on used sales are being unfair. I also like to point out that it is, in fact, unfair of publishers to stick on this $60 price point and expect people not to find (legal) methods to bypass it.

But in this instance, I'm talking about the fact that used sellers have no tangible reason to charge what they do for used games. They do it simply because they can. They have no reason to charge anything that "just a teensy bit less than new." If we're going to point fingers at anybody as being unnecessarily greedy, it's these folks.

Now, obviously, I agree that the product itself isn't different (as it stands now). I fully recognize the conflict between the realities of software (no depreciation) and the financial problems posed by used sales of software (unfair competition). That's why I'm in support of publishers finding ways to ensure that new products in fact have more value than used products. This allows both markets to exist in the same way that other (real) goods have managed -- there is a difference in price and in the inherent value of the product. This allows for the necessary price difference, but without having to appeal (as I did earlier) to a simple sense of "fairness."

I disagree. Sellers have the right to sell at the price they dictate as much as the ones they purchased it from have the right to. They choose to sell it at just less then new because it is the most they can while still being competitive. Seems like what is expected to me, no more or less then other objects that take a long time to depreciate (lets say here, a wooden desk). Even though the product is still the same quality, there is something people feel when buying used that requires it be cheaper to counter newer products. still I have been to enough garage sales to know some people will try to sell for as high as possible, just human nature.

Not quite. When someone is reselling, they have already made their money on the first sale. Then they buy it back at a fraction of the price and sell it at a profit again. There's nothing illegal about this double-dipping, but "loss" in no way enters the picture for the reseller.

Now, used sales are (in a way) about the first buyer recovering some of the remaining value of the original product. Even in these cases, the buyer often acts as though it's a "loss" for each dollar lower than the price they paid -- this is why so many people are mystified when they have to sell a house for less than they paid for it in order to move it. People often forget that in using the product, they not only "got (at least some) of their money's worth," so to speak, but they also consumed some of the value of that product. (See above for how this issue can be resolved with games).

I don't think I follow. By buying the game, they are out money. They have a copy in return, and they may find the trade favorable or not, but they are still at a loss of money. I use the language I did to refer to a buyer of an original product who is no happy with the purchase. The game is seen as a loss of money in that light and reselling is a way to mitigate the lost money, as the use of the product would not be worth it to them compared to the money spent on it. Assuming they enjoyed the game enough, they would be less likely to resell it, so that applies less.

This seems counter the idea that games have no depreciation because the coding doesn't change and mario doesn't get older, etc. What value is consumed? In using a desk as above, what value is consumed? Aside from parallel mutual minor wear and tear, assuming both examples are taken care of, it seems a fitting analogy. Doesn't the garage sale desk affect furniture stores the same way?

It can, in a very real way. If Gamestop buys X copies, the publisher sends them X copies. Gamestop then sells those X copies. Let's say they then buy all of them back and resell them (for sake of a simplified example). They've now sold X+X copies. If even a handful of those people would have bought it new had X+X copies been available to begin with, those are "lost sales." Of course, they're nearly impossible to measure, but it's clear to see it can happen.

To me, though, that's not the issue. It's the unfair competition, and the artificial inflation of used game prices. Why should Gamestop be allowed to charge $55 for a game that cost them maybe $20 in store credit? Simple answer: Because we let them. And why should publishers not be allowed to add single-use codes to their games in order to ensure that a new copy has more inherent value than a used copy, so as to incentivize new buyers?

After all, the publisher serves its customers. Used buyers are not directly the customers of the publisher. They're the customers of the person/store they're buying from. The publishers obligation is to increase the value-per-dollar for its own customers first. If the "convenience" of online distribution is one of the services they want to offer, I say that's within their rights. I also think that single-use codes are a fair way (as long as the content those codes provide is balanced within the scope of the game).

I do agree gamestop is a bunch of greedy people, but it seems the argument here is more about that corporate practice then about resales in general, which is just a method of the abuse. Akin to blaming a gun for a person who used it to shoot someone.

I disagree however with your line of reasoning. If developers wish to do it, that is there prerogative, however they then have to realize and admit they are only renting games to people. The purchaser loses any right to their purchase, and that is going to be a very bad thing. Unlike a service such as fully online games or even cable, these games are not constantly adding new content beyond a point (usually a point requiring you pay extra anyways, so it doesn't count). It is a straight rental, albeit long term rental, and those who might pay for a product of their own may not be willing to merely rent it. There is no incentive to the customer to give up their rights of property in owning their version of the game, nor any long term benefit. The customer loses any follow-up cost mitigation they could get from a second hand sale they may put towards a newer purchase, so it becomes a detriment to them, and as a result back towards game companies as their spending habits reflect this. This method does not serve it's publisher's customers, merely the publisher's financial backers, short term at that. Why buy a single use game in a world where computers are updated every couple years? I can and occasionally do still kick up my old NES, it was taken as a a given I could do so when I bought it years ago. It would alter what I buy if I was not confident I could enjoy my purchase down the road, as a single use code would certainly call into question.

I agree. Resale can contribute to later new sales. But, of course, there are also those people who only ever buy used -- since, as it stands, the product remains the same. It is better to create the same two-tiered market every other product enjoys, so that there is a real, measurable reason to buy new (and also still the price break of buying used). But publishers certainly can't be expected to structure their entire business plan in a way that mostly benefits used sellers.

The answer, as is almost always the case, is somewhere in the middle. We're not there yet.

I'll agree something in the middle seems best, but I still think that publishers in the gaming industry face the same problems any other producer faces, merely they are handling it differently, and in a way that is wrong in any measure.
As an aside, as much as I dislike gamestop myself, I find they may have touched on a hint of a solution with their exclusive content for pre-orders. Ideas like that guarantee certain new sales and offer the new sales something the used can not obtain, least as easily.

 

[Jessta]

My god I hope hard copies don't die out, internet caps have been getting smaller and smaller while the size of games have only been getting bigger, Its going to take MONTHS to download a game soon... (internet cap here just dropped from 30 to 20 gigs a month, not to mention I need a bout a gig of that for browsing and another couple of gigs to you know, play the games)

 

[evilneko]

Don't get me wrong, i absolutely love steam and other distributors. In fact since i started buying games online i haven't bought a physical copy of a game in years. But after watching the most recent Jimquisition, he said that online passes will destroy second hand game sales.

And then i saw my steam account.

I have over 60 games and i quickly realized that those games are mine FOREVER (unless of course you lose your account)
That means i cant sell, swap or even give away these games when i get bored of them or have simply played them through. Which leads us to the point of: If the popularity of online distribution gets so popular that future consoles and PC's will simply download all their games, what happens to the second retailer or buyer?

/ThreadHop

You know, I thought this was gonna be about something else, like not being able to install them (and in a disturbingly increasing number of cases, play them) without a net connection.

I also thought it might be about how, years hence, what if I'm struck by nostalgia for a game and want to play it again? Will it still be available on whatever digital distro service it was on? Will that service still exist? Will I even be able to get it legally at all? Hopefully if the original source for the game went under, some other company would've bought the rights and be distributing the games, but what if they don't?

With a retail disc in hand, I can always install it. Even years after the fact, the disc will still have the game on it. I can even copy the disc and convert it to another medium if I want or need to.

I never really thought about the giving them away part. I gave my copy of D2 to my friend after I realized how shitty the game is. Years later, my friend gave me his copy of Doom 3 after he got bored of it. I played it for a bit, then forgot about it myself until I found out about Classic Doom 3... Doom 3 owners: you MUST try this mod. I've also received copies of both Mechwarrior 2 games, Baldur's Gate 2, and Railroad Tycoon 2 from friends and family who didn't want them anymore.