My buddy sent me a text stating that Sony's plans for consoles in 2028 and beyond is all digital, no discs, and speculation is Microsoft is following suit.
Fine. I restate my assertion: consoles need to be subscription services if "no disc" is going to be the new norm. I'm not willing to "buy" something I can't "own" without an additional cost to preserve it myself with external storage. If they're saving money not printing discs, I shouldn't be expected to pay full retail price which traditionally has included the cost of that physical medium. Either be bold enough to put all the chips into a subscription model and give us access to ALL the games on offer, or drastically drop the price of individual games since our access to them will be subjected to their willingness to offer them. I'd even accept a tiered membership model where we'd pay more for broader access. If someone only wants to pay $10 a month for access to indie and retro titles, and someone else is willing to pay $50 for everything on offer, fine! At least there's an understanding that THEY own the games and WE pay for what they offer. Hell, include the option to "buy" games (at substantially less than the full retail price) with the understanding that ultimately preservation of said purchase falls on the buyer.
@Old_Hunter_77, this is not self-righteous bitching as you've assumed; this is business savvy, the "give and take" within the exchange of commerce. The new reality is digital, that's fine, where's the give on the cost side? They save not printing discs, and sell us codes for the price of a disc? There's a difference between adapting and complying. Gaming is a luxury hobby, but any who can and choose to partake should be respected in the exchange. Getting objectively less for the same and HIGHER prices is complying; adapting would be the industry understanding that their convenience should translate into cost reduction for the consumers.
Fine. I restate my assertion: consoles need to be subscription services if "no disc" is going to be the new norm. I'm not willing to "buy" something I can't "own" without an additional cost to preserve it myself with external storage. If they're saving money not printing discs, I shouldn't be expected to pay full retail price which traditionally has included the cost of that physical medium. Either be bold enough to put all the chips into a subscription model and give us access to ALL the games on offer, or drastically drop the price of individual games since our access to them will be subjected to their willingness to offer them. I'd even accept a tiered membership model where we'd pay more for broader access. If someone only wants to pay $10 a month for access to indie and retro titles, and someone else is willing to pay $50 for everything on offer, fine! At least there's an understanding that THEY own the games and WE pay for what they offer. Hell, include the option to "buy" games (at substantially less than the full retail price) with the understanding that ultimately preservation of said purchase falls on the buyer.
@Old_Hunter_77, this is not self-righteous bitching as you've assumed; this is business savvy, the "give and take" within the exchange of commerce. The new reality is digital, that's fine, where's the give on the cost side? They save not printing discs, and sell us codes for the price of a disc? There's a difference between adapting and complying. Gaming is a luxury hobby, but any who can and choose to partake should be respected in the exchange. Getting objectively less for the same and HIGHER prices is complying; adapting would be the industry understanding that their convenience should translate into cost reduction for the consumers.
