Downloads vs. Discs and related DRM
What are your thoughts about buying downloadable games versus buying a game on disc, or online activation versus disc-based DRM?
There are several popular websites where you can buy and download games (which I suppose makes them online distributors) such as Steam, Good Old Games and Direct2Drive. There are also game developers (at least one: Telltale Games) where the consumer can buy games and download them from the developer.
I've heard, in an off-topic manner, people talk about this, but I don't really understand who is in which camp and why. There are people who jump up and down about not liking online activation in games (I mean once-per-install activation) because "the company might go out of business" while others have said things to the effect of having lots of games bought through Steam.
It would seem to me that if, say for example TTG closed its doors, there would probably be made available a way to patch their downloaded games to not need to activate via their web servers. If there wasn't, I personally would feel no regret about acquiring an even unofficial way to subvert it, seeing that I had bought the game legally anyway. Therefore, I see online activation as no big deal. I just bought the disc copies of TTG's products for the extras on the discs.
What are your thoughts?
There are several popular websites where you can buy and download games (which I suppose makes them online distributors) such as Steam, Good Old Games and Direct2Drive. There are also game developers (at least one: Telltale Games) where the consumer can buy games and download them from the developer.
I've heard, in an off-topic manner, people talk about this, but I don't really understand who is in which camp and why. There are people who jump up and down about not liking online activation in games (I mean once-per-install activation) because "the company might go out of business" while others have said things to the effect of having lots of games bought through Steam.
It would seem to me that if, say for example TTG closed its doors, there would probably be made available a way to patch their downloaded games to not need to activate via their web servers. If there wasn't, I personally would feel no regret about acquiring an even unofficial way to subvert it, seeing that I had bought the game legally anyway. Therefore, I see online activation as no big deal. I just bought the disc copies of TTG's products for the extras on the discs.
What are your thoughts?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
The exception is obviously Telltale, whose games are fantastic and I'm happy to buy digitally.
I can see why a company going out of business re: online activation might worry some people but there are so many geniuses on the internet it wouldn't be long before someone sorted it out.
1. It is the only way to obtain the game
2. It is dirt cheap
3. I am trying to own all possible versions of a game (XBLA ports of W&G, for example)
If there is a retail version available, even if I already own the digital version, I will buy the retail.
There is security to be had in owning a hard copy of something, but I'm not paranoid about it to the point of willfully missing out on a game experience just in case I'll maybe not have it in 10 years.
On the topic of music, I am anti-iTunes, but I haven't attempted to learn about any other digital music stores. iTunes archaic "download once in your lifetime" policy and the fact that you have to pay more to remove draconian DRM reeeeaalllly bothers me.
Save the Whales! Or nuke them, whatever's easiest.
I like downloadable games. Steam makes everything so convenient. I know some people don't like steam's DRM but it seems like a small price to pay for a good service. And the more companies lead the way with Downloadable games the better the services will become.
Although Yare, while yes, physical media is indefensible from an environmental standpoint, from an aesthetic one something there's nothing quite like holding a new game in your hands. The joy I felt when I was able to get my hands on Ocarina of Time at Christmas '98 would have been rather diminished if it had just been downloaded.
Totally agree, Steam is a godsend for this. XBL Marketplace is heading there too is heading that way also.
Don't get me wrong. I got nothing against joy. But think for a moment about everything it took to get that box to you.
The box, manual and disc were all stamped out in factories. Raw materials had to be harvested and shipped there to make them. The resulting products were then shipped somewhere to be combined into the full retail package. These retail packages filled planes, ships, trains, and big rigs on their way to retail outlets. The product took up physical shelf space in a brick-and-mortar store. Somebody had to get in their car (or other transport) and get on a road and drive to that brick-and-mortar store to purchase the game. That store is staffed by people who also had to hop in their cars and drive there. The game is purchased and driven back home. Wrapped in paper that went through a similar process as everything above.
Eventually you unwrap it and it sits on a shelf, occupying some small fraction of the living space you pay for. When you move, it costs you to shuttle this extra weight and space around. The wrapping paper and other small bits of trash you don't keep probably wind up in a landfill.
I'm not an ecology/environment nut or anything, but the whole "physical media" thing seems terribly decadent to me.
I display my physical media as a point of pride. I love being able to peruse a real tangible shelf to find a DVD or game to play. It's not quite the same as clicking a little button on a screen.
um, what?
It amazes me how much cheaper buying a game on amazon can be compared to downloading direct on steam.
Giving the description by "yare" here earlier it should be the other way round.
I'll always go for the cheapest option as I'm sure most people would.
XBLA, XBLIG and games on demand, they haven't quite solidified it, but both XBLA and Games on Demand are very good services. There are a few DRM and payment issues still but I expect they will be gone for the next generation of consoles.
With Physical media, it is becoming more and more irrelevant, With Ubisoft discontinuing manuals, EA removing multiplayer for used games (effectively). I can see video games stores ending up selling codes on cards for games, eventually leading to them being on receipts, in the same way pay as you go phone credit went.
Amazon and similar retailers buy up a load of copies of the game, then if they don't sell particularly well they will often sell them off at a cheaper price, if desperate even at a loss, simply to free storage real estate.
That part made me think, "you're so American"
For the rest, I agree, but I think saying "physical media should disappear because it's bad for the environment" is over-simplifying. I probably pollute less with my few used physical games than you do with your up-to-date system and consoles, for instance.
This being said, I agree that every physical game will have needed to be produced and shipped, which is why I'm all for being super-selective. And as for every thing else, I tend to buy used because I feel I might as well buy what's already there and will be otherwise filling landfills rather than have something produced especially for me. (But don't worry, I don't buy from GameStop
It's always had to compare the environmental effect of things. Like books, a lot of energy is spent to produce them, a lot of pollution (even if you don't count the paper because it's replanted, you have to count the pollution caused by cutting the trees and replanting them), and ebook readers also need to be produced (with more pollution materials than books do, since it's electronics) and then consume energy.
Now, you might think that it's obvious that the ebook reader, that can contain thousands of books, is going to pollute less than the thousand books. But it really depends, because not everyone is going to have a thousand books. If you only have a few, you're better off with the books. If you read them all the time, you're better off with the books (produced and shipped only once, then no more environmental effect, vs the ebook reader that consumes every single time you re-read the same book), etc.
And most of the "replace X with Y" pollute more than people like to pretend. Solar panels pollute a LOT when they're produced. Wind energy can destabilise ecosystems because it messes with the wind. And so on.
The solution rarely is "replace all the stuff we're using by other stuff" but "use less crap to begin with".
Sure you can do both, of course, but reducing will have the most effect, there is a reason why it's first in "reduce, reuse, recycle".
My point is that someone who has only digital games can still pollute way more than someone who has only physical games, if the first one has all available consoles and uses them all the time, while the second one has line one console and five games, and doesn't play all that often.
Anyway, for my answer, I'll get things digitally if they're cheap enough that I can consider I'm renting them for one playthrough, if they're free and interest me (I wouldn't have downloaded Portal if it wasn't for my husband, for instance), if I'm only thinking of playing them once or if I'm just giving them a try, etc.
I've had my Internet connection cut in the past and I've also lived without the Internet, so if it's a game I really want to play over and over again whatever my situation, I'm not going to depend on the Internet.
However, for something I downloaded but can use without ever needing the Internet, that wouldn't be a problem.
For music, I prefer digital unless the album is a very special edition or something. That's highly dependent on the fact that once I've downloaded the music, I can listen to it without being constantly connected to the Internet. I always try to get stuff that's as self-sufficient as possible.
(I hope I didn't sound like I was moralistic in the part about the environment. It's all about personal choices anyways, and sometimes you decide to cut somewhere so you don't have to cut somewhere else. Obviously I own a computer and use it regularly, so it's not like I don't cause people to die all around the world too).
I think you mean GameStop.
(Although it's also true I don't buy from Gametap).
I suppose I don't have a problem with digital-based delivery, but given the choice, I will almost always choose physical media over it.
Yep.
Of course, but it's not like they really care. Think about all products that are sold as "one-use" when they exist in reusable versions (often reusable for life). They're making profit by selling more. It reminds me of that story about tights that don't get undone (I don't know the word in English... small cut in it and it creates a huge gap). How they were discovered, patented, and then never produced because this way they'd sell more units since women would need to replace them.
Really, it gets to me more when it feels useless to me. Selling you disposable stuff when there really isn't any reason to and many reasons not to. Over-packaging that doesn't even serve any use at all. Created needs. Etc. These just infuriate me.
But to me, there is a clear use to having something you can use and resell vs having something you can only use in more restricted conditions and that you can't resell.
And while we're talking about environmental concerns, what all goes into creating the servers, storage medias and what not for providing the online cloud that we get all our DLC from? I'm not being sarcastic or smart aleck-y or anything. I'm actually curious. All that stuff has to go up in quantity if physical media is to be sacrificed for it.
While everything is definitely being stored somewhere, on computers that run non-stop, considering how much stuff they can hold I'd stay it's still better than DVDs, especially when you consider that they probably only need to keep each game once (and not once per buyer).
Of course to really calculate it you need to take into account that a physical game has a one-time production cost while a digital game costs to be hosted for the whole time it's hosted (plus construction costs for the computer it's on).
Still, probably need to stay there for a pretty long time before it's worse than physical copies, unless there are only a few physical copies of course.
Also, I probably used the wrong terms but I hope I'm still understandable by computer people.
But yeah, digital doesn't mean it magically isn't anywhere at all, but in a way it's more like public transit vs personal vehicle. I think.
Also, storage media like DVDs, or even larger sized media like Blu-Rays or Holographic Versatile Discs or whatever else they come up with save on production costs because they hold more storage and don't require multiple discs per game like a CD-based modern game would.
This makes me wonder how many people would counter your argument by saying that without such physical media, a lot of people would lose their jobs.
In English, it's called a "run."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/run[2]
Main Entry: run
Function: noun
11 a : a ravel in a knitted fabric (as in hosiery) caused by the breaking of stitches
I agree with this. However, I very rarely (if ever) resell stuff, especially games.
It seems like a lot of people forget that it doesn't necessarily take a bankruptcy to shut down a service. It just takes a business decision. With online activation-based DRM, there are lots of ways for me to lose access to my purchased contents:
My two cents: I'm usually okay with disc-based DRM, but strongly dislike activation-based DRM. If the activation service shuts down, for any of the reasons listed above, I will lose the ability to replay my old games. I may even not get to play the game at all; I often buy games that I don't have time to play right away, and some times a couple of years can pass before I get around to playing them. The DRM service may not last that long.
There's also the issue of overloaded DRM-servers causing temporary outages (e.g. UbiSoft, iPhone activations etc) but I'm not so gung-ho about that particular problem.
It's a matter of trust; I don't trust publishers to keep their activation servers online and in working condition for as long as I'd like. They are (perhaps rightfully) motivated by profit, and they may decide that there is little profit in supporting old games. Some will release patches to remove the DRM at that point, but it's far too easy (and less expensive) for a publisher to just not care.
When buying a game, I always research my options carefully. Firstly, I always go with the DRM-free option if available (<3 indie publishers, GOG, etc). If not, I go with the lesser of evils--a retail copy if it only uses disc checking, or maybe a Steam copy if the retail disc uses activation; at least Steam gives me an unlimited number of activations. Price is also a factor--often retail is cheaper than the likes of Steam for newer games, but the other way around for old games. If none of the options available seem palatable, (e.g. the most recent Chronicles of Riddick game) I wait for something better to appear down the line. I'm very patient.
I think being that paranoid about DRM is fairly ridiculous to be honest. It's $10, it's not a huge deal if you spend $10, play the game thoroughly, and then never play it again. You'd spend $10 to see a film once in a theatre, I fail to see how suddenly when it's something you can potentially keep longer than one viewing, $10 becomes a huge deal.
Slightly more understandable when you're making a bigger purchase, like a $50 game, or something, but in that situation there is almost guaranteed to be a retail copy available if you're concerned about it. I'm just talking primarily about the $10 or less digital only games that a lot of people adamantly refuse to buy on the grounds that there is a slight chance that they wouldn't be able to play them again (without pirated/hacked copies) in the future.
Problem is, even retail discs often use activation-based DRM these days, so they may be no better than the downloadable copies in that regard.
Thanks!
Well, the thing is, unless I'm mistaken, buying a digital copy of a game isn't going to require a new server or as huge amount of new data to store. Therefore it could be argued that because these things already exist, they're using energy and resources anyways, and while physical copies would be better if there was only that, when you buy a physical copy you're not doing it instead of the servers running, etc, you're doing it on top of it. Therefore, from a consumer point of view, your smallest negative effect is by buying a digital copy, since t will pollute the same whether you buy it or not.
Of course, you can always see things like that from a boycott point of view, saying that there is no reason to be defeatist and settle for something because you think you can't prevent it, and that refusing to purchase digital copies is making a statement, in the hope of reducing the amount of games available online. Or something.
All of this depends on whether it really does pollute more, though. My guess is that there would be a graph and that at release, physical copies would be worse, but the more time passes the worse digital are, and there is a certain point where it inverts, because physical copies only have a one time cost + possibly cost per resale, while digital copy have the cost of producing the computers (servers, whatever) and keeping them constantly on, in working condition and up to date.
Still, don't forget that it's not like one server has a single game on it or something. It's much bigger than a DVD after all.
Hum, just realised that for games that are played online constantly there is the issue of traffic. So far I had only been thinking of games you download on your computer and install there and play from there. Obviously games played online would be different.
Anyway, it's not like we have figures. My brother-in-law tells me, usually when you have two solutions like that, a case can be made for either being less environmentally harmful, because everyone will point out one little detail and forget all the rest. These issues are much too complicated for us to theorise on them without specific figures. And it probably changes a lot depending on what kind of game it is, how many copies get sold, etc.
Anyway, regarding DRM vs NoDrm, it's an awesome argument that's really cool and great but it's been done a million times. DRM sucks because it can be a hassle for paying customers and not for thieves. Pirating sucks because developers lose money and can't make more games. Non-DRMed versions suck because there's zero deterrent for pirates. TTG will probably consistently release games with DRM while trying to make it as easy on you guys as we possibly can.
And if you're worried about losing the ability to play your games if an activation service shuts down, we have non-DRMed copies of our games on our internal servers that I'm pretty sure we'd release if for some reason our games were about to become completely non-unlockable.
I first read a cylinder, and I was really confused as to how that would even be possible
Personally, my opinion is that whether helping the environment is good for us, our planet, everything living on it and any future generation, or not, it doesn't really change anything.
I don't want things I don't need. The idea of package I don't need to be there, the idea of using something and throwing it away instead of reusing it, that all just infuriates me. It seems so disrespectful of the work, time and money spent on things, even if you don't include resources. And it just seems pointless.
If it helps things in the long run (and I believe it does), then good. If it doesn't, then I'm not going to live any differently anyways, because I don't want to live in a place bigger than I need, I don't want to drink from plastic cups and I don't want to throw away food.
I have to say, though, that even if humans can adapt to stuff, I'd rather live in a world we don't have to adapt to. I'm sure all humans could wear special suits and breathe through special masks if the air became toxic, but I'm also pretty sure that they'd prefer not having to.
I've been reading about some publishers having to resort to using cracks from piracy groups. The GOG release of Arcanum and the Steam release of Max Payne 2 spring to mind, but there have been other cases as well.
I have a ton of DVD cases that does nothing else but collect dust now, so the need for DVD cases is just there because that is what I am used to.
And maybe also then I have access to the games, even when my internet is down
I'm trying hard to accept that. And to a limited extent, I do. But digital distribution is (unfortunately!) inevitable for other reasons as well. The environmental issues are probably very, very far from being the main consideration of present-day gaming companies. For one, printing DVDs probably costs too much for small gaming firms to get their games on the market.
Seconded! And that is the second pro-digital-argument that gaming companies see this day: with digital media, it's actually easier to introduce and justify far more intrusive DRM measures, which I hate and probably can't get used to, ever.
TTG got me into buying their games only by also offering physical media. In the meantime, I also bought games online via GOG.com - old games, totally DRM-free, running on Win7 64bit. That's it, I think. Incredibly many games I would love to play are released with DRM I can't accept. If Ubisoft choses to make a PC version of "Beyond Good & Evil 2", I will tear my hair out because they have designed the most perverted DRM crap EVER, and that would be THE game I'd look forward to. I don't do online activation (if I never get a physical copy, that is), no limited activation or installs, no spy software on my computer. And that's that!
Yeah, I definitely prefer a physical copy of my games. There have been several practical reasons mentioned for that, and I just like having a disk, manual and case. Not to mention with my crappy connection downloading something like, say, Mass Effect 2, would have taken 5 full days online to get.
Sorry, then I rather prefer just having it all install fast and play it on the day I bought it. Which I still couldn't, due to an issue with the DLC, but that's an whole other matter...
Aside from that there is the whole matter than buying a physical copy is actually cheaper 9 out of 10 times than getting it on Steam. Which kind of defeats the purpose of buying stuff on Steam. The only thing I ever bought was Audiosurf, and that was because it was pre the Euro=Dollar time, cheap and not available physically.
I am not going to pay more to get less...
Of course now with TTG I kind of get against that a bit with MI:SE and Puzzle Agent, but what can I say, it's TTG.
For me, the service going down just means that I can't download the game from that site perpetually anymore. That's all. If I make an ISO of the game installer and keep it in my folder-o-disc-images, then who cares so long as I keep hold of the iso? It really is (or should be) a no-brainer.
I feel like people who are saying that, for a service to conceivably one day shut down, are using that as an excuse to back their position when really it holds no more water than someone saying they hate discs because once the media is scratched, the game is unplayable. If that were to happen, it should be obvious the thing to have done is either make a disc image of the game beforehand, or take the disc to some place that will resurface it.
So, yeah, either way, I'm good with it.:D
One other thing I like about game boxes and manuals is the art. I appreciate the artwork and sometimes just sit down and look at all my game boxes. And that opens up a completely new perspective on things. You could say "what good is a box that I don't need that sits around collecting dust?". But then, what good are the Davinci or Michaelangelo paintings or any artist's work (famous or not) if they just sit around hanging on a wall or sitting on a stand? The answer? It's art. It doesn't serve a purpose beyond aesthetic taste. And if you think that art is pointless and unnecessary then you're missing a large portion of the point of human existence. After all, why do we make and play games? (No, I'm not starting another "games are art" discussion)
I'm gonna play the Devil's Advocate here again, but exactly how many pirates does DRM deter? Take for example, Spore. Good game, but the highly limiting DRM punished people, as it's limited installation caused problems with people having to reinstall the game due to errors, or people who reformat their HDD etc. And yet, pirates were able to get the game before it was even officially released, with no DRM.
Assassin's Creed 2 is another big example. A single player game requiring a constant connection to the internet just to play is madness! Not even Steam is that draconian. Then the servers quite predictably had problems and people couldn't play.
The unfortunate truth is that while developers have the right to try and protect their product, the increasingly obtuse ways they attempt to do this ends up making the customers feel like the criminals while the pirates just pirate it anyway. To the pirates, Assassin's Creed 2 was just a challenge that was eventually overcome, and the general consensus from forums was that legally buying the game was going to be too much hassle and that they were going to pirate. Wherever or not that was just internet bravado is beside the point, as it should never come to that to begin with.
I'm going to finish this with a question if I may. It seems to be the PC that gets hit with the harshest part of the DRM stick. I'm pretty sure the X-Box Assassin's Creed 2 didn't require constant connections to Ubisoft's servers. And yet, piracy on the X-Box is pretty rampant. People were playing MW2 weeks before it even came out. People put homebrew OS onto their Wiis, only the PS3 seems as yet unaffected what with Blu-Ray being particularly new. So the question is, what is it about the PC that causes companies to focus DRM onto it?
The only way to get around that is to use a crack; which is illegal in some jurisdictions, including the US, thanks to the DMCA. (The DMCA made "circumventing a copy protection" illegal even in cases where no actual copyright infringement occurs.) In that case, you have no legal way of reinstalling your game after activations run out or the service shuts down. Hence you have an artificial time limit on how long your purchased product will work... you know, like a rental.
I'm not saying that "like a rental" is the greatest argument in the world though, it has its weaknesses.
Or, they could avoid scratching it in the first place. It's not that hard...