Actually owning games this days

Hi,

This topic perhaps will be more appealing to older players, where purchased games ownership was a thing.

Just over decade ago, purchasing a hard copy of the game was still quite common. This days, this aspect is diminishing quite quick. Specially when gaming online stores become popular. From mobile market places, to consoles, to Desktops.

For most perhaps this is not a concern at all. And I need admit, it is a convenient go for example Steam, buy interesting game title, download it and yet same day play it. Granted, as long having access to account, internet and the device, players can play anywhere.

But here is a thing, which bothers me a quite, already mentioned and discussed partially, on different forum sections and posts.
We don't own games anymore. I pointed out not so long ago, that we actually mostly purchase a service.
And as long we have access to service, we have access to the game.
Problem is, what if for any reason we loose access to service. And say, coincidentally we need new device. Now we want a play our game, which we bought and like. But out of luck.


So consider this
I got some older games for which I have still CD / DVD. And they work out of box.
Ok, many games are coming on Steam for example. So can repurchase for peanuts.
That providing I got access to platform.

But what if for any reason (hypothetically)

• Or game updated and EULA has changed, and you don't agree with it.
• Game iteration become worse ( happens often ). ( I think strongest justification )
• Or I can not access account anymore (blocked, hacked, deleted, etc.)
• Or no network access
• I don't want to use Origin, Steam etc.
  
• Or i.e. Origin, Steam, etc stop exists in 10 years time
• Or whatever else ...

Now probably unable to play at all.


So here is a thing.
From my perspective as a player and a buyer, downloading pirated game, once purchased, is a best line of defense. As far I am concerned, technically that is completely legal for most cases (If anyone feels morally hurt). From that point, I can keep copy on desired storage, including CD / DVD.


SO
Do you think I am maybe too obsessed?
Or I am spoiled by past, by having physical copies of a games?
Or do I have good reason to be concerned, about lack of ownership?

What is your take on this?

 

There are so many games that unless it's freaking fantastic I probably won't go back to an old game so I don't care.

If it is freaking fantastic then I bet there'll be an abandon ware version of it or still a live version of it somewhere if I want to return.

 

As a "collector" (video games, first edition books, SA and BA comic books, etc.) I don't like the idea of a future without physical games. I understand there are arguments either way, but, meh... I don't like it. Now you kids get off my lawn. Go on now... git!

 

I think there is an importance to having unfiltered access to something like that. I don't think it has to be (or even practically could be after a point) a physical copy, but DRM free access to something you paid for? I'm good with that.

 

That is valid point for number of cases. But we know, not every game has abandon ware available.

I just realized, this is really problematic for collectors, like yourself. Interesting
I know there are collectors on online stores etc, "fighting" to have most of games etc.
But I don't think owning few digits of games, is as much fascinating, than owning physical things on a shelve.

DRMs that is definitely good argument.
I remember it was enough painful for physical copies already.

 

Try tabletop gaming. We don't have cookies because they're banned from the table while playing, but we DO have physical copies

 

I don't recall I ever heard "tabletop gaming" term before, so I quickly did search. Now I see what you mean.
I had few session games like that in past, which is quite cool. And is hard to replicate same experience digitally.
However, we had none alcoholic (we didn't need it for having fun) drinks allowed and some snacks. Yet to keep it clean was must.

 

I went to talk from someone who was trying to collect all digital games, TV, movies and e-books for a library or museum. They were saying that it is very hard to not only get copies of all digital media but also keep machines in working order so that people in 10-20-100 years from now will still be able to go and see them in action.

It was a pretty cool initiative.

 

I do agree with this, not to the point of they being physical copies, but to avoid games being services. The first digital games were like physical games that you install on your computer, it didn't matter if the company went bankrupt, you still were able to play your game.

I've never liked the idea of not owning what I paid for, or wanting to use it again after many years just to find out that it was removed by the company and you can't use it ever again.

This right here is one of the reasons I jumped into this gaming world.

 

Emulation will be the only long term solution. We've had very effective emulation for machines from the early days and for the MS-DOS era for a while now, but with efforts like Wine and DXVK (a DirectX-to-Vulkan translation layer) we're not too far from having emulation for Windows era programs.

https://www.winehq.org/
https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk

We're not just talking about running programs on alternative OSes here. With an x86 emulator (like Bochs or QEMU) it's possible to have x86 applications running on architectures they were never designed for like ARM.

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/
https://www.qemu.org/

 

I think part of the point was to keep the authentic experience of cartridges, floppy drives, 8bit screens, old mice and keyboards etc as they are all part of the original experience.

 

Everything from the early era is completely replicable. Everything from the MS-DOS era is too. Whether everything from the modern era is able to be replicated is another matter but you don't need to replicate every single thing to achieve an almost identical experience. Worst case you could always just pair AR/VR with fake devices.

 

I read while ago some article, where there was a company, which specifically was buying original games of people, to further resell. Don't remember details tho, nor company name. But they had quite a big collection in store.

I suppose the only issue still standing, will be with strictly online based games and master server on the company. So even owning physical copy, least likely be able to play anyway, when company get busted. However, like for example WoW, there are plenty 3rd party pirate servers as alternatives, so that may be the way to the rescue, in such cases. Providing there will be enough popularity.

Yep emulations are one way to keep on issue, with lack of hardware. Wine, DosBox, SNES, are good examples.
And that is completely valid point, probably satisfying many.

But still, may be the issue in terms of finding and accessing certain titles of old days.
Hence need for physical copies.

 

Went to an exhibit doing exactly that at the national museum a few years back. It was pretty cool. Saw a bunch of games I'd never even heard of before, that were iconic in their time.

There is quite a collectors market for old games and devices. And given the relative rarity of working versions, that market can be quite lucrative.

 

True.
Now not surprising, we have topics on forum, discussing retro games remakes etc.

 

Or, along those same lines but improved: FPGA. Things like the MIST FPGA that can more accurately replicate the hardware itself.

 

Actually, in case of computer software you usually haven't owned the game itself. You had license to run the software on a computer. Regardless if you owned

Yes.
IDK.
No.

I'm not a hoarder per say, so I don't care if I have physical copy or not. I'm good with my Steam library.
Also, you usually don't own the game you have on physical disk also, you have the license to use it (as usual with software products).
It makes your life more complicated because you need to keep the hardware which is capable of running the software and reading the media you have in a working order meanwhile if I have something on Steam or on Humble or purchase on GOG they made sure that it's working now.

Also I do not think either store would go out of business just like that without any consolidation of the software we're storing there. Technically it's possible, but it would carry so much ramification that I think it's nearly impossible.
If Valve would decide to close steam, they would allow the users to download and store their games permanently I'm pretty sure. But this is hypothetical.

 

While legally you are correct, but you as others know what I meant. For any reason, I can use hard copy, regardless what happens to the company, as mentioned.

This is your view and fully respect.
In the end, good we have multiple option to choose from. From physical to digital copies.

Maybe, but Steam is just one example of few I stated.

So lets pick game updates.
If game get worse and you can only download from the store, you have no other option than download worse version. Full Stop. Rarely you can choose from previous iteration if at all.
At least with physical copies, you had optional patches. Now you got updates (often optional, but only for already installed games). And further DLCs, but that as usual expansion (another story).

Hope you know what I mean.

 

But FPGA is alike rasbery pi with ARM. You can preinstall stuff and run it, only with lower level language (if I am correct). But I don't expect going that route, just to replicate hardware.

 

I prefer the new all digital world myself, and I am a "older" gamer. I understand your points but for me it all comes down to one word - clutter.

I hate clutter, I'm always looking to toss out old manuals, cds, etc. For me the lack of clutter is a huge win, I read all my books on ereaders, download all my games, stream all my tv/movies, etc. As long as I can be reasonably assured the content is there if I want to download it again, that is the biggest concern. If it is not a major service like Steam or Amazon etc. I try to archive copies in a cloud service. In the end I could lose 90% of it and probably be ok with that too.

 

This is definitely good argument. True, not everyone feels so much emotional attachment.
Specially for someone like yourself, or like / need have a space, or even often relocating (on the move).

 

Okay. So I haven't really seen any game I care about would getting worse with updates. On the contrary. Those updates are usually huge, so when you install that from disc, you need to install the updates as well (unless you don't want to and play with the usually buggy version you get on the disk).
I don't really care about optionality when it comes to patches. I don't like to micromanage my experience (I rarely use mods because of this).

Oh and you mentioned that you think it's legal to download cracked version because you own that. Well, this is not really true on most of the world. Also usually you're using torrent for it, in which case you MAY download it legally but at the same time you're distributing it back illegally.

I know there are people who always know better than the developers and such, I'm not one of them. If I don't like the game (updated or otherwise) I tell them in a form a review and won't buy any DLCs or such content and leave it alone.
I permanently deleted the Call of Duty WW2 from my steam library because I didn't like it. At all. Despite the fact that I paid for it. It was a piece of sh.t. I just moved on.

I prefer the comfort of the online library and install, I don't want easily breakable media dust-magnets on my shelves. (I don't have physical movie-library either aside from what I got to my birthdays: James Bond 50 collection, The Godfather trilogy and the Iron Sky disk).
I have all of the Rock Bands and Guitar Heroes for Xbox360 but only because it's impossible to have them otherwise. And I hate it. (I don't use my xbox for anything but playing these two game families - because I hate the console experience in general, I'm a PC gamer for a very long time)

 

Steam makes it easy to unplug DLC, but rolling back patches isn't yet a thing (unless you toggle between stable and beta editions of a game). I've received patches to board and card games, and I can always undo them by not using the replacements, or following the old rulebook

 

Don't get me wrong, sure I wish I could just whip out my old SSI Gold box games, or Ultima 4 cloth world map, and take a trip down memory lane once in awhile, but for me the tradeoff is not worth it. I am just not nostalgic enough I guess

 

That's different. We usually play tabletop with house-rules with one or two very basic exceptions (like Bang!). But in this case a stable group of people needed (usually).

 

I'm happy I don't need to have hard copies of things, it takes alot of space. I even rip my blu rays and put the discs in storage, I would throw them away if I didn't need them for legal evidence

 

No hard feelings. Glad to hear different opinions. In the end, I asked for it

I think most noticeable effect is, for some games, where some form of grinding / leveling is involved. That saying, often is online based, so physical copy may not be an necessary option. However, if you scavenge around online stores for such games, and read reviews, from time to time you can see titles, which implemented harder grinding, with micro translations, or been taken over by publisher etc. to monetize.

Yep, I suppose that is the case when it must. Which is understandable.

Normally licence states something around owning of illegal copy. But if you have your copy, either digital of physical, you don't hold illegally. I remember in some older licences, where something around, that you are permitted to own copy, based on original, for you personal use, or backup. Something in this line.

While via P2P torrent yes you distribute back, which can invalidate licence, or affect other legal aspects, downloading from mirror, is like directly getting copy, without redistributing. So as long licence permits, legally should be fine. And EU law I think even permits this option. Would need confirm the last one.

 

I don't play those games. But don't they stop you playing while you don't update your client? So it's not a real argument.

 

Indeed, that is often the case. But that why I mentioned, that physical copy is not really option in this situation anyway.
That for strictly online based games.

 

So, just to summarize:

The normal., single player games rarely get worse by the updates. -> it's okay to have them electronically only
The grinding, battle royale bullshits may get worse by updates but they block you if you don't update -> it's okay to have them electronically only

 

It is ok, is not wrong, but not suits everyone.

It is ok, can be very wrong, and suits to our annoyance

 

Anyone in this thread who is just throwing away old computer stuff, books, etc., contact me first please! haha. Serious, I like the physical goods. There's nothing like it. Got bookshelves all over my house. Old computers, tape decks, game systems, DVDs, VHS tapes, obsolete cables, etc. The more the merrier. (ok, enough for my 'Craigslist' ad... on with the thread)

 

What about opening another local classical / retro museum ?

 

The days of cool stuff with regular editions of games, like Infocom's trinkets and books, are gone

Now you get plastic/resin models of highly variable quality in very expensive special editions (or very cheap if you buy from the bargain bin, like my Assassin's Creed 2 with Ezio statue - great sculpt and colouring on that one).

 

Specially when now you can print them 3D. Just need to paint.

Warhamer fans would be delighted with 3D printers.

 

Only until they discover their printer of choice isn't as good at small details

 

Well, that is good point.

 

I understand the whole idea "If you buy a virtual game you might lose it when the server shuts down, but if you have a physical game you can keep it forever", but it doesn't fit at all with my experience. Last year, my sister wanted to play the Sims 3 for nostalgia sake, and she could immediatly download it from her Origin account. And even if Origin somehow shut down, she could find other sources :wink: :touch nose:. Meanwhile, her Sims 2 physical collection is mostly unusable due to many add-ons being damaged or lost in house moves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a 90's kid and I still get giggles from playing an actual NES cartridge with an actual NES controller, but in my mind it's definitely not worth the space and dust it takes compared to an emulator.

 

Yeah, discs are so easy to damage. Sometimes there's copy-protection which doesn't work well with a modern OS either. They gave away the ultimate collection of Sims 2 products 4 years ago, but oddly didn't continue to sell it or anything. It's there, downloadable to anyone who claimed it, so putting up a store page wouldn't cause them any hassle whatsoever.

 

I was planning to be buried Egyptian Pharaoh style, surrounded by the shining disc and cartridges of all the games I've conquered and loved over the course of my life. Now my afterlife is ruined, it seems.

Thanks a lot Google (or microsoft, or whoever)!

 

The convenience of services like Steam, and networked games depending on a central server, have basically won the day. Long ago you'd buy a game on disk, and play it over LAN. Or you'd host the game, port forward on your router, and publicize your IP and port you were hosting the game on (Quake 1 for example) to players on other servers or some web forum.

Today with match making, lobby systems, and hosting games without messing with your router, pretty much every networked game depends on a central server the game developers maintain. It is very rare now for a game to ask the player for an IP address of the server to connect to. Eventually those game developers end up shutting down the server, ending the game for good. Having a physical copy of the game doesn't save it from this.

The convenience of downloading games from Steam or similar services has not been the only thing that won against physical copies. More importantly it was the handling of updates. Back in games like Battlefield 1942, they would frequently update the game, but those updates were just sent to a few 3rd party file sharing sites. It was a pain to find an update download that was free and not ridiculously slow, nor didn't try to install malware toolbars into your browser. You'd be bombarded with demands to pay a monthly fee for the download service to get a priority slot for downloads. It was horrible, and you'd have to go through it once every month or two for every multiplayer game you were currently playing.

Even if it was local LAN multiplayer, you do a LAN party with your friends and you'd spend the first hour just trying to get everyone's game install all on the same version, because one guy hadn't updated yet but was sure his was up to date, or an update just came out the day before and one guy updated but didn't keep the installer, and now everyone else needed to figure out how to get the new update and from where, or just demand that the first guy uninstall and reinstall back to the version everyone else still has (then everyone tries to find the 7 or so updates you'd have to install in order just to get to the version everyone else was running). It was a dark time! Steam and other similar services just win here.

 

Thanks for the laugh, I remember those dark times well! There were more than a few times where the time troubleshooting everyones install was greater than our playtime.

 

Don't forget the take out the CD from the drive, exhale on it, slowly clean it with circular motion, put it back, drive does not read disk goto 5. It's like the blow your NES cartridge to work voodoo.

 

This is something that bugs me about modern games.

I remember a time when you purchased a game for your N64 or Sega - and that was that, end of the deal, never gonna get an update or DLC or whatever else. Now it seems developers have sort of embraced the whole "everybody connected" thing, and lean on it to release half baked stuff.

Sure, some glitches go unnoticed (and you can find examples of that a lot in old games) and never can be fixed without this type of system... but it just feels like overall the bar has been lowered for what is acceptable in a 1.0 release of some game. Sometimes games come out with very poorly tested features that can be broken with ease... things I look at and wonder how in the world it got past QA.

But meh - I remember when you bought a game and it almost always worked really solid right out of the gate because the developers of the time knew they had no way to possibly fix something down the road, and I think that helped keep things more stable overall.

Of course the whole ability to update and modify games post-release has been more helpful than it has been a problem, but I suppose some nostalgic part of my memory sort of misses the "old ways"... perhaps I was born too late

 

After shelving Red Dead Redemption 2 and leaving a negative review, I think the issue with a lot of recent games is that they try to do too much and lose sight of what the heck they were doing in the first place. RDR2 looks amazing, but it's an absolute failure as a game. Like, it's not a game at all.

Then I fire up good ole Zombie Army, which is a little dated and althogh Rebellion is a AAA company, they don't seem to be at the same tier as Rockstar, but nonetheless Zombie Army is a game I have been playing for years. I play the same levels a thousand times. It just stays fun. All you do in the game is shoot zombies. That's it. No upgrades, no progresion, no story, nothihng. And it's given me more hours of just sheer fun than I could ever squeeze out of RDR2 which must have cost 10x more to produce.

People need to stop trying to reinvent games into some kind of pseudo-cinematic experience and just make fun games.

 

Same with CD and DVD games. For long time once you bought, you mostly knew you had playable game. With some potential updates, or extra content in future. But yes, seams we are spoiled today, with halve baked released games.
And often that how end up, without further notice.
That wasn't acceptable in times of physical copies.

 

The thing is, that the increasing number of bugs in games don't depend on the media. There were disk releases which were broken and you had to download almost the entire game again as update.

The increasing number of bugs in games correlates with the increasing size of games. Both from fidelity and size point of view.
I blame organizational problems usually.

ps.: I don't try to excuse them, it's still annoying

 

For many that wasn't an option. Slow internet, or lack of internet. Or times of modem. Or going even further back to cartridge time.

And now we got wide mentality of patch / DLC from day one.

For bigger studios that should not be technical issue, since all been done many times over. Unless really implementing all from scratch, or new tech. But we got lovely capitalism ...

 

Complexity of games as a software have increased since back then, but the industry has failed to meet that. Just look at alot of people here at this forum about maintainability, unit testing etc

 

Well yes general games get more complex, but specially for bigger studios, with modern tech and access to assets.
Indie can do as much as could do back years ago. The only advancement is, as advanced used tools are.
And even then, many steps back to simplest solutions, since these are proved to work.