Support NeoGAF

[Randall365]

Floppy discs and CDs do deteriorate actually - and the copy protection gets lost - digital will probably last longer if anything.

I will take cloud saves/backups, crossplay, automatic patches and not having to leave my house to get the latest game the second it releases, over disc swapping and a box to hug.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Not true. There was a recent survey that showed that a lot of physical games (I think it was over 85-90%) didn't require internet or a day 1 patch to be fully playable.

Spiderman 2 for example.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I disagree but like I told the other guy I'm a PC gamer so inserting a disk isn't how I play most of my games right now.



This is not true. Games on the Xbox and PlayStation store are stored on Microsoft or Sony servers, not the individual publisher's servers. This is why most delisted games can still be downloaded if it was already purchased. The physical copy of Star Wars Outlaw(and other games that require an internet connection to install) will download data from the Xbox or Playstation Store just like it downloads the data from the store if you buy it digitally.

That's great that you like to play old games but most people don't and requiring internet to install a game doesn't have to prevent you from playing the game in 20 years. All you have to do is just install the game before it gets taken down if it ever does. Scott Pilgrim vs the World was delisted in 2014 on Xbox 360 but I can still boot up my 360 and play that game if I want. I honestly believe this is just an issue of people hating the feeling of something be taken from them even though in reality this whole thing will never be a real problem.

I wouldn't classify, I bought Star Wars Outlaws in August 2024, therefore, I should be able to still play in 2044 no matter what as a basic consumer right. That's like saying I bought Elden Ring digitally therefore I should be able to play it on any one of my consoles. I purchased the game I should be able to play game however I want right? It doesn't work like that.

As a quick point to invalidate your stance on this issue, courts take the view that you should have the same rights with physical digital media as you would with a physical reading book.

Semantically buying an indefinite license to a copyrighted text is the same as buying a physical license for a copyrighted game, music, film

 

[killatopak]

Games are getting bigger than 100 GB, so unless Microsoft or Sony changes their disc policy, this is something that's going to happen more often.

Two discs. FF7 Rebirth just came out.

 

[Rickyiez]

Just make it a code then. Why bother with a disc.

The only thing that keep disc alive is it's "re-saleable"

But how is the code transferable anyway?

 

[Bojji]

The only thing that keep disc alive is it's "re-saleable"

But how is the code transferable anyway?

It's not, it's tied to your account. They will push boundaries more and more and many people are happy about it, fuck me...

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The only thing that keep disc alive is it's "re-saleable"

But how is the code transferable anyway?

It's not, Microsoft were said to be looking into it around the time of Xbox One.

Microsoft is thinking about digital trade-ins for Xbox One games

Microsoft is measuring interest in a digital trade-in program for Xbox One, according to a customer survey posted on Reddit. The hypothetical new option

www.gamesradar.com

But their proposed policy of tying discs to a console - essentially the convenience of digital with the resale-ability of discs was broadly rejected by people who weren't confident that they'd be giving up too much control over their purchases - and to be fair there was plenty of potential problems, IIRC it required people to go to specific retailers to have games removed from their account and taken into stock, which as it turns out might have been a bit of a lifeline for games retail, given how digital has become so prominent now, but presumably they'd set the value of your game, you couldn't just sell it on ebay, etc. You might remember it as being replied to with the Sony "This is how you lend a game on PS4" clip that went viral.

 

[Portugeezer]

You can still sell/lend the disc, which is always a positive.

Still shit having a physical game tied to servers though.

 

[Tomi]

They will fuc* everything they can
You will see..
Ubisoft is dead company

 

[M0G]

I had a bad feeling for a while, but the game itself looks like fun. That Ultimate edition is the same price as what the game used to cost with an art book, statue and steelbook and it's digital tat only lol.

I can totally deal with paying £30 for the gold edition, years after release, with less drm, with the bugs patched and the dlc released. There's no incentive left to buy it at launch now.

 

[Gamezone]

Two discs. FF7 Rebirth just came out.

As long as Microsoft and Sony doesn't require it, publishers will cheap out with one disc and a download requirement.

 

[StereoVsn]

Games are getting bigger than 100 GB, so unless Microsoft or Sony changes their disc policy, this is something that's going to happen more often.

Sony has 100GB disks. So the solution is something that got resolved back in PS1 days… have more than one. Games are $70+, they can afford to spend another $.05-.10 to print second disk.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Sony has 100GB disks. So the solution is something that got resolved back in PS1 days… have more than one. Games are $70+, they can afford to spend another $.05-.10 to print second disk.

Don’t you know? Discs are sooooo expensive and it makes more sense to cut them to save the publishers millions! /s

Literally what some of the delusional folks have tried to claim.

 

[AJUMP23]

Do you have to have internet just to install and not play. So the disk is code that downloads the game. Or will it require internet to play.

This doesn't really matter to me as I have internet. I just hate the always on requirement of gaming.

 

[mckmas8808]

Where, Gamestop? For a pittance. And, *for now*. LOL

Look, it's dying, it will go away. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but it's happening.

Any money back that you can get by selling it is better than the $0 you can get with a digitally downloaded game. Even if you got $20, that's good. That's $20 less dollars you'd have to spend on your next game purchase.

 

[Bojji]

Do you have to have internet just to install and not play. So the disk is code that downloads the game. Or will it require internet to play.

This doesn't really matter to me as I have internet. I just hate the always on requirement of gaming.

The best solution here would be disc with part of data on it. You can still sell or trade this, it has value - as long as Sony servers are up with with game patches (so for next 10 years at least).

Unless game requires also login to work (like the crew) then it will be fucked in few months/years.

 

[Sinfulgore]

More strawman arguments and trying to dismiss people fighting for basic consumer rights. Once you are ready to have an actual conversation without trying to constantly misconstrue the arguments being made, let me know.

Typical, label my points as strawman arguments so you don't have to respond to them. What I said about the Xbox and PlayStation Stores is correct. The fact that you think the additional data that needs to be downloaded for Star Wars Outlaw is coming from some third-party server that can be shut down shows how ignorant you are. You are right there is no point in having a conversation with someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

As a quick point to invalidate your stance on this issue, courts take the view that you should have the same rights with physical digital media as you would with a physical reading book.

Semantically buying an indefinite license to a copyrighted text is the same as buying a physical license for a copyrighted game, music, film

I don't think you have any idea what my stance is so let me explain. My stance is that it is irrational to be upset about made-up scenarios that could never happen. The first person I responded to claimed that you wouldn't be able to install Star Wars Outlaw in 10 years. No evidence of that just a silly claim. Then other people claimed that if the game got delisted the physical copies wouldn't work, another silly claim. The game isn't out yet but people are already upset about these made-up scenarios. It's honestly kind of sad.

This has nothing to do with any court cases or laws. Nothing Ubisoft is doing here is breaking any laws.

 

[Gamezone]

Sony has 100GB disks. So the solution is something that got resolved back in PS1 days… have more than one. Games are $70+, they can afford to spend another $.05-.10 to print second disk.

That's the solution. It doesn't mean that publishers care. Activision and Ubisoft obviously doesn't care.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Typical, label my points as strawman arguments so you don't have to respond to them. What I said about the Xbox and PlayStation Stores is correct. The fact that you think the additional data that needs to be downloaded for Star Wars Outlaw is coming from some third-party server that can be shut down shows how ignorant you are. You are right there is no point in having a conversation with someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about.


I don't think you have any idea what my stance is so let me explain. My stance is that it is irrational to be upset about made-up scenarios that could never happen. The first person I responded to claimed that you wouldn't be able to install Star Wars Outlaw in 10 years. No evidence of that just a silly claim. Then other people claimed that if the game got delisted the physical copies wouldn't work, another silly claim. The game isn't out yet but people are already upset about these made-up scenarios. It's honestly kind of sad.

This has nothing to do with any court cases or laws. Nothing Ubisoft is doing here is breaking any laws.

My point is your are hand waving away us getting less rights to our games, making that reality more likely.

This is an niche gaming enthusiast forum, so downplaying and advocating for such poor initiatives that are making gaming worse, by removing power/control of choices to play offline whenever feels like shilling IMO.

 

[Wildebeest]

Wait until you get consoles that are more PC-like and you have to deal with Denuvo apologia while the game stops working unless it can "phone home" and runs badly when it is working.

 

[Sinfulgore]

My point is your are hand waving away us getting less rights to our games, making that reality more likely.

This is an niche gaming enthusiast forum, so downplaying and advocating for such poor initiatives that are making gaming worse, by removing power/control of choices to play offline whenever feels like shilling IMO.

This isn't a rights issue. There are no laws that state every physical copy of a game has to be playable offline indefinitely, you just want that which is fine but just because you want something doesn't mean you get to have it. I could want every physical book to be released in hardcover format but that doesn't mean every book publisher has to do it. It doesn't work like that. I'm not advocating for anything just telling people here how the real world works. Too many people these days grew up in the internet world which taught them that the world revolves around them and that every decision made has to benefit them. And if it doesn't they whine on the internet until they get what they want. While to be fair that does work sometimes it is incredibly childish. If you don't like that Star Wars Outlaws requires internet to install that's perfectly fine and you are more than welcome to just not buy the game. It's really that simple and if people want to think I'm a shill so be it, I'm an adult labels like shill mean nothing to me.

 

[makaveli60]

This isn't a rights issue. There are no laws that state every physical copy of a game has to be playable offline indefinitely, you just want that which is fine but just because you want something doesn't mean you get to have it. I could want every physical book to be released in hardcover format but that doesn't mean every book publisher has to do it. It doesn't work like that. I'm not advocating for anything just telling people here how the real world works. Too many people these days grew up in the internet world which taught them that the world revolves around them and that every decision made has to benefit them. And if it doesn't they whine on the internet until they get what they want. While to be fair that does work sometimes it is incredibly childish. If you don't like that Star Wars Outlaws requires internet to install that's perfectly fine and you are more than welcome to just not buy the game. It's really that simple and if people want to think I'm a shill so be it, I'm an adult labels like shill mean nothing to me.

Who cares if there are laws governing this or not? It’s about consumers who pay for something that they want to own, it’s that simple. Why should we bow down before what they want? It works both ways. We want more for our money, and they want to give less. The lengths you go to defend these corps and their bullshit is just ridiculous.

 

[Sinfulgore]

Who cares if there are laws governing this or not? It’s about consumers who pay for something that they want to own, it’s that simple. Why should we bow down before what they want? It works both ways. We want more for our money, and they want to give less. The lengths you go to defend these corps and their bullshit is just ridiculous.

No one has to bow down to anyone. Ubisoft created a product, Star Wars Outaws and you can choose to buy it when it is released or not. That's all there is to it. Ubisoft isn't forcing you to buy or do anything, if you don't think the game is worth $70 don't buy it at that price. What's ridiculous is seeing people here act like spoiled children but it's the internet so I'm not too surprised.

 

[makaveli60]

No one has to bow down to anyone. Ubisoft created a product, Star Wars Outaws and you can choose to buy it when it is released or not. That's all there is to it. Ubisoft isn't forcing you to buy or do anything, if you don't think the game is worth $70 don't buy it at that price. What's ridiculous is seeing people here act like spoiled children but it's the internet so I'm not too surprised.

But I just can’t understand where you are coming from. Are you not a gamer? Didn’t you like when you paid less for more? Why is it that you call spoiled children the people who don’t enjoy being bullshitted and being slaves to corps? Why is it wrong for you that some people want to buy and play this game that they pay a nice sum for indefinitely, just like in the past? I seriously don’t get how can you defend this so vehemently.

 

[recursive]

It helps maintain the illusion for people who still need it.

My main driver for disc version is my boys have ps5s /xbox too so it is easier to share the game.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

This is why physical games are dead. I used to be all physical, but it's now pointless when all you're getting is a code on a disc to download the game.

It isn’t pointless at all. You can sell, trade, or lend a disc. You can’t even wipe your ass with a code.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This isn't a rights issue. There are no laws that state every physical copy of a game has to be playable offline indefinitely, you just want that which is fine but just because you want something doesn't mean you get to have it. I could want every physical book to be released in hardcover format but that doesn't mean every book publisher has to do it. It doesn't work like that. I'm not advocating for anything just telling people here how the real world works. Too many people these days grew up in the internet world which taught them that the world revolves around them and that every decision made has to benefit them. And if it doesn't they whine on the internet until they get what they want. While to be fair that does work sometimes it is incredibly childish. If you don't like that Star Wars Outlaws requires internet to install that's perfectly fine and you are more than welcome to just not buy the game. It's really that simple and if people want to think I'm a shill so be it, I'm an adult labels like shill mean nothing to me.

You are wrong about the law. If this was a case that was brought in front of courts; possibly from rapid delisting and content download removal, courts would restate what I already told you. The license to use the software is indefinite and the consumer expectation to use the content is reasonable, short of the company going bankrupt, would be expected to be facilitated consistent with the long stand relationship of buying a copy of a book where you don't buy the rights to the copyrighted work of art, but a perpetual license to enjoy the copyrighted works, and achieve that in physical form of owning the book.

IIRC, and it probably still exists today as it was in the PS2 era, a user can request a damaged CD, DVD, Blu-ray replacement for a nominal service cost and return of the damaged copy to the publisher, to continue access to enjoy the work of art from the perpetual license acquired at the point of sale.

You might not like this idea of consumer rights, but in the UK/EU the sale of goods as a contract is well understood and in no way undermined by EULA's from shady companies trying to pretend to sell licenses to goods while maintaining control of access to works, so as to remove access from the consumer when it fits their vested interests years down the line.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

The only thing that keep disc alive is it's "re-saleable"

the eShops for the wii and wii u dont exist anymore.
you can still redownload purchases (last i checked), but that wont last forever.

imagine if the n64 was digital-only.
hope you like the few games you have installed, because thats all you get forever now (due to the n64 eShop/download servers being long gone).
and once the hdd dies... thats it. your console is bricked unless you hack it.

but at least you didnt have to get up and change a disc/cartridge. hooray.

 

[Jaybe]

I bet they already know this game will be coming in hot requiring a bunch of day one and week one patches to fix issues

 

[Sinfulgore]

Who cares if there are laws governing this or not? It’s about consumers who pay for something that they want to own, it’s that simple. Why should we bow down before what they want? It works both ways. We want more for our money, and they want to give less. The lengths you go to defend these corps and their bullshit is just ridiculous.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone whose opinions and beliefs are based on logic/reason and not emotion. Of course, I'm a gamer. I don't understand what you mean by paying less for more. I have always bought games the same way, I wait until they are at the price I think they are worth before purchasing.

A normal person in this situation would just say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so I won't purchase the game". A spoiled person would say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so let me whine about it until I get what I want". Spoiled people believe they are entitled to get what they want no matter what and they will whine and cry until they get it. See the difference?

This isn't about right or wrong. I have no problem with someone wanting to buy a game and being able to play it indefinitely. But like I said previously just because you want something doesn't mean you are entitled to get it.

You are wrong about the law. If this was a case that was brought in front of courts; possibly from rapid delisting and content download removal, courts would restate what I already told you. The license to use the software is indefinite and the consumer expectation to use the content is reasonable, short of the company going bankrupt, would be expected to be facilitated consistent with the long stand relationship of buying a copy of a book where you don't buy the rights to the copyrighted work of art, but a perpetual license to enjoy the copyrighted works, and achieve that in physical form of owning the book.

IIRC, and it probably still exists today as it was in the PS2 era, a user can request a damaged CD, DVD, Blu-ray replacement for a nominal service cost and return of the damaged copy to the publisher, to continue access to enjoy the work of art from the perpetual license acquired at the point of sale.

You might not like this idea of consumer rights, but in the UK/EU the sale of goods as a contract is well understood and in no way undermined by EULA's from shady companies trying to pretend to sell licenses to goods while maintaining control of access to works, so as to remove access from the consumer when it fits their vested interests years down the line.

That law doesn't apply at all to what I'm saying. I think you are confusing a game being delisted versus a game being unplayable. Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 has been delisted for years now but the game is still playable for people like myself who bought it before it got delisted. And for games that are truly unplayable, internet-only games that run on a server, they also would not violate this law because it is not reasonable for a consumer to expect a company to keep a server running for a game no one is playing. There is a reason why these companies aren't being sued because they are not breaking any laws and any case against them would be thrown out.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone whose opinions and beliefs are based on logic/reason and not emotion. Of course, I'm a gamer. I don't understand what you mean by paying less for more. I have always bought games the same way, I wait until they are at the price I think they are worth before purchasing.

A normal person in this situation would just say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so I won't purchase the game". A spoiled person would say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so let me whine about it until I get what I want". Spoiled people believe they are entitled to get what they want no matter what and they will whine and cry until they get it. See the difference?

This isn't about right or wrong. I have no problem with someone wanting to buy a game and being able to play it indefinitely. But like I said previously just because you want something doesn't mean you are entitled to get it.

That law doesn't apply at all to what I'm saying. I think you are confusing a game being delisted versus a game being unplayable. Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 has been delisted for years now but the game is still playable for people like myself who bought it before it got delisted. And for games that are truly unplayable, internet-only games that run on a server, they also would not violate this law because it is not reasonable for a consumer to expect a company to keep a server running for a game no one is playing. There is a reason why these companies aren't being sued because they are not breaking any laws and any case against them would be thrown out.

Found the Ubisoft employee, guys.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone whose opinions and beliefs are based on logic/reason and not emotion. Of course, I'm a gamer. I don't understand what you mean by paying less for more. I have always bought games the same way, I wait until they are at the price I think they are worth before purchasing.

A normal person in this situation would just say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so I won't purchase the game". A spoiled person would say "I don't like that Star Wars Outlaw requires internet to install so let me whine about it until I get what I want". Spoiled people believe they are entitled to get what they want no matter what and they will whine and cry until they get it. See the difference?

This isn't about right or wrong. I have no problem with someone wanting to buy a game and being able to play it indefinitely. But like I said previously just because you want something doesn't mean you are entitled to get it.

That law doesn't apply at all to what I'm saying. I think you are confusing a game being delisted versus a game being unplayable. Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 has been delisted for years now but the game is still playable for people like myself who bought it before it got delisted. And for games that are truly unplayable, internet-only games that run on a server, they also would not violate this law because it is not reasonable for a consumer to expect a company to keep a server running for a game no one is playing. There is a reason why these companies aren't being sued because they are not breaking any laws and any case against them would be thrown out.

We are in a thread talking about a game with "no service" to make it exempt of expectation for the game to be playable in its entirety for those having bought it on disc at any time in the future, even when internet install services are no longer available, so you are arguing semantics if you think a single player campaign offline game like this would be exempt under GaaS.

Sony patching up GT Sport for non-GaaS offline content to be playable offline now is probably because they don't want to see this legally challenged.

As I said the expectation was already tested in UK court AFAIK. When Microsoft tried to sue PCWorld for creating and distributing Windows recovery discs for customers with the PCs they bought from PCWorld the ruling overrode the Microsoft license agreement affirming that the inability for customers to use the licensed software they bought with the computer - if they didn't have the knowhow or forethought to make their own recovery discs ahead of a system failure - meant it was perfectly acceptable for PCWorld to have bypassed the end user license requirement and to have provided them for the customer, rather than force customers to buy new licenses as Microsoft would presumably have wished.

 

[Sinfulgore]

We are in a thread talking about a game with "no service" to make it exempt of expectation for the game to be playable in its entirety for those having bought it on disc at any time in the future, even when internet install services are no longer available, so you are arguing semantics if you think a single player campaign offline game like this would be exempt under GaaS.

Sony patching up GT Sport for non-GaaS offline content to be playable offline now is probably because they don't want to see this legally challenged.

As I said the expectation was already tested in UK court AFAIK. When Microsoft tried to sue PCWorld for creating and distributing Windows recovery discs for customers with the PCs they bought from PCWorld the ruling overrode the Microsoft license agreement affirming that the inability for customers to use the licensed software they bought with the computer - if they didn't have the knowhow or forethought to make their own recovery discs ahead of a system failure - meant it was perfectly acceptable for PCWorld to have bypassed the end user license requirement and to have provided them for the customer, rather than force customers to buy new licenses as Microsoft would presumably have wished.

We can go back and forth forever like this but we will get nowhere because your entire argument just like the other poster is based on information that cannot be proven or made up assumptions. The OP claimed that in 10 years you won't be able to install Star Wars Outlaws, there is no way for this to be proven today. Then other people claimed if the game got delisted you wouldn't be able to install it because the servers would go down. This is 100% false, delisting a game like Star Wars Outlaws doesn't turn off the servers because Star Wars Outlaws has no servers. We have gotten so far away from my main point which was that being upset over something that may or may not happen in 5, 10, 20, 50 years in the future is silly especially when we are talking about something like video games.

I don't think people here understand how games that require data from the internet to work operate so let me explain. The data needed to install Star Wars Outlaw on Xbox will be located on a Microsoft server, the same server that houses all digital content for every Xbox platform. This data will be around for as long as Microsoft is around because it's just a file located on a server. It doesn't need a storefront, it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to store the file, and the data isn't being sold so whether the game gets delisted from the store or not is irrelevant.

 

[Dr. Claus]

We can go back and forth forever like this but we will get nowhere because your entire argument just like the other poster is based on information that cannot be proven or made up assumptions. The OP claimed that in 10 years you won't be able to install Star Wars Outlaws, there is no way for this to be proven today. Then other people claimed if the game got delisted you wouldn't be able to install it because the servers would go down. This is 100% false, delisting a game like Star Wars Outlaws doesn't turn off the servers because Star Wars Outlaws has no servers. We have gotten so far away from my main point which was that being upset over something that may or may not happen in 5, 10, 20, 50 years in the future is silly especially when we are talking about something like video games.

I don't think people here understand how games that require data from the internet to work operate so let me explain. The data needed to install Star Wars Outlaw on Xbox will be located on a Microsoft server, the same server that houses all digital content for every Xbox platform. This data will be around for as long as Microsoft is around because it's just a file located on a server. It doesn't need a storefront, it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to store the file, and the data isn't being sold so whether the game gets delisted from the store or not is irrelevant.

Projecting, Gaslighting, Strawman arguments. I was just joking about you being a Ubisoft plant, but at this point I think you really might be with how much you are defending anticonsumer practices.

 

[Quezacolt]

This is why physical games are dead. I used to be all physical, but it's now pointless when all you're getting is a code on a disc to download the game.

That doesn't apply to most games tho. Seriously, i have no idea how this BS got spread around, but most games still come complete on the disc. You insert the disc and it install the contents inside to the HDD/SSD, basically how games on pc used to do. Most day 1 patches aren't even required to games to work properly.

This is Ubisoft just being scummy, probably to stop the games from being played early, by requiring internet to check if the game is being installed on the release date or not.

 

[DirtyBast8rd]

Star Wars can fucking die anyway.