Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Of course I am. Games catalogue benefits from increased exposure, potential DLC and great word of mouth for future titles by that label. Don’t forget, many people won’t wait months for games they are excited about.
If they discover a great game in the catalogue, they will seek out more games by that developer and also any planned sequels.

When a digital-only game drops in popularity it can easily disappear from all sources if it is no longer profitable to offer it.

When a game with a physical release drops in popularity all the discs that have already been released will still remain in circulation.

Even I plan to buy GTA 6 day one, also the next Fallout.

It's nice of you to bring up Grand Theft Auto to help with my point. Many of the previous GTA games have had content removed and had unwelcome changes. The only way to play them in their original (and in many ways superior) state is to play the disc version.

If a future GTA game is only released digitally (which is more and more likely with the great success of GTA Online) then any changes made to it will be permanent for every copy.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Also, one company doesn’t control the games. We have many cross platform games and if games are exclusive, they are either going to be Microsoft or Sony. So either way, they are controlled.

The games are controlled by the publisher, not the platform holder. The number of platforms each game is released on is irrelevant. When a publisher de-lists a game it disappears from PlayStation, Xbox, Steam, and Nintendo's stores simultaneously.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The games are controlled by the publisher, not the platform holder. The number of platforms each game is released on is irrelevant. When a publisher de-lists a game it disappears from PlayStation, Xbox, Steam, and Nintendo's stores simultaneously.

Which is why it is imperative that people get continued value from said game. They do that via DLC, multiplayer function, speed runs, etc..

It’s a completely different market with different dynamics. You can’t compare film and games.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

When a digital-only game drops in popularity it can easily disappear from all sources if it is no longer profitable to offer it.

When a game with a physical release drops in popularity all the discs that have already been released will still remain in circulation.



It's nice of you to bring up Grand Theft Auto to help with my point. Many of the previous GTA games have had content removed and had unwelcome changes. The only way to play them in their original (and in many ways superior) state is to play the disc version.

If a future GTA game is only released digitally (which is more and more likely with the great success of GTA Online) then any changes made to it will be permanent for every copy.

We also get new remasters of games from previous generations. Who wouldn’t want to have the Resident Evil games or any past game in 4K, disc or not when quality is equal.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Comparing Apples to Oranges. Games change by their very nature. Especially multiplayer. Patches, DLC, extended maps etc..

not to add to the picking on you. I agree that there is a big difference between disk and streaming/most DL when it comes to films and that that difference does not exist in gaming. And if someone only plays multiplayer the server needs to be there if you play off of a disk or DL so no difference there as well.

But for me both are the same when it comes to ownership yes some content will be one and done, but I don't feel like braking my head on deciding what will be one and done before I own a copy and seen/played it.

But to your comment here I don't agree. Last summer when my sister and her foamily moved in while they were renovating their house We spent a few hours playing Motorstorm games on my PS3. It was fun because 4 of us could play at the same time were "multiplayer. Patches, DLC, extended maps etc..." important? no. we would be able to play the game even if we did not have all that but I don't know is it still available for re-dl?

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Which is why it is imperative that people get continued value from said game. They do that via DLC, multiplayer function, speed runs, etc..

It’s a completely different market with different dynamics. You can’t compare film and games.

I get continued value from my games the same way I do from my movies: by playing them repeatedly. They don't need any ongoing support for that to happen.

If only games with new DLC and multiplayer function continue to exist then the vast majority of games will be completely lost (which is exactly what your supporting).

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We also get new remasters of games from previous generations. Who wouldn’t want to have the Resident Evil games or any past game in 4K, disc or not when quality is equal.

Not all remasters are improvements. This statement applies equally to games and movies.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Games generally are a once and done experience unless we are talking multiplayer focussed.

that is you for this point, I can't tell you how many times I have played pac man, space invaders.....

In the PS5 forum you talked about Astro. Talking about trying to get a top score, that does not sound like once and done for a single player game. Maybe it is because it is new and the scores are there and once you achieve that goal you won't care if next year or in two years more people have beaten your top score.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We could flip this and say you are depriving yourself of some really rich content by not playing multiplayer.

Something that was said about me when I didn’t even use subscription streaming.

You know I don't do streaming, but yes that means I might not get to see that NOS and that is a valid point, in the end I don't have the time to care for it now (if I did watch it, I would need to skip watching something else that I want to watch and is the quality I want) But your comparison just does not work

I like multiplayer, what I don't like is on-line multiplayer.

1) most of those games are not my genre (not looking to escape my life, don't like FPS where it is all about baraging the adversaries...)
2) life is too uncertain (maybe others don't care but the few times I tried playing on-line and had to leave in the middle I felt bad)
3) I am not competitive so it is not much fun
a) I wait to buy games because there will be a natural price drop
b) I am a 50 year old guy with a job and other interests so I don't have that much time to play.


none of those really work when it comes to a streaming providers exclusive content.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Unfortunately I don't know of another term that describes both streaming and downloads. They used to call it "digital distribution" but it got shortened to "digital".

I prefer the term "virtual media", I find it makes the juxtaposition better.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This forum requires ongoing support to function yet you still use it? Plus, it’s digital.

this is also free, and offers something of value.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I prefer the term "virtual media", I find it makes the juxtaposition better.

Aren't movies and games on physical media "virtual" as well?

[Anthony P]

the media is not

[PenguinInfinity]

immaterial media
intangible media
incorporeal media
impalpable media
discorporate media
formless media
insubstantial media

Do any of those work?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not to add to the picking on you. I agree that there is a big difference between disk and streaming/most DL when it comes to films and that that difference does not exist in gaming. And if someone only plays multiplayer the server needs to be there if you play off of a disk or DL so no difference there as well.

But for me both are the same when it comes to ownership yes some content will be one and done, but I don't feel like braking my head on deciding what will be one and done before I own a copy and seen/played it.

But to your comment here I don't agree. Last summer when my sister and her foamily moved in while they were renovating their house We spent a few hours playing Motorstorm games on my PS3. It was fun because 4 of us could play at the same time were "multiplayer. Patches, DLC, extended maps etc..." important? no. we would be able to play the game even if we did not have all that but I don't know is it still available for re-dl?

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I get continued value from my games the same way I do from my movies: by playing them repeatedly. They don't need any ongoing support for that to happen.

If only games with new DLC and multiplayer function continue to exist then the vast majority of games will be completely lost (which is exactly what your supporting).

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is you for this point, I can't tell you how many times I have played pac man, space invaders.....

In the PS5 forum you talked about Astro. Talking about trying to get a top score, that does not sound like once and done for a single player game. Maybe it is because it is new and the scores are there and once you achieve that goal you won't care if next year or in two years more people have beaten your top score.

Anthony, you managed to pick the ONLY single player game I haven’t deleted from my first PS5 experiences.

They had a speed run section that becomes available when you complete the game and it was fun trying to beat another member’s score.
In general, I am a one and done single player wise.

I was about to ask Penguin and yourself why you return to games that have a set goal which must be completed?
Everything about most games is geared towards completion of that game. Surely once you have achieved that challenge, the appeal fades away.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by bhampton

This is another one of those times I wish "digital" wasn't used to describe streaming content.

All my media is digital. But, this can't be fixed at this point. People seem to think digital means online. Or something... I don't really understand ... seems the definition is too fluid.

Another streaming marketing expression that makes no sense. Binary data (digital) has been available to consumers for sometime now. 1982 for CD, 1994 for DirecTV, 1997 for DVD, etc. I prefer the term IPTV for streaming but most do not know what I am making reference to.

[Vilya]

Oh, what have I done? Maybe it was better with me being away?

When I said:

Originally Posted by Vilya

I think Penguin needs to have a word with you.

...I wasn't expecting this many words.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I was about to ask Penguin and yourself why you return to games that have a set goal which must be completed?
Everything about most games is geared towards completion of that game. Surely once you have achieved that challenge, the appeal fades away.

I enjoy the story, characters, dialogue, action, set pieces, and visuals. Just like I do with a movie.

I play games (and watch movies) because I enjoy the experience, not because I'm trying to accomplish something.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Watched Thor 4 last night and it was quite obnoxious. The Dolby Cinema presentation was great, as was the soundtrack and Christian Bale, but the countless jokes really got tiresome.

I decided to keep my rental copy of Heavy Metal on 4K disc -- the Atmos soundtrack is phenomenal and the video is terrific.

Also placed a second 4K disc order with B&N:

Shaft 4K
The Red Shoes 4K
Double Indemnity 4K
Le Circle Rouge 4K

You cost me $58.42.

After reading your post I thought that I had better order that Heavy Metal 4K steelbook set while I could. Best Buy was the only place that had it at a reasonable price, but I had to order a second title to get free shipping.

If anyone else wants the steelbook edition they may want to act now. It may be going OOP or maybe it's just out of stock at a lot of retailers, but I didn't want to risk it being the former.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You know I don't do streaming, but yes that means I might not get to see that NOS and that is a valid point, in the end I don't have the time to care for it now (if I did watch it, I would need to skip watching something else that I want to watch and is the quality I want) But your comparison just does not work

I like multiplayer, what I don't like is on-line multiplayer.

1) most of those games are not my genre (not looking to escape my life, don't like FPS where it is all about baraging the adversaries...)
2) life is too uncertain (maybe others don't care but the few times I tried playing on-line and had to leave in the middle I felt bad)
3) I am not competitive so it is not much fun
a) I wait to buy games because there will be a natural price drop
b) I am a 50 year old guy with a job and other interests so I don't have that much time to play.


none of those really work when it comes to a streaming providers exclusive content.

1) I have thoroughly enjoyed some films that are not my genre (romance, martial arts) and took me by surprise. I’m sure the same would apply to gaming should you try certain games.
2) multiplayer can become very competitive and therefore add extra excitement and tension to gaming. It also forms bonds.
Had some great moments online and that’s coming from a introvert.
3) it doesn’t have to be competitive, some games require players to work together.
3 a) I also want to save money. Hence I pay for the games catalogue and I don’t need to buy new games anymore. I just wait for them to drop in a years time and play last years games now.
3 b) irrelevant to the conversation, but I only game 90 minutes due to work and film/tv watching. You can just slowly work your way through the games catalogue. In fact, I would suggest it’s probably a better option for you as you are prepared to wait for price drops anyway.