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

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Well I have been on this Site since 2009, like ZoetMB, and Blu-ray was at it Prime. Technology moves on, and we are into a New Era. Basically it's all Digital, and Discs are just a Storage Device you Bitstream from a Player or Server on the Internet. In either case Quality has to do with Bitrate and Bandwidth. Streaming is very dependent on your ISP, Streaming Provider, and equipment set up.

I disagree with your assessment but thank you for responding to my question. I thought that might be the case but just wanted to get feedback to confirm.

[The_Donster]

All good Ender14. I think people tend to get defensive when that question comes up because it is usually a jab at opposing views. I, like Dustin44 and a few others see the benefits of both. Sorry if we made you feel unwelcome. I, for one, would love to see the thread have a bit more balance. It has been too much one sided or another for far too long.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Ender14

You obviously have trouble understanding the purpose of a question. I simply asked why someone who had no interest in physical media felt the need to come to a site devoted to physical media and then tell everyone how streaming is so much better. I was not being sarcastic or attempting to demean anyone's position. It was a genuine question.

I am all for healthy debate. As you can see I redeem my digital codes, so I am not against streaming. I prefer disc for the tangible ownership and the increased quality, but have no problem streaming a movie for convenience.

You are the one getting combative and defensive over a simple question.

You obviously had trouble understanding the answer. People come from different places and searches and end up here for different purposes and chimed in the debate on this side of the board. What’s so hard to grasp with that? You framed it to imply some of these people are purposely seeking out places just to mock or troll.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Well I have been on this Site since 2009, like ZoetMB, and Blu-ray was at it Prime. Technology moves on, and we are into a New Era. Basically it's all Digital, and Discs are just a Storage Device you Bitstream from a Player or Server on the Internet. In either case Quality has to do with Bitrate and Bandwidth. Streaming is very dependent on your ISP, Streaming Provider, and equipment set up.

You used a correct term! Progress!

I find nothing particularly objectionable in your post. X2

I think I will go outside and look for other signs of the apocalypse now. I think I hear the Four Horsemen!

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

All good Ender14. I think people tend to get defensive when that question comes up because it is usually a jab at opposing views. I, like Dustin44 and a few others see the benefits of both. Sorry if we made you feel unwelcome. I, for one, would love to see the thread have a bit more balance. It has been too much one sided or another for far too long.

No worries. I know how forums go and don't take it personally or let it scare me off.

I prefer discs but can appreciate the convenience of streaming, especially for special features. I stream those for the most part now when they're available because I'm not overly concerned about the picture quality. Much more convenient than changing discs out.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Dustin44

I believe it will only work in the U.K.

I suspected as much.

It was just from a popcorn 3D movie that I bought pretty cheap. Maybe I should give it to one of our British digital code fans as I wouldn't have used it, and can't, either?

I usually don't give away codes as I fear starting a stampede and I want to encourage disc purchases, but in this case I have something I can not even use theoretically.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

How many of you game on a console? Are you strictly physical or will you download a copy of the game if the price is right?

I game on consoles. I have a mix of physical and digital content, but Much prefer physical overall.



Ideally (for me), I would prefer the option for everything to be released physically, and I almost always opt for physical when the option exists.

The catch-22 these days is that even when buying a game physically, there are update patches (which in at least some cases, fix "game breaking" glitches), add-on dlc, etc.

It is a practice that in general I despise for a myriad of reasons. I would much prefer if the games were planned out in full up front, with all content on the disc, and if the company needs to make more than $60 on it, then just charge more upfront. And do what they can to keep glitches to a minimum. If there is still an update patch later to fix a few things, that is okay to an extent, but it would be nice if the default on disc content was otherwise complete and reasonably playable from the get go.

For games that do come out with some kind of Game of the Year/complete/ultimate/etc. edition later with the add on content and so forth on the disc, I will often either way for them or, if I didn't wait, upgrade to them when the price is right.

But otherwise, things being what they are, I have reluctantly purchased digital content due to there often not being much of an alternative.

It's extremely rare that I will opt for digital for something that is available physically. There have been a couple of very rare occasions where a game was on sale digitally for like $5 that would otherwise cost $20 or more for the physical copy, and for the sake of trying it out, I bought the digital version. In some instances I still bought the physical copy later if I liked the game enough.

On very rare occasions, I have also done the opposite... for a game that I really like that I already own physically, if the digital version is on sale for dirt cheap, I have bought it for the convenience of not having to swap out a disc for every game, but this is a huge exception and not the rule.

There is also a lot of smaller games, indy games, and retro games that only get digital releases, so it's that or nothing.



I keep my systems long term, since not everything gets rereleased later. I still have every console that I've ever owned going back to the Atari 2600 and NES. So the long term implications of being able to access older content as it ages is of concern to me. Where with an older consoles from before digital downloading was an option, if it stops working, I can track down a replacement or get mine fixed and just pop the games in and use them. With digital content, that is going to be far more difficult when and if (most likely when) servers that host older consoles shut down. Nintendo announced that the Wii shop will be closing down for redownloading in the next year or so. Currently the PS3 and 360 content can still be redownloaded, and to my knowledge no statements have been made about them shutting down anytime soon, but as we are now approaching the end of their successors' generation, and within the next couple/few years they will be 2 generations old, I do worry about being able to redownload that content.


I do what I can to back things up where possible. The PS3, for example, originally allowed digital content to be downloaded and used offline on up to 5 registered systems at the same time. Around November 2011, this was changed to only 2 systems, but that only applied for content purchased from the day that went into effect and forward. For any content purchased before that date, downloading it on up to 5 consoles still works.

So I actually have 3 PS3s that I have downloaded as much content to on each of them as possible. The 360 could only have the downloaded content work offline on the main registered system, and any others had to be online.
While I had (and still have) both systems, I often opted to buy multi-platform games on the PS3 instead of 360 because of this.

The PS4 and Xbox One (both of which I have) work more like the 360 in that regard, which stinks, but it unfortunately is what it is. My biggest hope with those systems is that since they are essentially proprietary PCs, and the next systems (i.e. PS5, Xbox Seventeen - since their numbering system makes no sense) will probably just be even more powerful versions based on the same core architecture, that those next interations will be default be 100% backwards compatible with the PS4 and Xbox One content. But I'll believe it when I see it. Still, I'll be looking into options for how to back things up as best as possible.




One big gray area has been Xbox 360 and original Xbox games that have been made compatible with Xbox One. You can either use the original discs if you have it, or pay to download the game.

But even if you pop in the old disc (which is an option), the system is not actually reading and processing the game data from the disc. It only reads enough information to prove what game it is, and the disc is just more of a "handshake" to prove ownership, but otherwise an Xbox One compatible version of the full game is downloaded to the hard drive from Xbox Live.

The ironic problem, though, is that besides having to put the disc in the machine (which is not a big deal IMO), using the disc instead of paying for the download is actually MORE limiting.

I assumed that once I downloaded the Xbone compatible version, I could just pop in the disc, even if the system was offline, and play the game with no problem. But I was wrong.

I generally keep my systems online when I'm at home, but I had an instance where I took my Xbox One with me where I wasn't going to be connecting it to the internet. When I popped in a 360 disc game that I had already used in the system before, it wouldn't load. It couldn't verify ownership.

But for any paid download games that were on my system (including older Xbox/Xbox 360 games, and just other recent digital games in general), using them offline for any kind of single player or local multiplayer options was no problem at all. So when it comes to physical copies, the Xbox One backwards compatibility basically combines the worst aspects of both physical and digital to make the experience as inconvenient as possible. So unfortunately, for any older Xbox/Xbox 360 games that are compatible with Xbox One, even if I have the old discs, if I really want to use them on the Xbox One, I'm unfortunately paying for the downloads so I don't run into these problems.



Still the long term implications of all of this are a huge concern to me.

[Vilya]

In other unrelated to this thread news, Bill Cosby has been convicted in his sexual assault trial.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/us/bi...ial/index.html

As for gaming, I have three consoles: the PS3 "fat" 80gb model that is fully backwards compatible in that it plays PS2 and PS1 titles, a first edition Xbox 360- with the HD-DVD drive, and a Nintendo Wii. I do not have many games for any of these, except for the Wii- I probably have a couple dozen disc based games for it and about three old games that I downloaded to the Wii's SD memory card. I seldom play anything on them anymore.

Most of my games are on Steam; I own 169 games there. I also own about 100 games on GOG. I have three Blizzard games, at least one of which is primarily on their server: Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is the only game I have that requires an internet connection to play. It was a gift; I have not myself purchased any games that require an internet connection to play.

And probably 75% of those Steam and GOG games were gifts. My friend who works as a software engineer and CIO buys a lot games for me just to have someone to play them with- that and he is very generous.

Thus, the vast majority of my games are now downloads that I play on my desktop pc.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Vilya

In other unrelated to this thread news, Bill Cosby has been convicted in his sexual assault trial.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/us/bi...ial/index.html

This just in, there's a thread where you can talk about Bill Cosby

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

This just in, there's a thread where you can talk about Bill Cosby

It was only a matter time. It was not something I was going to start a thread about.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Ender14

No worries. I know how forums go and don't take it personally or let it scare me off.

I prefer discs but can appreciate the convenience of streaming, especially for special features. I stream those for the most part now when they're available because I'm not overly concerned about the picture quality. Much more convenient than changing discs out.

Exactly. I do the same thing. Getting mad about this is like getting mad when the extras are on a DVD instead of a BD. Although that does piss me off when I'm buying exclusive content from a retailer.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I game on consoles. I have a mix of physical and digital content, but Much prefer physical overall.

[Show spoiler]


Ideally (for me), I would prefer the option for everything to be released physically, and I almost always opt for physical when the option exists.

The catch-22 these days is that even when buying a game physically, there are update patches (which in at least some cases, fix "game breaking" glitches), add-on dlc, etc.

It is a practice that in general I despise for a myriad of reasons. I would much prefer if the games were planned out in full up front, with all content on the disc, and if the company needs to make more than $60 on it, then just charge more upfront. And do what they can to keep glitches to a minimum. If there is still an update patch later to fix a few things, that is okay to an extent, but it would be nice if the default on disc content was otherwise complete and reasonably playable from the get go.

For games that do come out with some kind of Game of the Year/complete/ultimate/etc. edition later with the add on content and so forth on the disc, I will often either way for them or, if I didn't wait, upgrade to them when the price is right.

But otherwise, things being what they are, I have reluctantly purchased digital content due to there often not being much of an alternative.

It's extremely rare that I will opt for digital for something that is available physically. There have been a couple of very rare occasions where a game was on sale digitally for like $5 that would otherwise cost $20 or more for the physical copy, and for the sake of trying it out, I bought the digital version. In some instances I still bought the physical copy later if I liked the game enough.

On very rare occasions, I have also done the opposite... for a game that I really like that I already own physically, if the digital version is on sale for dirt cheap, I have bought it for the convenience of not having to swap out a disc for every game, but this is a huge exception and not the rule.

There is also a lot of smaller games, indy games, and retro games that only get digital releases, so it's that or nothing.



I keep my systems long term, since not everything gets rereleased later. I still have every console that I've ever owned going back to the Atari 2600 and NES. So the long term implications of being able to access older content as it ages is of concern to me. Where with an older consoles from before digital downloading was an option, if it stops working, I can track down a replacement or get mine fixed and just pop the games in and use them. With digital content, that is going to be far more difficult when and if (most likely when) servers that host older consoles shut down. Nintendo announced that the Wii shop will be closing down for redownloading in the next year or so. Currently the PS3 and 360 content can still be redownloaded, and to my knowledge no statements have been made about them shutting down anytime soon, but as we are now approaching the end of their successors' generation, and within the next couple/few years they will be 2 generations old, I do worry about being able to redownload that content.


I do what I can to back things up where possible. The PS3, for example, originally allowed digital content to be downloaded and used offline on up to 5 registered systems at the same time. Around November 2011, this was changed to only 2 systems, but that only applied for content purchased from the day that went into effect and forward. For any content purchased before that date, downloading it on up to 5 consoles still works.

So I actually have 3 PS3s that I have downloaded as much content to on each of them as possible. The 360 could only have the downloaded content work offline on the main registered system, and any others had to be online.
While I had (and still have) both systems, I often opted to buy multi-platform games on the PS3 instead of 360 because of this.

The PS4 and Xbox One (both of which I have) work more like the 360 in that regard, which stinks, but it unfortunately is what it is. My biggest hope with those systems is that since they are essentially proprietary PCs, and the next systems (i.e. PS5, Xbox Seventeen - since their numbering system makes no sense) will probably just be even more powerful versions based on the same core architecture, that those next interations will be default be 100% backwards compatible with the PS4 and Xbox One content. But I'll believe it when I see it. Still, I'll be looking into options for how to back things up as best as possible.




One big gray area has been Xbox 360 and original Xbox games that have been made compatible with Xbox One. You can either use the original discs if you have it, or pay to download the game.

But even if you pop in the old disc (which is an option), the system is not actually reading and processing the game data from the disc. It only reads enough information to prove what game it is, and the disc is just more of a "handshake" to prove ownership, but otherwise an Xbox One compatible version of the full game is downloaded to the hard drive from Xbox Live.

The ironic problem, though, is that besides having to put the disc in the machine (which is not a big deal IMO), using the disc instead of paying for the download is actually MORE limiting.

I assumed that once I downloaded the Xbone compatible version, I could just pop in the disc, even if the system was offline, and play the game with no problem. But I was wrong.

I generally keep my systems online when I'm at home, but I had an instance where I took my Xbox One with me where I wasn't going to be connecting it to the internet. When I popped in a 360 disc game that I had already used in the system before, it wouldn't load. It couldn't verify ownership.

But for any paid download games that were on my system (including older Xbox/Xbox 360 games, and just other recent digital games in general), using them offline for any kind of single player or local multiplayer options was no problem at all. So when it comes to physical copies, the Xbox One backwards compatibility basically combines the worst aspects of both physical and digital to make the experience as inconvenient as possible. So unfortunately, for any older Xbox/Xbox 360 games that are compatible with Xbox One, even if I have the old discs, if I really want to use them on the Xbox One, I'm unfortunately paying for the downloads so I don't run into these problems.



Still the long term implications of all of this are a huge concern to me.

Shorter sentences please Totally get that and don't disagree. I definitely gave this a lot of thought once I fired up my Xbox One and still feel very conflicted when it comes to physical or digitally. As you said, if you expect me to pay $60+, make sure the game is complete. Otherwise I feel nickle and dimed. So I go with what is the least expensive or wait until the GOTYE is released. Being that I'm the stay at home parent, there just isn't enough time in the day once the house gets settled. Which makes it hard deciding if I'm watching a movie, a show or playing a game

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

I'm so not going to engage the whole, "We're a BD forum right?" debacle. **** it, yeah, I am. I could totally understand when I first joined the forum, but as Groot said, the tech (and forum) has (have) evolved and expanded through the years since then. Please don't give us the same old same old, you have to be hard wired, fiber optic bullshit alchav21. Because that's not entirely true either.

My family and I are wireless with most of our devices via Xfinity. We've had no issues despite our devices being in multiple areas of our 2 story house. So I kind of feel like you get what you pay for when it comes to the internet too. Here's one for you that I've been kicking around. How many of you game on a console? Are you strictly physical or will you download a copy of the game if the price is right?

Both. First point is that the game is identical in AV quality. Absolutely the same quality without exception.

Secondly, I have no desire to replay many games once they are complete.

Films are a completely different ball game for me.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Which makes it hard deciding if I'm watching a movie, a show or playing a game

Always more toys than time to play with them, even once you're retired.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

In other unrelated to this thread news, Bill Cosby has been convicted in his sexual assault trial.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/us/bi...ial/index.html

As for gaming, I have three consoles: the PS3 "fat" 80gb model that is fully backwards compatible in that it plays PS2 and PS1 titles, a first edition Xbox 360- with the HD-DVD drive, and a Nintendo Wii. I do not have many games for any of these, except for the Wii- I probably have a couple dozen disc based games for it and about three old games that I downloaded to the Wii's SD memory card. I seldom play anything on them anymore.

Most of my games are on Steam; I own 169 games there. I also own about 100 games on GOG. I have three Blizzard games, at least one of which is primarily on their server: Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is the only game I have that requires an internet connection to play. It was a gift; I have not myself purchased any games that require an internet connection to play.

And probably 75% of those Steam and GOG games were gifts. My friend who works as a software engineer and CIO buys a lot games for me just to have someone to play them with- that and he is very generous.

Thus, the vast majority of my games are now downloads that I play on my desktop pc.

You win the award for most random news flash of the year!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Both. First point is that the game is identical in AV quality. Absolutely the same quality without exception.

My downloaded games are of the same consistent quality, but my server based game, Blizzard's Diablo 3, does drop in A/V quality often just like a streaming video does. My unreliable ISP combined with Blizzard's overtaxed servers often results in a frustrating game experience.

When the latency gets too slow, all kinds of anomalies occur which often culminate in a complete disconnect just before you make a major game accomplishment, thereby losing all the progress made.

The whole experience has turned me off of server based games with their internet connection requirements. I want the game to be on my hard drive or on a disc and to be playable without reliance upon flaky ISPs or overwhelmed servers.

[Steedeel]

https://www.thewrap.com/choose-adven...vie-works-fox/

Sigh.

Why can’t they just leave well alone?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

https://www.thewrap.com/choose-adven...vie-works-fox/

Sigh.

I react to that with both skepticism and a tinge of nausea.

I do not think I would enjoy that at all. Sitting in a dark theater while people cast votes on their phones to decide how the plot advances? No, thank you.

It is already difficult to get people to pry their faces away from their phone long enough to watch a movie uninterrupted and now they want them to use it to actually determine the course of a film? All I feel is revulsion at this idea.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I react to that with both skepticism and a tinge of nausea.

I do not think I would enjoy that at all. Sitting in a dark theater while people cast votes on their phones to decide how the plot advances? No, thank you.

I think it said they want a multi film deal also. It’s not just a one off. Like I argued months ago, this is coming and it’s coming big. Welcome to the digital future. Coming in from work and having to f*** about with options rather than just watch a film.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I'm not interested in it, but I'm not the least bit bothered by it's existence either. I don't expect they will ever become so popular that they will replace traditional movies. There's nothing wrong with more options, I don't have to like all of them.

I won't be tearing my hair out over it, either. I don't have to participate in this likely abomination, so my nausea will pass.

One of the nice things about owning a fair sized library of films is that I can insulate myself from this madness. News like this kinda makes me feel like my home theater is becoming more like a movie bunker in a world gone mad. Mad, I tell ya!

While I like new ideas, they still need to be good ones.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I won't be tearing my hair out over it, either. I don't have to participate in this likely abomination, so my nausea will pass.

One of the nice things about owning a fair sized library of films is that I can insulate myself from this madness. News like this kinda makes me feel like my home theater is becoming more like a movie bunker.

Yet people continue to jump to digital. It’s like they want film to die in it’s true form.