Speaking at the “Il Cinema in Piazza” Film Festival in Italy (translated by Genki), the Death Stranding and Metal Gear director said that at least with digital games, users have the data on their systems, something that isn’t the case with cloud gaming.

“Since production is ending in 2028, this is about video games, but I grew up with physical media, so I find it really sad,” he said. “Currently, I’ve been buying up a lot of Blu-rays, such as various movies, and CDs too.

“The situation is different for games [than movies], as they are downloaded to the hard drive, that means the game data remains on your own hardware. However, if things shift to streaming in the future, that won’t be the case anymore.”

  • Ech@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    I haven’t bought a console in over a decade, but I was under the impression that most/all “physical” copies these days were little more then digital download codes on discs or in cases. How many actually hold the whole game, enough to qualify as “owning” it?

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Most discs still contain the full game, most physical releases contain discs of the full game

      Some physical releases are just an empty case with a code. Some Nintendo Switch cartridges are just license dongles for the game download.

      You’ve never owned a game. You’ve only ever licensed a game. This is true for all software. Removing the physical medium of distribution just allows the copyright cartel the control it has always wanted over something you paid for. But they have been hoodwinking consumers over what “purchase” and “buy” and “own” mean. Technically speaking, any game company could send you a C&D and tell you to stop playing their game forever, your license is revoked, and if you ever played it again they could sue for damages. Doubtful they would, as I doubt it would be worth their time; but this does mean they have the right to just decide their work is no longer available and vanish all digital copies; and they could also make all physical discs stop working through system software updates.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Well, you see, Ju$tice is expensive and unreliable.

        So the decision of using or not the Justice System for enforcing one’s rights isn’t purelly “am I likely to win”, it’s also about “is it worth it bringing it to Court”, which is especially important when the damages one is entitled to get are low (like the price of a game).

        At which point “who controls the thing under dispute”, which is theoretically unimportant in a perfect Justice System, becomes the main deciding factor.

        Maybe an example will make it clear:

        • You have a game which the publisher wants to take away from you. They’re actually in their right to do so: you actually read through and accepted BEFORE PURCHASING (this is important in jurisdiction which aren’t legal jokes, unlike the US) a set of terms and conditions that gave them that right and it was clearly that this wasn’t a sale but a time limited licensing. However you have the actual installer for a single player game (in your computer, physical disk, whatever), totally free to install, no phone-home DRM authorization check - you control that copy. They have to actually take you to court to force you to delete that game from your system and destroy all copies. This is a $50 game. Are they really going to do it for a $50 game?!
        • Similarly but reversed: you bought a physical disk with a game, it cost $50, it has phone-home DRM to install and to run. You didn’t agreed to anything before the purchase and you’re in a legal jurisdiction (such as Germany) which is not a joke so the implicit rights from a sale cannot be altered unilaterally post sale by a forced change of the contract terms of the sale (i.e. EULAs aren’t valid there). You’re in the right yet they block you from installing or running that game. To get back what you’re entitled to or compensation (all of $50) you have to take them to court. Are you really going to do it for a $50 game?!

        Anyways, the point I’m making here is that well before a Court of Law actually goes through the whole thing and determines who is in the Right and orders a certain action in favor of and/or compensation for the injured side, de facto the outcome is often decided by the actual stakeholders deciding “is it worth it taking this to court?” and in a system where Justice has costs (the bigger the costs the more that’s the case) “who controls it” is pretty much the single biggest factor in that decision.

        In simple terms, unless there is some kind of streamlined Judicial process for that kind of case (like there is around things like loans) bringing a case to court to force the side in control of something to act in a certain way with it is only worth it for large monetary amounts, and generally the price of a game is below that.

        It just so happens that at the moment for console games having the installer for it in a physical medium in your control is having control of that copy but, as my example above illustrates, if the game does phone-home DRM authorization checks like some PC games go, it’s actually not really under your control even if you have it in physical media.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Exactly. The only reason physical media has seemed like “owning” is because the mechanism to actually enforce their license has not been feasible.

        You know how often movies or shows flip off on streaming services? That’s the future of games if the laws don’t change

    • NathanDerWeise@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Sorry to kind of ignore your question, but I think it misses the point.

      Even with only the partial game data on the disc, the disc still held the rights to the game. Therefore, the rights were transferrable. That is to say, you could still sell your disc and it would have value to the next owner.

      When you are forced to buy the game directly from the PlayStation store, your game license is no longer transferable. You can’t sell your old games, and you can’t buy used games from someone else.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      All of them contain the entire game. The only functional difference over the early days is that the game data isn’t read from disc while you play.

    • iamthetot@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Not true for the majority of games, however there have been a few that have done this or something like this.

      Been seeing this sentiment a lot in the wake of the news and want to stress, most games still come on disc these days. FF7 Rebirth, for example, is so big it comes on two.