Topic: No Disk Drive?

To add, my main problem here is people wanting physical games gone. They shouldn't be gone. Give people the freedom to purchase games the way they want without restricting them. You're not getting hurt because companies aren't making money off of used games. Why must we force these restrictions on people?

Again, PC gamings digital model is the way it is because of how PC games have been handled in the past and because of piracy, neither of which is much of an issue for consoles.

You're being extremely optimistic if you think DRM will be addressed. Since so many people are on the companies side these days, they'll accept anything. I've see map packs slowly being accepted as paid DLC, I've seen day 1 DLC become a normal thing, and now I'm seeing people agreeing with getting rid of the used games market. That's wonderful. Let's continue supporting anti-consumer practices. I'm sure companies will eventually listen to the consumers and will totally address any DRM concerns.

K, no, for real. I'm done now. lol.

Video games are toys. Games are often also in limited supply. It's literally the same thing. Resellers are not your friends, they aren't doing you a favour. The less power they have over the market the better the market will be and the less we will all have to pay. And again I'd point out that you guys have selective hearing. Every example I've brought up you guys have found some trivial reason why you think it's not at all applicable.

The problem is that the prices for the official channels are dictated by the sort of return that the publishers can get. If a game is only sold once and then resold again and again? The publishers see none of that. So the prices remain high. Basic economics, the less people in the chain making a profit the less consumers are going to have to pay.

Just throwing this out there, this is literally the thing people tell themselves to justify piracy. Anyways, I'd argue that you actually do care. As gamers we all want the developers of the games we like to continue to make the franchises we like. So the more money they can make from sales the better it is for us. And by going digital only that will happen even if we actually end up paying LESS for games. Basically what I'm saying is that if this is your point then you lose any right to whine when a company like Nintendo doesn't make a new Metroid or F-Zero. You can't have it both ways.

BTW I'll also point to Steam again (and Apple for that matter) and point out that "family sharing" is a thing. It's literally possible on some of these digital platforms to share games with friends. This is before even pointing to the fact that they like to occasionally rain free codes down on us for indie games and the like.

See that's the thing, I don't at all agree with your point of view here. It is in actual fact the middle-men who are making us suffer. The less power they get the better it is for us. And damn do they have power over the market. If it's selfish to want lower prices and the power as a consumer to demand a better service? Then sure. I'm selfish. You should also be selfish

It's pretty simple really. That option is a great ball and chain over all of us. Those middle-men are making a bundle, who do you think they're getting that money from? Here's a hint... both us AND the people who make the games. I'd be more than glad to see the industry move away from that.

And it's also why I don't have a problem with physical media for other goods. Reselling music or movies isn't even remotely as common as it is for games. You can't walk into a big music shop and see second hand CDs in the same way you do games. Nobody would stand for that, we'd all be annoyed at some dude profiting from the work of an artist we want to support. We'd look down on it in the same sort of tones as we do piracy. So why do we stand for that sort of crap for games?

So console game piracy is not a thing? Well that's news to me

You're presenting a narrow view on consumer habits and tolerance. Most gamers only buy 2-3 games per year and don't pay any attention to publishers. Paid DLC works for those people because they pretty much just buy the yearly CoD and whatever EA sports game they prefer. When you're playing one game all year, they don't mind buying another map pack every few months.

Those who do take the hobby seriously have had a lot to say about the AAA side of business, and most of it is certainly not positive. Why do you think indie games have seen such a surge in popularity and coverage lately? Day one DLC is harshly criticized, even free day one patches are criticized. Please direct me to that community of shills who wants to get rid of the used game market. I need to see this.

Yes, anti-consumer DRM policies will change. Consumers are not shy about speaking out against what they don't agree with. It's only been two years, but you seem to have already forgotten the disastrous Xbox One reveal and ensuing backpedaling.

Unlikely.

EDIT: As I was typing this, I noticed that Deus Ex: Mankind Divided released a video on its "augmented" pre-order bonuses. That like/dislike bar is a pretty good indication of how consumers feel about this sort of thing. Glancing over the comments, the general opinion on it seems to be "no."

When a used market exists for a product that can't be distributed digitally? There's nothing I have against that. Most of the cost of such a product is in the physical components of the product. It's fair game. Used furniture and so on? Go for it.

When a used market exists for a product that could be digital but is now out of print? Well again, fair enough. There is no other means to obtain it short of piracy. So again it's pretty fair game. I don't have much of a problem with this. Frankly when it gets to this point I don't even think there's much of an argument against piracy.

When a used market exists for a product that is still in print, can be legitimately purchased new and is in-fact distributed digitally and thus is never out of print? That's when I think you get into a bit of a grey area. The idea that as a consumer you think you can decide who gets the money for your purchase? I think it's a bit rough. And the fact that this market is so big for games? That's not a good thing. It's something that hurts both consumers and the content producers.

I'm one of the people who always complains about media distribution for movies and TV. How the way the content producers limit the content and make it hard for us to get access to it? That's why piracy is as big as it is. But for games the distribution model is pretty solid. Games get released globally pretty much on the same date. Prices are more-or-less flat across the board. Price cuts for games are swift and happen sometimes a few weeks after launch. There is no reason to be whining about how the game industry treats us. If you want the content pay them for that content. And that means not buying used. If they effectively forced a ban on used sales by going the route Steam has or the way Microsoft tried to? I for one wouldn't be upset about it. Because screw the people who profit from used sales.

Man, I'm tired and want to stop talking about this because this all boils down to personal preference either way. However, I think I owe you this last post at the very least, and try to clarify my stance on why I believe we should have the freedom to purchase physical or digital and not be restricted to just one (digital).

I don't recall being able to download toys digitally to play with them. Toys, games or whatever come out in limited supply usually because they don't believe the games will sell well, or they don't have the money to produce enough of something, or because they know collectors will jump on them because they're limited. Resellers are jumping on this and hiking up the price, but I think that, deep down, Nintendo expected this and enjoys it. I'm expecting a huge amiibo rush down the line and Nintendo will get a whole lot of money. It's happened before, I'm sure. Anyway, this is all beyond the point.

The thing I'm trying to say is that, regardless of how corrupt sellers are (I dislike them just as much as anyone), they should still have the right to sell games as they please. Your idea of taking away from consumers by not allowing us to sell our games, enjoy collecting our games or share our games because of resellers is, I believe, not the way this should be done.

I, personally, don't buy from resellers who pull that junk.

[quote]

This is actually quite false. Games get price drops and hit the bargain bin when sales start to stagnate, and if the game still doesn't sell, they take it off the market. I have yet to see game prices stay high because they didn't make enough money. Maybe give me a few examples? Honestly, of all my years of collecting, I've never seen this happen. I might also be confused by what you're saying here.

Piracy is more damaging because of how simple it is to get the game, and so if piracy becomes easy, companies get damaged more. Used games cost money, and cannot be compared to piracy. Yes, the company that makes the game doesn't make money, but that's why they compete by lowering the price of the game. I buy new games most of the time, but if I disagree with the direction the company is going with, I buy used out of protest. I'm glad I have that option.

Anyways, I'd argue that you actually do care. As gamers we all want the developers of the games we like to continue to make the franchises we like.So the more money they can make from sales the better it is for us. And by going digital only that will happen even if we actually end up paying LESS for games.

Your reason for thinking why games will be cheaper if they are digital only doesn't make sense. You need to understand that if they don't have any competition with used games, then they can force you to pay whatever they feel like. We're already seeing price increases on Steam because of this. New release games used to cost less on Steam (at least $10 less), but now the prices have increased. Why? Because they can! This is the only way to get the game now! Unless you pirate, of course. But that's obviously not a solution for someone like me who (you guess it) cares about the industry.

Now, I buy new games for companies I wish to support. I only buy new released games used if I believe they do not deserve support, yet I want to play the game regardless. This freedom is a good thing, and I'd argue is better for the industry as well.

Basically what I'm saying is that if this is your point then you lose any right to whine when a company like Nintendo doesn't make a new Metroid or F-Zero. You can't have it both ways.

What the heck? How come? If I purchased those games new, I still supported those companies. It's not different than buying games digitally. So because I believe we should have the freedom to purchase physical games, that means I should shut up when I'm upset that an excellent game didn't sell well? Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds?

BTW I'll also point to Steam again (and Apple for that matter) and point out that "family sharing" is a thing. It's literally possible on some of these digital platforms to share games with friends. This is before even pointing to the fact that they like to occasionally rain free codes down on us for indie games and the like.

Have you tried family sharing? it sucks. You're not allowed to play any game when someone is already playing a game from your library. This is restrictive when compared to owning physical copies. And well, gee, here's an argument for you: If they remove that restriction, then people will be able to play games for free by sharing accounts! Isn't that pretty much piracy?

Let's not forget the hassle of going to your friends house, logging into your steam account and waiting forever just to download a game you want to show your friend, when I could've just inserted a disc quickly into the system and play the game.

Basically, family sharing sucks. Don't even bring that up. lol.

See that's the thing, I don't at all agree with your point of view here. It is in actual fact the middle-men who are making us suffer.

As I've explained above. This is hardly the case.

The less power they get the better it is for us. And damn do they have power over the market. If it's selfish to want lower prices and the power as a consumer to demand a better service? Then sure. I'm selfish. You should also be selfish

It's selfish to remove options from people because of your hatred of "the middle man". You are not guaranteed lower prices. You are free to download games digitally as much as you please. In many cases, it's also selfish for the companies to want full control over how you receive your games. A physical copy is yours to use however you feel like. Digital games restrict you by only giving you a license to play the game. You aren't owning anything. Here's a little image detailing this: http://imgur.com/bXcxw

This gives them freedom to take away the game whenever they feel like. We've already seen this happen a few times in the last couple of years.

It's pretty simple really. That option is a great ball and chain over all of us. Those middle-men are making a bundle, who do you think they're getting that money from? Here's a hint... both us AND the people who make the games. I'd be more than glad to see the industry move away from that.

Then don't support the middle man. Simple as that. You shouldn't need to restrict people who support these companies by purchasing physical copies to get punished because of a few businesses like Gamestop and EB Games.

And it's also why I don't have a problem with physical media for other goods. Reselling music or movies isn't even remotely as common as it is for games. You can't walk into a big music shop and see second hand CDs in the same way you do games. Nobody would stand for that, we'd all be annoyed at some dude profiting from the work of an artist we want to support. We'd look down on it in the same sort of tones as we do piracy. So why do we stand for that sort of crap for games?

This is plain wrong I can't even. I've seen so many thrift stores, music shops and video stores do this. Just.. WHAT the heck?

So console game piracy is not a thing? Well that's news to me

I never said it's "not a thing". Read again, smart guy.

My point was that piracy was so bad on the PC that it was natural for platforms like Steam to be a thing. It's easier than going to the store and inputting a serial code and then playing a game full of DRM that limits how many times you can even install the game, or being forced to always be connected to a server that would constantly crash. Apparently, you haven't done your research or are just unaware of the history on PC gaming, piracy, and DRM. Steam was the best way to save PC gaming during a time when everyone and their mother was downloading games off of torrent websites.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to console gaming as much. Piracy is usually only as issue on consoles when someone finds an exploit, and many times this is combated with a simple patch. For this reason alone, consoles do not need to rely on a digital only format in order to combat piracy.

Your point here also does not help you in the slightest and was a (quite silly) jab at something I didn't even say. Read more carefully next time, alright buddy?

All I can say now is: Educate yourself. There's a reason why people are upset at your posts.

I disagree.

@Drowsy: as you can see the physical vs digital thing is just a tedious and pointless battle. Many people will always think that digital is the best thing since sliced bread. Personally I am fine with digital as long as it's for the small things, like 99 cent iPhone games and $5 Steam/eShop games, but if I fork out $60 for a videogame, I obviously want something more than a licence to play an unresellable game and an electronic receipt.
Incidentally, everybody rejoys at the idea of cutting the physical middle-man, but no one on this board so far has thought about cutting the digital middle-man - Sony, Nintendo, Valve, XBox. If people wanted a real fair e-commerce, they would email the developers of the games they want to get, offering to paypal the money directly to them in exchange for a promo code, thus definitely giving every single cent to the people who made the game. But nobody does that.
Despite people saying they care for where the money goes, they clearly don't, as long as they can have the game and go to sleep with the clear conscience of having contributed to this money-go-round of an industry.

The corporate idiots who run the industry have done a lot in the last 15 years to convey the idea that the videogame industry is like a piggy bank that magicallty multiplies your money. The more money you put into it, the more you get back in the form of games. But even a brain-dead dog with AIDS understands this is simply not true upon seeing all the things we consumers have lost in the last decade. The right to physically own a game we legally buy is just another straw in a long series of abuses.

Digital vs physical is just the tip of an iceberg of a much more dangerous and idiotic issue, that is, videogamers being clearly anti-videogamers. People who buy gives are progressively giving up on every basic right and priviledge they used to have in the past, thus preventing future generations of gamers from getting any. The secon hand market is one basic right every consumer has (imagine not being able to buy a used car, a used house, a used guitar etc) and yet videogamers would rather not have it, for reasons that baffle me. The right to sell, borrow or trade a product that you have bought. The right to purchase a product that is functional - a ton of games and consoles nowdays gets released in a half fuctional state. The right of not being dependant on an internet connection to do everything - because despite what people think, fast internet is still a luxury, it's not a basic need like electricity or tap water. The right to return a product if it's not functional or mis-advertised - despite skywake mentioning the australian law, I was unable to get a refund from Sony when I purchased a game that was sold as crossbuy but wasn't. Similarly, I wasn't able to get a refund from Nintendo after purchasing an eShop game that was blatantly false-advertised, because sales are final. The right to have fair and unbiased journalism that is not entirely dependant on software houses buying ads. The list of things we lost goes on and on.
It's ok - industries get easily corrupted the more money enter into them. The problem is videogamers being perfectly happy with it as it is now, and this disgusts me and makes me want to become an heroin addict. It almost disgusts me more than people that can see you have made an hyperbole but can't help but taking it literally, which kinda defies the whole purpose of rhetoric.
That's all. Peace - I'm out. Listen to Neil Young.

Agreed.

Those who do take the hobby seriously have had a lot to say about the AAA side of business, and most of it is certainly not positive. Why do you think indie games have seen such a surge in popularity and coverage lately? Day one DLC is harshly criticized, even free day one patches are criticized. Please direct me to that community of shills who wants to get rid of the used game market. I need to see this.

Although they are highly criticized, nothing really has changed. Yes, we can go play indie games. I, personally, have found more enjoyment playing Nintendo games in the last few years because I don't feel like they do these business practices as much as other companies do.

Forcing digital only will ruin the used games market. That's what I'm implying.

Yes, anti-consumer DRM policies will change. Consumers are not shy about speaking out against what they don't agree with. It's only been two years, but you seem to have already forgotten the disastrous Xbox One reveal and ensuing backpedaling.

I haven't, but slowly people are starting to accept these practices by arguing that digital only is better. Quite honestly, besides the "always online" and forced Kinect thing, the console was built to destroy the used games market EXCEPT Gamestop. Which is funny.

Unlikely.

haha, true. I just really didn't want to write out a huge post. However, I can't help myself. This thread keeps sucking me back in.

EDIT: As I was typing this, I noticed that Deus Ex: Mankind Divided released a video on its "augmented" pre-order bonuses. That like/dislike bar is a pretty good indication of how consumers feel about this sort of thing. Glancing over the comments, the general opinion on it seems to be "no."

Good. I'm very glad.

@Drowsy: as you can see the physical vs digital thing is just a tedious and pointless battle. Many people will always think that digital is the best thing since sliced bread. Personally I am fine with digital as long as it's for the small things, like 99 cent iPhone games and $5 Steam/eShop games, but if I fork out $60 for a videogame, I obviously want something more than a licence to play an unresellable game and an electronic receipt.
Incidentally, everybody rejoys at the idea of cutting the physical middle-man, but no one on this board so far has thought about cutting the digital middle-man - Sony, Nintendo, Valve, XBox. If people wanted a real fair e-commerce, they would email the developers of the games they want to get, offering to paypal the money directly to them in exchange for a promo code, thus definitely giving every single cent to the people who made the game. But nobody does that.
Despite people saying they care for where the money goes, they clearly don't, as long as they can have the game and go to sleep with the clear conscience of having contributed to this money-go-round of an industry.

The corporate idiots who run the industry have done a lot in the last 15 years to convey the idea that the videogame industry is like a piggy bank that magicallty multiplies your money. The more money you put into it, the more you get back in the form of games. But even a brain-dead dog with AIDS understands this is simply not true upon seeing all the things we consumers have lost in the last decade. The right to physically own a game we legally buy is just another straw in a long series of abuses.

Digital vs physical is just the tip of an iceberg of a much more dangerous and idiotic issue, that is, videogamers being clearly anti-videogamers. People who buy games are progressively giving up on every basic right and priviledge they used to have in the past, thus preventing future generations of gamers from getting any. The secon hand market is one basic right every consumer has (imagine not being able to buy a used car, a used house, a used guitar etc) and yet videogamers would rather not have it, for reasons that baffle me. The right to sell, borrow or trade a product that you have bought. The right to purchase a product that is functional - a ton of games and consoles nowdays gets released in a half fuctional state. The right of not being dependant on an internet connection to do everything - because despite what people think, fast internet is still a luxury, it's not a basic need like electricity or tap water. The right to return a product if it's not functional or mis-advertised - despite skywake mentioning the australian law, I was unable to get a refund from Sony when I purchased a game that was sold as crossbuy but wasn't. Similarly, I wasn't able to get a refund from Nintendo after purchasing an eShop game that was blatantly false-advertised, because sales are final. The right to have fair and unbiased journalism that is not entirely dependant on software houses buying ads. The list of things we lost goes on and on.
It's ok - industries get easily corrupted the more money enter into them. The problem is videogamers being perfectly happy with it as it is now, and this disgusts me and makes me want to become an heroin addict. It almost disgusts me more than people that can see you have made an hyperbole but can't help but taking it literally, which kinda defies the whole purpose of rhetoric.
That's all. Peace - I'm out. Listen to Neil Young.

@Drowsy
For a start, on the Amiibo situation, I think the argument that Nintendo both expected and "enjoys" this is a load. It's one of those nonsense conspiracy theories that gets peddled. And pointing to a similar case, I don't see how scarcity is ever a good thing. Case and point the fact that there is no real Amiibo scarcity in some regions anymore and they're still selling just fine. Nobody wins from this other than the resellers.

Secondly you're missing the point. Obviously you can't distribute things like Amiibos digitally, did you seriously think that was my point? No, the Amiibo situation is what can happen with physical goods like game disks. Resellers are not helping the situation. If there was a way to distribute Amiibos in the same way you can games digitally? It wouldn't be an issue. That's my point. Cutting resellers out of the equation where it is possible to do so is surely a good thing.

On another one of your points, when I said "not nearly as common" I mean just that. Reselling games after you've played them is a huge part of the gaming market. Massive. It's not nearly as big for things like movies and music. I did not say that there is no used market for that content. I just said that I don't have a problem with it because it's not as big a deal. Some honest arguments would be nice but I think at this point it's clear that's not going to happen.

Lastly the idea that you value your freedom to not give companies your money? Well sure. That's a good thing. But if that's your protest then don't buy the game at all. Period. The idea that you can pick and choose which content you pay the publishers/developers for but still play it "because it's good"? As I said it's the pirate defence. And if you are buying used you have no right to complain when the series you like don't get sequels. Also once more, a little bit of honesty here. Realise what I'm actually saying here. Don't twist my words.

@spizzamarozzi My true argument here is "Why not have both?" but apparently wanting to buy physical games is like, stealing, or something. I don't know, man.

For a start, on the Amiibo situation, I think the argument that Nintendo both expected and "enjoys" this is a load. It's one of those nonsense conspiracy theories that gets peddled. And pointing to a similar case, I don't see how scarcity is ever a good thing. Case and point the fact that there is no real Amiibo scarcity in some regions anymore and they're still selling just fine. Nobody wins from this other than the resellers.

This is no conspiracy. It's been done before, and it works.

Secondly you're missing the point. Obviously you can't distribute things like Amiibos digitally, did you seriously think that was my point? No, the Amiibo situation is what can happen with physical goods like game disks. Resellers are not helping the situation. If there was a way to distribute Amiibos in the same way you can games digitally? It wouldn't be an issue. That's my point. Cutting resellers out of the equation where it is possible to do so is surely a good thing.

Which is why you can download the game digitally. Hey, dude, if you want to play the game, you can download it. I, personally, want a physical copy. I don't care if the value is higher than it was at release, I want it. That doesn't concern you in the slightest.

On another one of your points, when I said "not nearly as common" I mean just that. Reselling games after you've played them is a huge part of the gaming market. Massive. It's not nearly as big for things like movies and music. I did not say that there is no used market for that content. I just said that I don't have a problem with it because it's not as big a deal. Some honest arguments would be nice but I think at this point it's clear that's not going to happen.

I think you're very unaware of those markets, that's why.

Lastly the idea that you value your freedom to not give companies your money? Well sure. That's a good thing. But if that's your protest then don't buy the game at all. Period. The idea that you can pick and choose which you pay the publishers/developers for? As I said it's the pirate defence.

I paid money for the thing. I didn't steal it. Stop being ridiculous. I can purchase whatever I please, however I please and for whatever reason I please.

And if you are buying used you have no right to complain when the series you like don't get sequels. Also once more, a little bit of honesty here. Realise what I'm actually saying here. Don't twist my words.

I buy the games I want sequels for. To my knowledge, I didn't twist any of your words.

So basically you've gotten to the point where you're arguing that it's wrong to say that we should go from this model:
Developer <- Publisher <- Platform <- Retailer <- Consumer
Consumer <- Reseller <- Consumer

To this model:
Developer <- Publisher <- Platform <- Consumer

Because people who argue that should instead be going for this:
Developer <- Consumer

If that was reasonably possible then for sure, but that's hardly going to happen. For console gaming especially you need a platform on which to play the games. That platform holder is always going to take a cut and why shouldn't they? They're providing a platform for the game to exist on! What's wrong with arguing that we should move in that direction? Surely that's better than what we have?

Buying used is to publishers and developers literally the same as you pirating it. You obviously can't outlaw it but the end result is the same. Potentially worse given you were willing to pay money for it. It's as simple as that. If you want to argue that you buy used purely so you don't have to give publishers money? I don't think there's any defence for that. And when those sequels don't come? Serves you right, you sent a clear signal that they're not getting your money.

As I said I don't think there's any problem with it in the cases where there is no other means to get it. It's unavoidable. I pointed out Amiibo because it's a clear example of the used market screwing consumers over. But you can't kill that used market. I also don't have an issue with physical media in general. As I pointed out earlier I still buy CDs and I also buy physical copies of games on occasion. So don't confuse what I'm saying here with something that you think I'm saying.

However when the only reason left to keep that distribution method in place it is to support a grey market? It should go. For games used sales are a massive part of the market and culture. And we're all getting hit in the pocket because of it, both consumers and developers. It's not anywhere near as big for other media. Your claims that it's just as big for movies and music is hugely disingenuous. I don't think my stance on this could be any clearer.

Because PC's are a completely different platform when compared to gaming consoles, which is what people are talking about here. When I buy something on Steam, there is no doubt in my mind that I will be able to download and play that game whenever I want for the foreseeable future.

On a computer, I can still play games that released for the PC 30+ years ago (with a little tweaking or using emulators or DOSbox) no problem.

However, on a PS4 I can't play the vast majority of digital games that released on the PS3. Because they are completely different machines.

That's why Steam shouldn't be brought up when discussing a disc-free Nintendo console. They are not similar scenarios at all.

Alright, you're ridiculous now.

Buying used is to publishers and developers literally the same as you pirating it. You obviously can't outlaw it but the end result is the same. Potentially worse given you were willing to pay money for it.

It's my right as a consumer to purchase games however I please. I'm also very glad I have the freedom to support smaller businesses.

It's as simple as that. If you want to argue that you buy used purely so you don't have to give publishers money? I don't think there's any defence for that.

My defense is: They don't deserve my money. Smaller businesses do.

And when those sequels don't come? Serves you right, you sent a clear signal that they're not getting your money.

Exactly. I'm glad you understand! However, I buy brand new games for companies that deserve my cash. I'm glad I have the option to not support games that have anti-consumer practices.

As I said I don't think there's any problem with it in the cases where there is no other means to get it. And I don't have an issue with physical content in general. However when the only reason left for it is to support a grey market? It should go.

Exactly! Life should only be black and white. That totally works. No wonder you think I'm evil for buying used games.

For games this is a massive part of the market and culture. It's not anywhere as big for other media. Your claims that it's just as big for movies and music is hugely disingenuous.

I apparently so badly hurt my favourite band Pink Floyd by purchasing a CD of Dark Side of the Moon at Value Village yesterday. Oh, and, apparently all of those second hand stores I see literally everywhere that are full of CD's, DVD's, Blu rays and who knows what else aren't very big at all! There is totally not, like, a ton of chains that only sell second hand stuff!

Now, do we have to do this again?

@HollywoodHogan:
And Steam also supports Windows, Mac and Linux. Quite a number of games are only on windows but quite a few others are on two or three. But when you purchase a game on Steam they recognise that you've brought that content. Yes it's true that this isn't the standard across consoles. But it should be. And it can be with digital distribution.

If digital distribution was around for the Wii? I would rightfully expect the ability to download and play the Wii games I had purchased that are on the Wii U eShop. It's reasonable to expect and demand things like cross-buy. But when the majority of purchases are still physical? When the retailers still have such a hold on what they can and can't do? That's far less likely to happen. It's a chicken and egg thing.

@Drowsy
I don't think it's worth me trying to repeat myself, I've made myself pretty clear. I do like that you keep repeating the "piracy defence" of used games. Kinda makes my point for me. Cheers

Oh, they've done a very good job showing that it's possible. Sarcasm, by the way.

I don't think it's worth me trying to repeat myself, I've made myself pretty clear. I do like that you keep repeating the "piracy defence" of used games. Kinda makes my point for me. Cheers

I'm glad, m8. It's all you've really got at this point.

"My defence is: They don't deserve my money" - Drowsy, defending game piracy 2015