Topic: No Disk Drive?

@skywake

"The Wii U will sell 10-12 million units by the end of 2014 because Smash Bros is going to be a huge hit" - skywake, hyping the Wii U, 2014

@HollywoodHogan:
A bit of optimism never hurt anyone

I like @spizzamarozzi adding that there's a digital middle man. In this case, yes it's nintendo.

I do want to point out that servers and infrastructure is never free though. So in essence, the service at some point needs to be covered in sensible business for everyone. I do think nintendo has a very game centered approach to this, and I like a ubiquitous channel as opposed to fragmented ones.

But I understand the point, and it's valid, but the experience of a single ubiquitous channel adds to the value for me. Also, I'm buying the game because I love buying the art that it is. How the market operates to get that to me is not something I'll manage with my wallet very pro-actively or in depth - to a point, as there's ethical boundaries of course. I'm an avid gamer, not armchair business protagonist, so... there's that.

And @Drowsy: really? Are you absolutely sure that your second hand purchase of pink floyd is of equal minified impact to them as to the smaller artist that really can't profit from a scalable barter economy even though the "good guy smaller business" has a business case that actively profits from them not profiting? Because that's just... well... supporting the good guys...

How is the 2nd hand market a grey area? It's thoroughly legal, so it's pretty white to me. It's never good for the consumer to give up its options and control in favour of the manufacturer's. With physical, I have several legal options to play a game. I can buy it from which store I want, stores compete in price between them which benefits the consumer. I can buy new or 2nd hand, I can borrow from a friend. A digital only console is giving Nintendo (Sony/Microsoft) a monopoly to the distribution and access of all our games.

I like physical because I believe in free market competition and I like to pay less. If you want to pay more instead and foster a monolithic business practice, by all means go digital.

I don't see what is the problem with the second hand market, specially if its completely regulated. For example, the store where I sell the games I'm not intereted in anymore tells me up front what price they will give me (they even have it published in their website), so no problem there. And if I don't care about one of my old physical games anymore, why should I hold on to it? That way I can get money to put in a preorder for a new game and give someone else the chance to try out a game that may be out of print, may be too expensive in his/her eyes, etc.
Guys, digital is nice and all, but some of us just don't care for it in the videogames area. Don't demonize the physical versions, they have worked for the past 20+ years without problems.

@Samurai_Goroh:
The thing is it's not a monopoly situation because there are multiple platforms that exist. And even within those platforms there are multiple ways in which to access the content. Even with "digital only" on Steam you can get keys from places other than Steam. There's a story on the front page of the site here talking about Nintendo opening up eShop sales to Amazon. Also lets not forget that even a physical purchase is a "licence" for the game not the game itself, a licence that comes in a physical package and is ultimately under the control of the platform holder.

As for the 2nd hand market for games and other media? Well of course it's legal. That's not the point though. When you think about the reality of what is happening you're handing over money in order to get the content. Which is fine. But none of that money goes to the people who made that content. A lot of energy is spent attacking piracy and the argument against piracy is the same. The only difference being that with a used game purchase that customer was willing to part with money for the game. And if anything that makes it worse.

At the end of the day it's pretty simple. If all of those used game purchasers instead paid the same amount for content but instead that money went to developers? Developers and publishers would get more money. If they got more money they wouldn't have to charge as much and they'd take more risks. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

@Luna_110:
Just because something works doesn't mean that it's the best option. Physical distribution has worked for sure, but it has been the only way to distribute games for most of the industry's life. There are retailers who can only exist because they're profiting on used sales. We're at the point where big AAA developers are going bust, we're in other threads complaining about the state of the industry. We complain about how much games cost new and so on...... but then we flip our games after a week and buy games used. It's contradictory.

I don't like the comparison with Steam, because I believe it to be a very particular case, which could not be replicated with consoles. A lot has been said about the differences between PC and console, so I won't delve into that.
The news about Amazon and eShop seems very promising and I will look into it. I do buy digital sometimes, when I feel it's the best choice for my money.
Just for the record, you are saying that ethically speaking purchasing 2nd hand is worse than pirating? Dully noted.
Its just peculiar because 2nd hand markets exists for pretty much everything for a very long time. I buy used games sometimes, just like I bought a 2nd hand car for my daily commute. Used car dealerships are the cancer of the automotive industry, stiffening development since 1900's. We all know the auto industry was unable to evolve since then, right..

Well like most things there's a whole spectrum. On one side there's stuff like houses where the value is in the raw materials and the labour that went into that specific house. You're paying for the slice of land that particular house sits on. Even if you wanted to you can't really pump out an unlimited supply of real-estate for nothing. And for most second hand goods that's precisely what happens. For those types of goods obviously there's no issue.

Games are on the other end of the spectrum. The physical media itself isn't really worth anything, it's the game that has value. In effect when you buy a physical copy of a game new you're buying a licence. The money you're paying essentially is going to the people who made that content. So when you buy a second hand game you're doing what? Paying a store, not the people who should be paid for you to enjoy that content. And before digital distribution you could argue that's fine because there was no other option for you. Post digital distribution? There's an infinite supply. Why shouldn't that person be paying the content producer?

2nd hand is more beneficial to the consumer, especially since new game prices can be considerably steep.
However, you are correct in assuming the original developer does not game money directly from second hand sales. But on the other hand, a legal physical copy is one singular copy and therefore are a completely different situation compared to digital games.
Digital copies can be easily duplicated, physical copies require a change of hands to be shared. If the producer of said copy was already paid for that one copy, then they already got their money. Besides, if a vanilla copy of the game with zero DLC on the disc, the company will still get money directly anyway.

Here's a thought for some, why do you think they've moved to this model? Day 1 DLC, sometimes DLC that's even required for full enjoyment of the content. It does two things. It keeps people interested in the game so that they don't sell it early and it gets some of the people who buy it used to pay the developers. Either they're going to kill used sells directly or they're going to continue to do it by stealth. I'd personally rather they'd do it directly.

I don't if that means I can't play old games when they go out of print.

@skywake: I can agree with you on most aspects that this may or may not be such a big thing.

Here's the thing though, if Nintendo wants to go big, they need to do it like Steam which is downright impossible to do. And even then, Steam will make more profit than Nintendo because Steam is a digital retailer that distributes indies and multiplat games and not Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft exclusive games. The reason why Nintendo does DLC a lot recently is to keep the games fresh as much as possible instead of adding sequels that don't do much.

Retail helps in trading, selling and instant play the moment you pop the game in. I feel that carts are better than CD's simply because of how easily they get scratched overtime......I remember my days with GC.

Because digital is easier to distribute, there's no need for price drops and because there's no need for price drops, there is where Nintendo might have issues. Now granted, the way Nintendo does it is fair because of quality, but in the case of such like SEGA, it doesn't work like that. Steam can actually put every retailer out of business since its almost like walmart.

Honestly, seeing how much content you get in Smash without DLC is good enough as it is. Those DLC characters as Ryu make the game less balanced tbh.

Twisting my words and quoting them out of context doesn't help your argument, sorry.

@ZeroZX-Dev
That's the thing, digital tends to not go out of print. There are weird exceptions but in general it's easier to get hold of older content digitally than it is with physical releases. Imagine how much the frustration over Xenoblade would have been reduced if it wasn't near-impossible to find. When talking about consumer friendly systems, there's no way the physical model is better in cases like that.

@Artwark
The thing is it doesn't work like that. The "video game wars" is a nonsense, I don't think they at all care about whether or not they are bigger than some other company. The main aim is to try and increase profit margins. If they cut out used sales and leant more heavily on digital distribution? They could make higher returns. The fact that Nintendo's games are often Nintendo from the top? Makes this even more the case.

Also the thing about sales is that they're not just there to clear inventory. When there's unlimited supply there is of course no inventory. However there is also the demand side of the equation. When the demand drops they can drop the price to get more people interested. Do deals like the "get Mario Kart, we'll give you another game free". I'll also add that the prices for games at my local game store chain, used and otherwise, aren't rock bottom prices. They are about on-par with what Steam offers before a sale.

@Drowsy
As I said, saying that you buy used because they "don't deserve" your money? It's the piracy defence. If that's the reason why you're buying used then go and pirate the game. Because it's literally the same rationale. And twisting your words? How does it feel my dear friend?

Give me an example of where I've twisted your words, because quite honestly,I don't recall ever doing that.

This has nothing to do with the last 2 pages of discussion here, but I'd like to return to speculation that NX is going diskless because Nintendo decided to return to cartridges. Gaming Bolt's recent article makes some good points:

http://gamingbolt.com/nintendo-nx-why-not-having-a-optical-dr...

Their best point IMHO is that if you want to release a retail game that works on both a console and a portable (that shared-platform rumor, remember?), you really want to release it on media small enough for the portable. You know, a 3DS-size cartridge. Solid state memory is so cheap these days, it may make sense to release a single cartridge that works on both kinds of hardware. Whether this means a single game that adapts itself to the hardware running it, or it means 2 games on the same cartridge, is less important.

@cwong15
It's likely. Cartridges are wonderful to own and collect.

I don't know if this was posted here either, but on GameFAQ's someone figured that it may just be a parent for a Wii U mini. This is most likely the case. Though, I doubt Nintendo has any real plans on actually releases such a thing.

@Drowsy:
So you want to go into the end-trails of the debate now? We're at that stage? Well ok, I'll play. Although this stage is needlessly tedious and if you are to argue I'd much rather we'd stick to the points. Anyways. Most of the misrepresentations of my position happened before you started, you carried the torch but lets focus on the ones that you were solely responsible for.

1. I said that used markets for music and movies weren't anywhere near as big as the ones for games. Which is clearly the case. There aren't exactly massive chains to the scale of Gamestop/EBGames churning out used music or movies specifically. It's usually just places clearing out used estates for charity. And it's along with furniture, clothes and so on. It's just not part of the culture. I made this point and you said "they exist".... of course they exist, I never said otherwise. When I made this point you said that I was "very unaware of those markets, that's why". Bull.

2. I said that if you choose to buy used games that you lose the right to complain when those games don't get sequels. As an entire system the used game market is surely partly responsible for the closure of places like THQ. It's surely part of the reason why we see developers play it safe. When I said this you claimed I was "twisting your words". That I was wrong to say this because you personally only buy used for games you don't like. Which was nonsense. That's not what I said.

3. Amiibos. Just the whole thing. I said that they were an example of what can happen with resellers of physical goods. You said it wasn't analogous because they are physical goods. "You can't download an Amiibo". Well no, you can't. What was your point?

And lastly this bit about the similarities between piracy and used sales. You repeatedly said that you buy used games because those companies don't deserve your money. Specifically for that reason and not for any other. This is the piracy argument. So when you use it I'm going to call it out as such because that's what it is.

Yes it's misrepresenting your understanding of what's happening, for sure. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm making it perfectly clear right here that I'm "twisting your words". However I'm going to label it as such anyways because that's what that argument is. I know, as a former pirate I used the same reasoning. I know people who used the same reasoning to justify buying stacks of PS2 games from Bali back in the day. You have a mechanism to actually buy these products through more official channels and you choose not to because they "don't deserve" your money.

And that's the trump card, that's why there is a reason to tie your games to an account. It's this culture that will ultimately ruin it for all of us. It's why there's Day 1 DLC, it's why micro-transactions exist, it's why companies are less willing to take risks. So yeah, damn right I'd be happy if they took that away from you.

@cwong15:
Well if we're going back to the patent then, I'll quote some of my earliest thoughts on it

The fact that you keep labeling me as a pirate for buying used games is reason enough why I don't need to waste anymore time with you. You are a very controlling person who wishes the world would bow down to your ways. You disregard facts, and fail to understand different viewpoints because of your own laziness and selfish beliefs. Your rebuttals come down to you just repeating things, finding tiny flaws in arguments that have nothing to do with the debate, and resort to misinformation that make absolute no sense. You want to take away freedom from people because of something that doesn't directly effect you.

I hope some day you will be mature enough to drop the ego and understand why restriction is bad. I tried to understand your viewpoint, but you're making it very difficult.

That's all.