Topic: Is Nintendo resting on its laurels?

@BlueOcean I don't recall. It was definitely a 3GB install. Xenoblade X had similar "data packs" or whatever they called them, but they were optional.

@FaeKnight Like I said, there's a big difference (at least to me). If the servers are shut down you cannot re-download your digital games anymore, and with the limited lifespan of an HDD, it's a matter of when, not if. If you own the disc, you can always play the game, regardless of the status of online servers. If you system breaks, buy a 2nd hand system, and you still get to play your games.

@Octane Probably it was disguised as update.

@BlueOcean You couldn't play the game until you did the update.

What about the updates then? Some games are broken and/or incomplete without them.

@Grumblevolcano I just checked the box and it says that you need 3 GB but it doesn't say that you have to be online, just for a possible console update. So it probably installs from the disc but the game calls it "update". I was online that day so I assumed it was downloading something.

@BlueOcean The games that are broken/unplayable without a day one patch are extremely rare, and I tend to not buy those games to begin with. Most games are perfectly playable without patches. Patches tend to fix little bugs and glitches; however, games released before patches were a thing could be riddled with bugs and glitches too, so I don't really view them any differently. And even some older games had game-breaking bugs rendering them unplayable in some cases.

@Octane The difference is, of course, that on consoles once a game was released there was no fixing it... until now with patches being common. As such reputable developers would do their best to release a working game. But now with day one patches and regular updates being an accepted thing they don't need to release a polished game. It's accepted that "things will get fixed".

@FaeKnight Except that none of the games I own doesn't work without a patch, nor is it a broken mess of bugs and glitches, so it's kinda a myth that all ''AAA'' studios just release broken games to fix them later. Many developers still work on delivering a perfectly playable game. No game is 100% free of little bugs, that wasn't true 30 years ago, and that isn't true today. In those cases patches can help to patch out the bugs after release; however, that doesn't mean the games aren't playable to begin with.

You've not seen a Bethesda game at launch, have you? They're known for being extremely buggy at launch, and getting those issues patched away later. Or how about Batman Arkham 3 and 4? The PC edition of those especially was a buggy, nearly unplayable mess at launch.

It wouldn't surprise me if we got cards that didn't hold the game, just a download key. It's already common that game discs still require huge downloads. The optical drives of current consoles just adds cost to the console with little benefit.

@Agriculture They don't require a download...

@Octane There are some games that get a lot of (free) content after launch, if you install them in the future without the updates you are missing a lot of content and improvements, even controller support like New Super Mario Bros. U. Older games with glitches don't really bother anybody but modern games without key features becomes a real issue.

I meant PS4/Xbox One games. They often require huge downloads anyways, so if Sony and Microsoft decided to go game card next gen the cards could just be keys. It would suck for collectors, but companies always want to cut costs. Having no optical drive, selling most games only as downloadable, and having a card reader that held 2 gb of a 40 gb game could happen. Remember that on disc dlc has been a thing for a while now, so companies are not reluctant to change up things even if there's some consumer backlash.

@Octane Huh? Tons of games on XB1/PS4 require downloads. Spyro Trilogy is a notable recent example, missing 2/3 of the game, but Black Ops III, Uncharted 4, Mortal Kombat X and others are bigger than the size of Blu-Ray discs and have mandatory updates in order to play. I'm sure there's more, those are just the ones I've heard complaints about.

@BlueOcean Well, think of it this way, if they weren't there to begin with, you wouldn't miss them either. And currently it's no game at all, or the game without patches. I take the latter.

@Agriculture Like I said, they don't require a download. I don't have to be connected to the internet to play my games. They require an install, but that's completely different.

@Agriculture Microsoft already tried to go solely digital, remember? There was such a huge stink about it that they reversed that decision real fast. But it still ended up costing them a lot of potential customers for the XB1. And Microsoft still hasn't fully recovered from that PR debacle.

@link3710 Spyro is absolutely BS, I agree with you on that. I'm afraid the delay won't change the situation either. And if there's one reason for me not to buy a game, it's for shenanigans like this.

Can't speak of Mortal Kombat and COD, cause I don't play those. But I doubt COD would be very fun without the online aspect to begin with, so that's a moot point. Most online-focused games become paper weights as soon as the servers are terminated.

As for Uncharted 4, I do recall a fairly big day-one patch. But that was the multiplayer aspect of the game. It's similar to DOOM on the Switch. Multiplayer was a download. Since multiplayer is unplayable when the servers are down, the fact that the download for MP is unavailable too isn't an issue.

@link3710 That's right. Quantum Break, Halo Master Chief Collection and Halo 5 are also bigger than a Blu-ray so they also need mandatory downloads to access the full content.

The best example is the one you mentioned, Spyro Reignited Trilogy, only one of the three games is on the disc.

@Yorumi I think that many facts have an effect on this. For publishers, it's easy to deliver patches, to sell DLC and to update the full game if it's digital and, most of all, distribution is basically free.

This generation consoles needs to install the physical games except Wii U and Switch so that's a big reason why people would prefer digital. It used to be cheaper buying physical games and it is still cheaper on Nintendo but on Xbox and PS the digital sales are usually better than the physical sales, and that makes sense because BDs need to be made and distributed.

For me it makes a lot of sense to buy a film BD but what are the reasons for buying physical games once they are more expensive and require to be installed and updated (apart from collector's editions)?

It's the 1.0 version though. You can't really play what's on an original Skyrim disc for the PS3.

Yes, but the situation always change. When the iPhone was launched there wasn't enough fast enough mobile internet to handle the sort of internet use the iPhone introduced. It's so profitable for companies to go all digital that they'll keep trying until it's accepted. In the west most people have fast internet today, I have 600 mbit/s and my broadband provider offers a maximum of 1200 mbit/s. Even if next gen games are 200 gigabyte, it would only take me 45 minutes to download. Only in developing countries and parts of the united states does slow internet hinder game downloading anymore.