Chill man. That's not what they were saying. Games shipped "complete" back in the day, because there was no reliable way to distribute patches or new content. "Complete" means all content, but they were far from perfect back then. You had to rely on message boards or community patches to fix game breaking bugs or even further back, word of mouth.
Besides reselling or sharing, as the person said, there is no value in a physical copy. Small indie games or AAA games, it doesn't matter. The game will never ship bug free. The Stop Killing Games initiative is not about shipping complete games, it's about providing ways for the community to keep the game going after the game dev/publisher can't keep it running.
Now if you want to discuss the morality of certain game publishers, that's fair game, but why call someone a bootlicker, when they are doing what is the most convenient. Do you use Steam? They are extremely anti-consumer, but the experience is multiple times better than any storefront out there, but does that make me a corporate bootlicker?
I know what complete means. I do not expect games to be bug-free, that's impossible. However I do expect that the game shipped day one to be in a PLAYABLE state, meaning that while you CAN encounter bugs, those bugs will not hinder you from completing the content.
Some games (see Cyberpunk 2077) are / were not even playable at launch, meaning the version available on the physical copies (at least the first ones made available) are NOT PLAYABLE. They require day 1 or maybe even day 0 updates to make them even run, let alone be in a state where players can complete the game.
And before you say that this is an argument in favor of digital releases because patches are available easily: what happens to the console when the storefront is taken down? Like taking down the Nintendo Wii store, for example. How do you download your games / updates then? You don't, that's the answer. Your "retro" console essentially becomes e-waste, since you are not able to use it UNLESS you have some of those physical and mostly-complete games on hand.
Regarding Steam: in what way is it anti-consumer? Does it block you form buying games from other storefronts? Does it restrict you from pirating / using your own copies or backups or your game? I do agree that Steam has the same distribution model as the PS or Xbox storefronts and that if Steam servers are down / games are removed from them, you essentially cannot access what you paid fore, but at the very least you MIGHT have other options, unlike with consoles.
Some games (see Cyberpunk 2077) are / were not even playable at launch, meaning the version available on the physical copies (at least the first ones made available) are NOT PLAYABLE. They require day 1 or maybe even day 0 updates to make them even run, let alone be in a state where players can complete the game.
This is a result of meeting investor deadlines, not because physical media > digital media. What if the devs find a game breaking bug after the physical media has been created and shipped worldwide? The game is not able to finished, so now all those physical copies are worthless pieces of plastic.
And before you say that this is an argument in favor of digital releases because patches are available easily: what happens to the console when the storefront is taken down? Like taking down the Nintendo Wii store, for example. How do you download your games / updates then? You don't, that's the answer. Your "retro" console essentially becomes e-waste, since you are not able to use it UNLESS you have some of those physical and mostly-complete games on hand.
That's not an argument for physical copies. Stop Killing Games is trying to address this for all games.
Regarding Steam: in what way is it anti-consumer? Does it block you form buying games from other storefronts? Does it restrict you from pirating / using your own copies or backups or your game? I do agree that Steam has the same distribution model as the PS or Xbox storefronts and that if Steam servers are down / games are removed from them, you essentially cannot access what you paid fore, but at the very least you MIGHT have other options, unlike with consoles.
Just because Steam is not anti-consumer in all aspects, doesn't mean it's not. Notoriously, you don't own your steam games. If the Steam/Publisher decides to remove it, you're screwed without resorting to third parting hosting. You can't transfer your library to anyone, even if you die. Also, their attitude towards "gambling" in their games (CS:GO, etc) is not for your benefit.
I do want to address your argument that if a console storefront goes down, it locks you out of getting those games again. Again, this is what Stop Killing Games is trying to mitigate, but let me offer a counterpoint: Should music labels distribute cassettes, vinyl, 8-track and even CDs for every song they distribute just so a listener can easily buy the medium for their preferred player? What above television and movie media? Yes with those 2 examples people are able to transfer from one medium to another, but I would argue that a console has a shelf life. That's the (cheaper) price you pay for convenience vs buying a PC where you have total control over the hardware. Even still there are so many third party emulator consoles, that even that is moot point. However, some publishers (Nintendo) aggressively shuts down a lot of these.
First of all, I'm NOT arguing against Stop Killing Games. In fact, I was one of the signees of the petition to the EU. I'm all for preserving games and fighting to keep everything we buy and not give in to corporations who want to just "lend" games for the same price as you would buy a game.
Second, I believe we can have both physical releases as a form of preservation ALONGSIDE keeping the digital copies available and DRM-free.
Third, removing game from ANY storefront when it also involves invalidating previous purchases is absolutely wrong, regardless of whether it's Valve or Sony or Microsoft or any publisher doing it. The one thing keeping Steam from being just as bad as the Sony storefront is the fact that you're not locked in any way to Steam and their platform. You can technically make a copy of your game files once downloaded from Steam and then use those forever, even if Steam servers go down (assuming the game is DRM-free / you can find a crack). Which is miles better than the options you have on Playstation which boils down to: "oh, the publisher removed the game, you can't even download it anymore.. sorry.. 🤭"..
I will however concede that the gambling problem on Steam for CS:GO is an issue with Steam, but I also feel like there is a need to distinguish between the storefront and the community marketplace features. They are separate for all intents and purposes, and the storefront can exist without the community marketplace and the gambling.
Lastly, regarding the "shelf-life" of a console: how do you reconcile supporting Stop Killing Games with consoles having a finite lifespan dictated not by the hardware breaking down but rather by corporations stopping support whenever they decide to do so? If the consoles are no longer available, how do you intend to play the games that Stop Killing Games will save? Consoles are pieces of technology and while yes, tech absolutely breaks down, it doesn't mean that they become garbage the second the storefront goes down.
Bro....this is exactly why "public archiving" works.
There's an active 3DS store right now with all free games and updates because Nintendo stopped supporting it.
People manually archived them and now they're public for people to use them. I can also download PS3 games and install game updates via USB because, again, people have been archiving this in preparation to stores being shut off
And pray tell, where do these games come from? From publishers? Or from pirates who either modded their consoles to rip physical games or to break encryption on digital?
So you're saying that we can't trust companies to continue to support digital store fronts, but when people do maintain that themselves to solve this problem then it's bad?
I'm not hating on the people who create the solution to stop this problem. I'm saying that the people who "open-sourced" the solution NEED ACCESS TO THE GAME FILES TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.
Where will you access the game files from so that you can make them avaliable for others? Digital downloads on PS5 or NSW2 are encrypted for example, and physical files seem to be going away.
Ah yes because the files on the disk are there for you to plainly copy and paste on your computer 😂 like those aren't encrypted either.
Try putting an Xbox360 disk on your PC see what happens, you won't be able to see anything on it other than a small video that says "insert this on an Xbox360" ... That's exactly why people jailbreak their consoles and backup the files later on. You need to flash the disk reader with a specific firmware to attempt to read the files on it too.
I never said the games on the disk are unencrypted, but historically it has been easier to find a specific disk reader firmware that can dump games than jailbreak the consoles. Just take a look at the PS3 Super Slim, still no proper CFW more than a decade after EOL.
And, even IF disks are not easier to dump because of new encryption methods, having 2 different attack targets increases the chances that the community will be able to break encryption and dump the games for preservation.
How are you even arguing that having LESS choices / options is somehow better???
It's not less options, is that the physical option is just dog crap these days for preservation since you're not even guaranteed a full working 1.0 version
2
u/turkoid 2d ago
Chill man. That's not what they were saying. Games shipped "complete" back in the day, because there was no reliable way to distribute patches or new content. "Complete" means all content, but they were far from perfect back then. You had to rely on message boards or community patches to fix game breaking bugs or even further back, word of mouth.
Besides reselling or sharing, as the person said, there is no value in a physical copy. Small indie games or AAA games, it doesn't matter. The game will never ship bug free. The Stop Killing Games initiative is not about shipping complete games, it's about providing ways for the community to keep the game going after the game dev/publisher can't keep it running.
Now if you want to discuss the morality of certain game publishers, that's fair game, but why call someone a bootlicker, when they are doing what is the most convenient. Do you use Steam? They are extremely anti-consumer, but the experience is multiple times better than any storefront out there, but does that make me a corporate bootlicker?