| Gilgamesh said: It does have it's advantages, if I go to let's say Wal-Mart I'm going to have that 50 or so games they always have to choose from and the odd new ones, atleast if your online you have access to the entire library. But it's just something about not physically owning the game that seems unsatisfying for me. Maybe 20 years of buying the physical game can do that but for the new generation this is probably much easier. |
well same was said about music...
and i agree with iwnership... but i'm sure the law will evolve eventually on that part and the ecosystem too... it will need to... one day you'll have digital licenses for everything that you can transfer ownership of... i'm sure of it... when is the real question...
i'm all for the always on.... because that will force providers to improve their network in every industry that needs data transfer... drop data caps.. and have competitive prices and/or service....
always on is a non issue if you have hotspots and 4g or whatever will be current access everywhere....
once again most of the resilience and negative about all that(streaming, cloud, always on, digital distribution) is mostly related to the current legal and technological infrasstructures currently enforced and in place... but the concept itself beside materialism and sentimental value is way better suited for efficient clean responsible consumption and longterm ownership.... things arround it must catch up... then it'll be perfect...
one day video game or digital content will be like comic books/strips back in the days... you can either buy each volume/chapter/dlc of game separately or have a subscription for the entire serie heck even special edition where they ship you the rest (i don't see why DD should kill collectors edition btw, you can still buy vinyl version of a lot of new albums in music) and then one day you can sell them back threw the network...
