setsunatenshi said:
You can add to that the fact that having your game digitally means you are future proofing your ownership of the rights to that game in perpetuity.
Again, you don't own anything with digital, as per United States federal law. You're effectively leasing the game, but the copyright holder still owns the game and they are the ones that retain all the rights associated with ownership.
If you travel you also have access to your full library of games no matter where in the world you are.
I might give you that one, but I can't imagine that many people would spend so much time away from home that they'd want to haul their console along with them.
For people living in big cities, the space to store physical goods is also an important factor. As time goes by, there's no good reason to reserve a ton of space for an ever growing library of games you gather.
Unless you live in an apartment the size of a walk-in closet and buy every game that comes out, space ought to not be an issue. I have 31 physical games for the current generation, which take up a whopping 1-½ feet of shelf space. Those cases really are behemoths, I tell you.
Also the fact that physical copies are redundant, the disc is simply a means to deliver the goods (game data) to your machine. If you already have the digital copy in your drive or fast enough internet connection, why would you need other moving parts with limited life?
Physical copies are not redundant as long as conference of ownership and the rights associated with ownership are restricted to physical media. Nor are they redundant for availability purposes. A game that is delisted from a digital storefront is gone forever unless it gets relisted, which is not guaranteed thanks to various factors like rights issues keeping it gone or the platform no longer being supported. Meanwhile, a physical copy will be around for a lifetime, and something you missed out on years ago that's long out of print is still in principle able to be purchased.
Cutting the middle man is also another reason. Why should 15/20% of what I pay go to someone whose entire task is transporting and storing a useless piece of plastic for me? Even if prices are the same i much rather support the people who actually created the game with my money than give a cut to an irrelevant middle man.
The platform holder is technically a middle man, at least when it comes to third-party titles. Besides, it's not like you don't have to deal with middle men everywhere else. Any goods sold in a store that aren't the store's brand are effectively "third-party" goods. And besides, new software is a very low-margin product for retailers.
Convenience... Being able to browse a list of games and jumping between them until you hit the one that speaks to you in the moment.
I don't find browsing my shelves particularly inconvenient. I've been dealing with physical copies for well over 30 years and never once felt it was a bother.
More environmentally friendly. Less carbon footprint on producing plastics, transportation costs in ships and trucks, etc.
The environmental savings would be utterly minuscule. I can't imagine the CO2 footprint of physical games is any appreciable fraction of the total.
All the issues you currently find with digital can and will be addressed as we transition to a much more digital future. The EU has begun looking into transfer of digital rights. Its a matter of time until popular demand and legislation will regulate more strongly the consumer rights. This takes time, but its going to happen finally.
And if it doesn't? Has there ever been any indication that copyright holders just won't get their way? I mean, the first-sale rule has never applied to digital, and there's no reason to think it will stop. Will there ever be a big enough pushback to have the first-sale doctrine apply to digital? I somehow doubt it. The U.S. is not the EU. IP law here is a total shitshow. And as the U.S. Copyright Office explains it:
"The underlying policy of the first sale doctrine as adopted by the courts was to give effect to the common law rule against restraints on the alienation of tangible property. The tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first sale doctrine and critical to its rationale. The digital transmission of a work does not implicate the alienability of a physical artifact. When a work is transmitted, the sender is exercising control over the intangible work through its reproduction rather than common law dominion over an item of tangible personal property. Unlike the physical distribution of digital works on a tangible medium, such as a floppy disk, the transmission of works interferes with the copyright owner's control over the intangible work and the exclusive right of reproduction. The benefits to further expansion simply do not outweigh the likelihood of increased harm."
TL;DR, according to Title 17 § 109 of U.S. Code, you own your physical books, CDs, tapes, DVDs/Blurays, and, yes, console games, but current judicial precedent does not apply the first-sale rule to digital.
It's progress... don't be shy, just embrace it :)
It's not progress to me. Not every piece of technology is deserving of being labeled "progress." And I'm not going to embrace it as long as the law is what it is. I believe in owning things.
|
