Most games from my small-to-medium sized collection fit on a single blu-ray disc. Only some bigger AAA releases don’t. I think only like 2 games I own have more than one disc - Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2.
I was there too. I remember installing Doom from floppy disks. I’ve just never had an Xbox or Playstation, so I have no context for how those medias have evolved over the years. I assumed at this point they were mostly digital already.
Well they don’t always, but you can just use multiple discs in that case. I think final fantasy has done this as well as a recent example, but this has already been done since the days of games still being on CD.
That’s not because of the discs lol. If you afford to spend 300 million on slop like concord, you can print discs. And a franchise like gta 6 can definitely afford them.
It is because of discs, actually. Every single extra dollar it costs to manufacture them is like 5% of the revenue from the sale of the game that the publisher loses out on. That’s huge.
I don’t see why not, they could before couldn’t they? Even if you want to stick to the cost argument, i don’t have to care about that, cause i need to look out for myself as a consumer. If they can’t provide a way for me to own the game, i’ll simply take my business elsewhere. There’s a reason i opted to buy a disc edition ps5 instead of a digital edition, because i didn’t want to be locked to their storefront. That hasn’t changed one generation later, so if that’s the only option i’m just not going to buy it. Also, you claim physical is dead, but the situation is more nuanced when you look at the sales on a per game basis. There are definitely a lot of games that sell more digitally, but there are also first party titles like rift apart that have a 75%/25% physical/digital ratio. I think they’re definitely taking a risk alienating those first party customers by going digital only, but we’ll see what happens i guess.
You absolutely don’t have to care about the profitability of the companies who make the products you enjoy……unless of course you want them to keep making more of those products.
As for games like rift apart, that game had a physical copy bundled with consoles for a long time. Anything bundled isn’t worth counting.
Also where did you get your physical:digital split for that?
By Sony’s own figures, over 85% of all first party titles sold are digital.
Aside from Nintendo, how often to today’s games actually fit on physical media and not require downloading/patching to play?
Actually asking, I don’t have any consoles.
Most games from my small-to-medium sized collection fit on a single blu-ray disc. Only some bigger AAA releases don’t. I think only like 2 games I own have more than one disc - Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2.
I’m actually surprised they’d be willing to supply multiple disks. Thanks for the info.
There used to be CDs that came in cereal boxes, occasionally a game would be on two disks.
Also starcraft was on two disks for the installation, though I believe the second disk was for expansion to the main campaign.
I was there too. I remember installing Doom from floppy disks. I’ve just never had an Xbox or Playstation, so I have no context for how those medias have evolved over the years. I assumed at this point they were mostly digital already.
Oh, Starcraft! I can only afford 1 copy but want to play with my friends… install multiplayer only on secondary pcs. or was that warcraft 2, or both
Well they don’t always, but you can just use multiple discs in that case. I think final fantasy has done this as well as a recent example, but this has already been done since the days of games still being on CD.
It’s significantly more expensive than simply having the rest be downloaded via an update.
With developers going under left right and centre, putting an even higher cost on their production is a death sentence.
That’s not because of the discs lol. If you afford to spend 300 million on slop like concord, you can print discs. And a franchise like gta 6 can definitely afford them.
It is because of discs, actually. Every single extra dollar it costs to manufacture them is like 5% of the revenue from the sale of the game that the publisher loses out on. That’s huge.
I’m sure they’ll be fine compared to the 30% that sony/steam takes.
So because they already lose 30%, they can afford to lose another 5%?
I don’t see why not, they could before couldn’t they? Even if you want to stick to the cost argument, i don’t have to care about that, cause i need to look out for myself as a consumer. If they can’t provide a way for me to own the game, i’ll simply take my business elsewhere. There’s a reason i opted to buy a disc edition ps5 instead of a digital edition, because i didn’t want to be locked to their storefront. That hasn’t changed one generation later, so if that’s the only option i’m just not going to buy it. Also, you claim physical is dead, but the situation is more nuanced when you look at the sales on a per game basis. There are definitely a lot of games that sell more digitally, but there are also first party titles like rift apart that have a 75%/25% physical/digital ratio. I think they’re definitely taking a risk alienating those first party customers by going digital only, but we’ll see what happens i guess.
You absolutely don’t have to care about the profitability of the companies who make the products you enjoy……unless of course you want them to keep making more of those products.
As for games like rift apart, that game had a physical copy bundled with consoles for a long time. Anything bundled isn’t worth counting.
Also where did you get your physical:digital split for that?
By Sony’s own figures, over 85% of all first party titles sold are digital.