Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Digital download vs. Physical Disc vs Physical Cartridge
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only reason why I would prefer digital media for the lack of load times, as well as simply not having to put a disc in / get up and change a disc.
I have always preferred buying physical media, because "I can sell it later and recoup some of my money." My plans always seem to go awry, however, since I only buy stuff that I feel i will really like & play a lot...and then I can't bear to sell it!
At this point, the only digital media I have are for games I own physically...or for games that I missed and regret not having picked up...(Earthbound is an example of the latter).
My backlog is *HUGE*, so as Cnasty mentioned (I think) it is great to pack a disc away and got go forward with what I have loaded on my computer/Wii U.
(Example of huge backlog...I dropped Metroid Prime sometime in late 2002 after getting about 60% of the way through...bought the Wii Metroid Trilogy in disc form, never even opened it, and then saw that it was available for the Wii U as a digital download...bought that months ago, and now finally said, "Dammit, start playing the thing again," which I just started again last week. And in case you are wondering, I still have the GC Metroid Prime, and the Wii Metroid Trilogy (unopened) as well as all the consoles, etc.).
I have always preferred buying physical media, because "I can sell it later and recoup some of my money." My plans always seem to go awry, however, since I only buy stuff that I feel i will really like & play a lot...and then I can't bear to sell it!
At this point, the only digital media I have are for games I own physically...or for games that I missed and regret not having picked up...(Earthbound is an example of the latter).
My backlog is *HUGE*, so as Cnasty mentioned (I think) it is great to pack a disc away and got go forward with what I have loaded on my computer/Wii U.
(Example of huge backlog...I dropped Metroid Prime sometime in late 2002 after getting about 60% of the way through...bought the Wii Metroid Trilogy in disc form, never even opened it, and then saw that it was available for the Wii U as a digital download...bought that months ago, and now finally said, "Dammit, start playing the thing again," which I just started again last week. And in case you are wondering, I still have the GC Metroid Prime, and the Wii Metroid Trilogy (unopened) as well as all the consoles, etc.).
Sadly with this generation of consoles, they don't actually play off the discs anymore. They act more as installer discs and activation keys. And except for the Xbox One Elite, both PS4 and Xbox One are spinning drives on a SATA II connection (making an SSD upgrade run at half the speed it could theoretically reach). The games load fast enough that I haven't had many issues with waiting around forever, but it certainly isn't as fast as a computer with an SSD.
As far as the main question for this topic, I split my purchases nearly down the middle. If it's a game I know I'm going to play often (Destiny, BF4) I get digital, but if it's one I'll pop in maybe a few times after beating (Assassin's Creed), I'll grab a physical copy. Or if there is some form of really cool collector's edition then my hands are tied...
I'd enjoy this feature as well. But I have no idea how they could get this to work without revamping how the games are activated. Maybe some sort of single-time use code?
If it is that collector's edition - don't open it - highly sought after...
(note the Collectors Edition sealed goes for around $100. The reprint standard versions at Gamestop go for $35 are not sealed and sold as "used" even though they are "new").
https://www.pricecharting.com/game/wii/metroid-prime-trilogy-collector's-edition?q=metroid+prime+trilogy+collector's+edition
I opened mine up at the time and didn't know that old Nintendo games sealed are going to be highly sought after.
Doesn't matter I guess, the stuff inside is cool and I want to play it now that it is open (mint CIB they're worth around $80). I think I prefer the Wii control scheme over the GC one...
I'd like that option as well, but as @s0nicpr0s pointed out, there's no controls AFAIK, to protect against piracy. They'd need to do something different with activation so people don't pass around a single game disc
I know it is more of a pipe dream then a reality, sigh. You get the best of both worlds then and half decent pricing. I have a couple of digital games but they were very expensive to buy, but I didn't want to disk swap all the time with them. I would use digital a lot more if the games cost the same as the physical copy's.
Thanks for that! Yes, it is still sealed...and I probably would have opened it by now, except...I was able to download it digitally!
This sounds really weird/lazy, but one of my biggest beefs with consoles is that you have to get up, take a disc out, put another disc in, wait for it to load...if you can get it digitally (and on an SSD or flash memory), it is soooo much more convenient...having the Metroid Trilogy downloaded on my Wii U is really, really nice. If anybody wants to play that, I highly recommend it, the graphics look a little dated, but the gameplay (and music) are fantastic!
Next, I'll have to download Zack & Wiki...
I've been stung in the past with downloaded games/music/books disappearing at some point after purchase. I've learned my lesson and buy everything on disc when possible. As it happens, that's often the cheapest way anyway!
I want Fire Emblem Fates on a cartridge, and Monster Hunter Generations as a download. Realising part of my process for deciding how I want a game is based on "Do I want permanent, instant access to it". MH is yes because I can fire up a multiplayer with friends without thinking ahead to do so. Fire Emblem I want to play again in 20, 30 years and don't necessarily play at the drop of a hat.
For me, it depends on a few factors. If it's PC, digital. If it's console, it depends on the game itself. Games that I wound play on a regular basis I'd probably want digitally for my New 3DS XL. If the game has ridiculous load times, I'd probably lean towards the digital version.
Physical because game companies are increasingly becoming revisionist gatekeepers of their libraries, deciding what you can and cannot have access to and claiming legally that you have only a perpetual licence of their digital offerings, not true first-sale protected ownership as with your physical titles. Case in point, Konami's Orwellian dispatch of P.T. after their dust-up with Kojima. That software, just a playable demo, was a cultural touchstone and an important piece of history both in game and online culture, and it functionally no longer exists.
If I had my druthers, games would be offered on flash memory carts that are console/device writable so that mechanic and stability revisions and DLC can be kept locally and perpetually, so that you have a functional copy in twenty years, long after the generation-specific servers are defunct, and don't have to suffer through gimped gameplay.
If I had my druthers, games would be offered on flash memory carts that are console/device writable so that mechanic and stability revisions and DLC can be kept locally and perpetually, so that you have a functional copy in twenty years, long after the generation-specific servers are defunct, and don't have to suffer through gimped gameplay.
Someone lost the download of their most favorite game and can't re-download it anymore...
Someone lost the download of their most favorite game and can't re-download it anymore...
All of my most favourite titles are older games.Really I suppose it's just that I was raised with queer, old-fashioned notions like wanting to actually own the things that I've purchased and to have actual, real possession of them. I'm willing to accept certain trade-offs for the sake of ease of access if the cost is sufficiently cheap. For instance, nearly my entire music collection is vinyl, save for the very few releases between the mid-ninties, when vinyl was all but abandoned, and the last few years when in which it's had a resurgence. I'm willing to pay 99p for a digital copy on iTunes if it's a song that I always want to have access to in a mobile format but it's always a song of which I have a physical copy because I accept that at any given time the licensor of that digital music can revoke my licence for the most arbitrary of reasons: because they can and want to. I can accept that for $100 - 150 in music that I already possess in a superior format.
Conversely, I abhor the sale of games in the digital format, especially given the deplorable recent practice of game devs hiding the complete, functional game behind DLC and micro-transactions that at least double the cost of the game. If I have a collection of games that cost me thousands, or tens of thousands, I want assurance that I always have access to the best version of it without that access being subject to whims of corporate bean counters that may or may not decide that the servers housing patches and DLC that actually make a game playable and worthwhile are to be taken down because of cost-cutting, or dropped entirely down the memory hole because they have a tiff with a former employee.
Where would we be if The Legend of Zelda and Metroid were digital-only titles that could never be bought and experienced in their original format without being changed or censored on a whim? Where would we be if, like Kojima, Yu Suzuki had had a falling out with SEGA and Shenmue, being a digital offering, disappeared and the IP shelved forever?
I worry about these things not just for these examples but because of what the acceptance of single-serving, transient media means about the attitudes of the human race toward art and culture. The games that have been produced over the last thirty years, I would argue, are as much an example and encapsulation of our time and culture as any Renaissance portraiture, and it needs to endure, free and unaltered, if future generations are to experience, and learn from, the best and worst that we had to offer.
On top of that, when older titles do get re-releases they're often done with a complete lack of care and respect for the original game. I know that a lot of people were complaining about the Windows release of Final Fantasy 9 because it had a huge "touch-friendly" UI that had been copied directly from the mobile version and didn't resemble the original PlayStation version. Even the mobile version itself seemed to be a bit of a rush job; the very first choice in the game - before the main title appears - has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer. If you choose the wrong answer in the PlayStation version then you get a funny comment. If you choose it in the iOS version then the text window disappears before the text has fully appeared.
At the risk of getting sidetracked, it's not just games. A friend from work gave me a free projection screen on the condition that I'd play his favourite movie, The Sound of Music. I picked up the Blu-ray a couple of days ago (I don't want to project his old DVD on such a big screen!) and it's clear that despite being a special "50th anniversary edition", Fox doesn't actually care about the movie. First I noticed that it had an option of 7.1 or 4.0 sound tracks. That didn't seem right for a movie from the 60s, so I did a bit of research and sure enough the original release was in mono. Furthermore, the director actually made a conscious decision for mono because he thought that surround distracted from what was happening on-screen. Not only has Fox not included the mono audio, but also completely ignored the director's wishes! It's also in the wrong aspect ratio.
Alas, this sort of thing is really common now... but at least there are no activation servers and no time limits.
At the risk of getting sidetracked, it's not just games. A friend from work gave me a free projection screen on the condition that I'd play his favourite movie, The Sound of Music. I picked up the Blu-ray a couple of days ago (I don't want to project his old DVD on such a big screen!) and it's clear that despite being a special "50th anniversary edition", Fox doesn't actually care about the movie. First I noticed that it had an option of 7.1 or 4.0 sound tracks. That didn't seem right for a movie from the 60s, so I did a bit of research and sure enough the original release was in mono. Furthermore, the director actually made a conscious decision for mono because he thought that surround distracted from what was happening on-screen. Not only has Fox not included the mono audio, but also completely ignored the director's wishes! It's also in the wrong aspect ratio.
Alas, this sort of thing is really common now... but at least there are no activation servers and no time limits.
Precisely this, even when the owners of past content are 'gracious enough' to provide us renewed access to older content, it's always done with the cynical cash-grab mentality of making it 'relevant to modern times', as though the Mona Lisa should now appear in a duckfaced, Dutch-angle selfie pose and Michael Corleone should be doing GTL instead of assisting at Mass whilst Moe Green is shot in the face. Such nonsense demonstrates a monstrous contempt for the integrity of an artist's vision, especially in cases like what you mentioned with The Sound of Music, where it is concretely opposed to the artist's choices. Whether by virtue of artist's intent, or by the limitations of the time in which it was produced, a work of art is integral, warts and all, and I disagree vehemently with only offering a fundamentally altered version.
I should also hasten to add that I don't accept the argument that the original artist bears the prerogative to replace their own work with a fundamentally different version once it has become a part of the public consciousness, at least not in a way that alters the character or narrative of the work in question. If it isn't clear, this is particularly directed at George Lucas and the ongoing saga of trying to get the version of the original trilogy that the fans that encountered as children instead of the wonky, CGI-maimed version that is exclusively available and perennially changed even to this day.
Last edited:
I have both but prefer the physical copy. Digital is nice for convenience of starting a game and you can't wear out or break a game (yes wear out, I played oblivion on Xbox 360 until the disc started to crack from the inside hole outward, same with skyrim on ps3).
Physical disc can be resold though. I traded my PS3 in with all my games for a PS4 + a game (gta5 I think) and only paid 20-30 bucks out of pocket. If all my games were digital it would have been a couple hundred. Physical games sometimes come with nice books/maps/etc...
However now we are at a point where titles will be backwards compatible on all consoles so you might not want to trade your games in anyway.
[doublepost=1471186211][/doublepost]
Ya unless you want the updated version than the disc is just a web link to a download page that automatically happens when you install it.
However I thought of another pro why I like physical. The ridiculous digital copy version prices. Sometimes I can find a physical copy for half the price ANYWHERE when compared to PSN. New games are the exception but if anything I feel digital copies should be less expensive.
Physical disc can be resold though. I traded my PS3 in with all my games for a PS4 + a game (gta5 I think) and only paid 20-30 bucks out of pocket. If all my games were digital it would have been a couple hundred. Physical games sometimes come with nice books/maps/etc...
However now we are at a point where titles will be backwards compatible on all consoles so you might not want to trade your games in anyway.
[doublepost=1471186211][/doublepost]
Ya unless you want the updated version than the disc is just a web link to a download page that automatically happens when you install it.
However I thought of another pro why I like physical. The ridiculous digital copy version prices. Sometimes I can find a physical copy for half the price ANYWHERE when compared to PSN. New games are the exception but if anything I feel digital copies should be less expensive.
Either one, I don't care.
Maybe last year, I would've said digital all the way. I hate clutter and I'm a nomad living in many different places. I also don't want wear and tear. But I can still see the value in physical especially for collecting and getting them cheaper. I had a collection of games put into a couple of shoe boxes, so I know the feeling of looking at a personal library. I can also go to a friend's house and play it there. So don't care anymore. I like them both. Whatever is a better deal or available to get.
Maybe last year, I would've said digital all the way. I hate clutter and I'm a nomad living in many different places. I also don't want wear and tear. But I can still see the value in physical especially for collecting and getting them cheaper. I had a collection of games put into a couple of shoe boxes, so I know the feeling of looking at a personal library. I can also go to a friend's house and play it there. So don't care anymore. I like them both. Whatever is a better deal or available to get.
All digital. Don't want to waste space, and downloads are so fast these days.
Only problem is that you end up with multiple sources of games, so I need a spreadsheet to keep track of my buys. I do most of my shopping at MacGameStore.com now, so that does make it easier.
Only problem is that you end up with multiple sources of games, so I need a spreadsheet to keep track of my buys. I do most of my shopping at MacGameStore.com now, so that does make it easier.
Well, the PS4 Pro has no 4K UHD Drive...
This?
"Our Relationship With Physical Media Is About to Change"
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/our-relationship-with-physical-media-is-about-to-c/1100-4973/
My Steam library is large, and I figured out that I pad an average of $4 per game.
Yes, Digital is great, but the price needs to reflect it.
Paying the same $60 for a digital DRM copy of a game as a physical disc is a rip-off...
This?
"Our Relationship With Physical Media Is About to Change"
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/our-relationship-with-physical-media-is-about-to-c/1100-4973/
My Steam library is large, and I figured out that I pad an average of $4 per game.
Yes, Digital is great, but the price needs to reflect it.
Paying the same $60 for a digital DRM copy of a game as a physical disc is a rip-off...
I agree...I see a problem with digital downloads is that competition will be almost zero, you will buy direct from an "authorized seller" which will basically be the console manufacturer and/or one or two other places (maybe the dev's themselves).
The reason why we can get games cheap is because a lot of stores need to periodically unload inventory taking up physical space in the stores...with digital, that just isn't going to be a pressure causing a reduction in price.