It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership
Game publishers’ shift from physical discs to digital-only sales is raising broader concerns about what players actually “own” when they pay for a game. Commenters contrast DRM‑free downloads and moddable PC titles with locked-down console ecosystems and online services that can revoke access, shut down servers, or delist content despite prior purchases. Many argue for clearer labeling of licenses vs purchases and even new regulation or escrow requirements to preserve long-term access, while others see piracy, open platforms, or free/open‑source games as the only reliable path to real ownership.
Ownership vs Licensing & Misleading Language
- Core tension: users feel they “buy” games but legally only license revocable access.
- Many argue “buy”/“purchase” buttons are deceptive; want mandatory terms like “license” or “rent” plus clear duration.
- Others counter that software has always been licensed, not sold; the big change is enforcement power, not the license text.
Physical Media vs Digital-Only
- Physical discs once embodied practical ownership: self-contained, replayable, resellable, lendable.
- Modern discs often ship incomplete (big patches, DLC, on-disc locks, “code in a box”), eroding their usefulness.
- Some still value physical objects and the second‑hand market; others accept physical’s decline as inevitable or pointless.
- Digital-only consoles are seen as a way to eliminate resale, lock in users, and enable subscriptions and price hikes.
DRM, Online Services, and Control
- Always‑online checks, account bindings, and central servers (e.g., Minecraft auth, online-only single‑player) let vendors revoke access or silently break games.
- Firmware updates and anti‑downgrade mechanisms mean even disc-based console games can be effectively disabled.
- Suggestions: mandatory DRM‑free “final patches,” escrowed source/binaries, or laws requiring offline play once services end.
PC vs Console Ecosystems
- Consoles are closed, single‑store platforms; critics see this as a monopoly on a sunk hardware investment.
- PC praised as “open”: users can choose stores, crack weak DRM, run private servers, and back up games.
- Disagreement on Steam: some see it as relatively benign with offline play; others note it’s still license‑only, non‑transferable, and could change policy at any time.
- GOG is highlighted as the only mainstream truly DRM‑free option.
Resale, Transfer, and KYC
- Many want digital goods to have first‑sale–like rights: resale, lending, inheritance.
- Others note used markets bypass developers entirely and hurt revenue.
- Ideas include regulated license transfers, blockchain/NFT‑style tracking, or KYC-based resale, but there’s skepticism about privacy, complexity, and incentives.
Regulation and Consumer Protection
- Unusually broad support for some regulation:
- Protecting the ability to transfer licenses.
- Forbidding unilateral revocation of paid content.
- Tying copyright to providing a DRM‑free copy when support ends.
- Counterpoints: regulations are often clumsy, full of loopholes (e.g., shell companies), and rent‑seeking is hard to define and control.
Preservation, Piracy, and Open Alternatives
- Strong concern that online‑tied and delisted games will disappear, unlike books or older media.
- Piracy, cracks, and repacks are portrayed by some as de facto consumer defense and cultural preservation.
- Others dismiss long‑term preservation as niche “hoarding”; argue most players move on and don’t care.
- Open‑source games, community servers, and DRM‑free releases are proposed as the only robust form of real digital ownership.