MOD EDIT: This thread split off from here.

I don't want it to be released digitally, but thats the way the worlds going now. I like to hold my games. It sounds weird, i know.(but the main reason is because I don't have internet at home or xbox live)

Rather than not want it released as a download, why not instead simply wish for a DVD release?

Digital downloads are a lot more cost-effective than publishing games using DVDs, especially for small companies. This is why it's going that way. Although I wonder if there's a way for game companies to send DVD versions of their games to customers upon request.

AO is told from Abe's point of view. Maybe Abe learned to chant in Monsaic Lines and only escaped from Rupture Farms by himself but wanted to tell us how he was all heroic and shit and had awesome mind powers as a slave and rescued some mudokons before escaping.

Or not.

Edit: I imagine the chant suppressors are there to stop any native mudokon from coming to RF and possessing everyone.

That would no doubt be incredibly expensive! Imagine turning up a whole production line for just a few copies! Not only that, but you'd also need to employ QA, testing and also graphic designers for the box art.

Or do you mean that the studio would just burn the files to a random blank disk and send it to people in the post? I have no idea whether such a disk can be read by PS3 or XBox, maybe it would be possible.

The whole point of digital distribution is that it is more easily accessible, you don't need a publisher, you cut completely manufacturing and distribution costs, and those savings can be passed on to the consumer (games for say £15 instead of £30).

Sony on the other hand doesn't seem to understand this (or does, and just wants to rip you off). All games on PSN that could also be purchased physically are way more expensive to download. The profit on those games must be immense. Take Assassin's Creed Revelations- on PSN (actually, it's SEN now isn't it?) the game can be downloaded without a box, disk or manual for the low low price of £59.99. Alternatively, go to a shop and buy it for 20 quid.

I can fully understand people preferring a boxed product. I would always choose a physical copy over digital, perhaps the main reason knowing that it is mine. With a download, (not sure how it works on XBox) you only get 5 copies. As in, if your PS3s break/are stolen, and you've used all 5 downloads, you've got to pay again.

Then again, so far the Oddworld games have been very reasonably priced! SWHD was a bargain in my opinion, and I can imagine MOHD and maybe Abe HD will be similarly priced.

Yes but do you know why that is? It's because games companies don't make any money from pre-owned games. So everythings going digital, so pre-owned games will sort of phase out, (consequently, Game and Gamestation are going down). Sony want to make sure they're getting all the money they can possibly squeeze out of people, because psn or whatever its called is almost all yhe money they're making out of games.

True. Gotta admit though, the sale of pre-owned games never seemed like a problem before this console generation. It's only in the last year or so that games companies have been throwing tantrums and whining about not making money from pre-owned games. It just seems like pure greed to be honest. I kind of agree with something a friend said to me; 'if they want people to buy games new, they should just make them better' :p

This whole 'you don't own a copy of the game, you own a licence to use it' lark is getting ridiculous. What happened to the time I could take a memory card round to a friend's house, and we could continue playing from where I left off? Now it's all 'not allowed to copy the save data' and 'this save data is from another system so saving and trophies are disabled'. And don't get me started on 'online passes' and whatever scheme they are trying to use lately. What happens if you don't have online access? You lose a good chunk of a game you've payed full price for.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like the direction the gaming industry is going as a whole. Of course, for small companies like OWI, I think digital distribution is a great opportunity and probably the best business strategy they can aim for at the moment. It's a tricky situation I guess, with pros and cons.

It may be the first you've heard of it, but it's nothing new. Lorne Lanning was talking about how detrimental pre-owned games are to developers back in 2006. The problem isn't greed on the devs' part, it's the greed on the retailers' part, making more and more profit while the makers of the product don't benefit at all.

As far as I'm concerned (for whatever that's worth), you do own a copy of the game. However, you have no distribution rights to it. Reselling it is in violation of that. You could argue that it's never cropped up in any other medium before (books, for instance), and for all I know that could be the case. But it probably has, it's just that no retailer has ever pushed reselling so aggressively as in the videogame industry that it's become a huge industry-wide problem.

This why I have so little problem with these "project 10 dollar" things, and also why I only buy games new. If I like a product enough to use it then I like it enough to want the creator to get my money.

I may be a cunt, but I'm not a piece of shit.

The problem with this is that a) retailers are a big avenue of sales for publishers/developers, so attacking their main source of profit could have detrimental effects, and b) publishers’ solutions are usually expensive, frustrating or irritating to consumers and ultimately don’t help (DRM, day-one DLC, online passes).


I think distribution rights and resale rights should be considered differently. In one, you’re keeping your own copy and allowing someone else access, which is a violation of your license agreement or whatever. In the other, you are transferring your license to another person and giving up your own license, which should be fine.

I think a big worry with digital distribution is how that transfer of license is impossible, and how restrictive the license agreement is. You buy a digital game, it gets tied to one account, one platform, one player.

It seems to me that game publishers and developers get worried about their losses from used sales, but they don’t consider how inconvenient their anti-uesd methods get.

Replace 'big' with 'rapidly declining'. Digital sales are skyrocketing. Shop sales are plummeting. Even while continuing resales and diversifying out into more profitable stock (DVDs, Angry Birds merchandise), the Game Group in the UK has been struggling to stay alive. There's plenty of reason to not bother defending retailers.

I don't disagree one jot. The popular methods of suppressing resale and piracy are awful. Whatever solutions we settle on, they're going to have to not involve treating paying customers like sacks of shit.

Why should it be fine? Surely it should be up the copyright holders to determine if that's acceptable. I'm not convinced either that it should be universally possible, selectively possible or outright banned. I just don't know. Sure it's beneficial for the consumer; but it's not (directly) beneficial to the developer.

It depends how it's done. I know of at least one game that users will be able to purchase once and be able to play on both PS3 and PS Vita. I get asked if we're doing that for Stranger HD. The answer is no. We're putting development into Stranger HD for Vita, and it would be really nice if we were in a position to distribute the product of that development sort-of freely, but we're not.

Converesly, I'm put off getting into OnLive. As much as it appeals to me, there's no way to integrate Steam and OnLive accounts. I don't expect to pay for the Steam service and get OnLive service for free; I would pay extra to support the OnLive devs. However, I'm not paying for that. I'm paying for two separate, largely identical copies of the same game.

It’s incredibly restrictive for the copyright holder of a piece of media to prevent the resale of a work they produce. A book publisher doesn’t stop someone selling their old books, a painter doesn’t stop her commissioners from reselling her paintings. Digital works seem to be unique in terms of restricting resale, and since digital media is supposed to be about free-flowing information that seems pretty whack.

To me, a developer or publisher of a game shouldn’t be trying to bind their products to people for life. The immediate reaction to that is that reselling hurts profits, but the strange thing comes from how most other media industries survive despite this.

Ultimately, I think publishers should be able to survive without having to resort to ridiculous restrictions. If they can’t, that signifies a bigger problem with the industry than just evil Used Games.


I dream of a day when Steam creates a service to compete with OnLive. It’s right up their alley, and they have an advantage of a huge existing install base.

You do realize that the only reason that other forms of media don't restrict it is because they can't, right? Digital media is in a unique position to do this because the technology that we use this media on gives them the ability to restrict it's usage. And don't think for a minute that the used market hasn't done damage to book, and video sales. It has. Again, they just don't have the same ability to combat it.

I only have 3 games that weren't "used" when I bought them. I can easily say that most of my games won't be on steam or get a HD remake... so if there's no more used games, what will happen to retrogaming ?

It will die, and you will cryyyyy, and cryyyyy, and cryyyyy.

It's not like there's a shop for some Good and Old Games... so I guess OANST it right on that one.

But they survive and thrive despite it. If they had the ability, you can guarantee they would try and stamp out used sales – but out of greed more than survival.

And that’s a problem with digital media – it gives people better control over their creative content, but it can easily be abused.

But no. They don't. There are almost no brick and mortar book sellers left in business in the U.S. And even Best Buy is losing money left and right. Most of them have not survived, and the ones that have are certainly not thriving.

That seems more a result of increased ebook sales, plus big retailers like Amazon taking away their business. But fair enough, I suppose the book industry isn’t doing so well.

How about the movie industry? Their profits seem to increase all the time, despite their attempts at killing off piracy.

Sure, but the retail stores that sell dvd's have almost all failed.....

Obviously, this discussion has widened to include piracy, but yeah, places are going out of business, and people are losing their jobs because selfish shits don't want to pay for what they use.

How does an industry make more money while its retailers go bust?

The film industry makes the bulk of it's money from theatres.

It’s a bit unfair calling people selfish for trying to pay less. Sure, I don’t condone piracy at all, and I’d like to buy new things and support creatives I like, but realistically I can’t afford to. Bear in mind that used sales support the brick and mortar stores, even if digital sales are pushing them out.

The question is, how much does used sales and/or piracy affect new sales in the long term? There’s some evidence that people can be influenced to buy media after pirating for various reasons, and I don’t think there’s a strong enough link between used sales and industry losses.

I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as “piracy is bad and used sales should be banned”. There’s a lot of contributing factors, with negative attributes being blown out of proportion and positives being downplayed for the sake of having an easy scapegoat.


I hate to sound like I’m backpedalling, but maybe trying to compare different media industries was a bad idea.

Retrogaming is about having the original experience, including the original console, controllers and software. GOG.com can't replicate that.

There are things that lie in between survival and greed. Getting more money out of a development cycle affords developers more opportunity to create more and better games, and this applies to all creative media. And just because an industry is thriving, that doesn't mean all the constituent companies are.

Yeah it really is a pretty bad situation. There have been may arguments about the current methods of restriction by game developers, in that they seem to be punishing the gamers who purchase things properly in order to combat the pirates and greedy retail stores. I really hope a better solution can be devised as soon as possible.

Like GAME and Gamestation. It goes without saying really. I went in the other day to see what was on offer in the firesale. The company was in administration, on its last legs, and even in this 'sale' stuff was more expensive than supermarkets!

Then again, at university students are encouraged by lecturers to pirate the software they need. This stuff can be up to 2000 quid to buy, and obviously they can't afford it. (Unis could give out licences but, well, they're businesses). They say that companies such as Adobe and Autodesk actually like the publicity, because the students will grow accustomed to their software and ultimately purchase legit copies when they open their own businesses.

I guess the same can't be said for game companies, where there will be no long term benefits. There definitely does seem a culture now where people think it's ok to pirate games etc. for free 'because everyone does it'.

I saw one person on FaceBook ask on OWI's page where he could download AO for free, because he didn't want to pay £3.99 for it. It's sad to think that this is what a great deal of people think is acceptable these days. If you need software badly and cannot possibly afford it, as is the case for the majority of students, I might be inclined to look the other way. But when something is dead cheap and you just can't be bothered to pay, there's really no excuse.

I didn't mean to give the impression that people who buy used are selfish shits. I was referring to piracy with that comment. A person who walks into a place of business, and purchases a product with their money can't be described as selfish. The used problem is an industry problem. Not a consumer problem.

what you said about game is true, they don't even stock new EA games anymore because they fell out with the company! Now they've been bought by some other company, and you won't believe this, but guess how much fore? Really, guess. They're in a shitload of debt, but guess how much they bought the company for?

You're mixing arguments there. In the game industry it's the publishers who claim to be struggling and who are complaining about reselling. In the book industry, the publishers are thriving in spite of - and probably because of - the rise of e-books and online retailing. That the retail stores are struggling is neither here nor there.

Developers who seem to be actively fighting it with "Project $10" and the like, are actively being greedy pieces of shit. Those who consistently complain about it without such practices are merely being greedy.

Something I don't mind in a way to combat used sales are season passes. They essentially say, you can sell this if you want, but we will be adding a bunch of cool shit and if you make the commitment to it, we'll save you some money. A bad season pass is Saints Row 3, some good season passes are Gears 3 and Mortal Kombat.

Ha, all that shit just makes used games cheaper for me since I never use online multiplayer anyway.

£1. Since nobody asked. They bought the entire company, thats 2 shop branches, for 100 pennies. Unbelievable.