Video Games Plus, a gaming retailer based out of Canada, and an independent gaming retailer known as Loot Box Gaming have both stated that they won’t be selling GTA 6.
Not huge retailers in the grand scheme of things, but interesting to see at least some taking a stand especially when they are almost certainly losing out on money by doing so.
Sorry, I don’t see an issue here. Everyone is perfectly happy giving Steam loads of money for games they’ll never physically own, but when it comes to consoles, suddenly we’re supposed to make a stand?
No. The overwhelming majority of game sales are digital downloads.
If you think having a disc somehow solves this, try playing Gran Turismo on the PlayStation 4. Sure, you get a disc, but you still have to sit through roughly six hours of downloads and installation before the game is actually playable.
The lack of a disc isn’t the issue.
I take your point about Steam’s licensing, but at least those games go on some impressive sales from time to time. A physical disk can be resold on the used market for a discount after some time. Can GTA VI’s code in the box?
You also don’t own your games digitally on Steam.
You also don’t own your games on disc.
Did you not read the last part about Gran Turismo?
The game is unplayable without a download digitally accompanying the disc. Without that download the game is unplayable.
You seem to be hung on that one example and have made a whole argument supported by it.
One does own their games on disc.
I can still play using my physical copies after all these years, regardless of whether I am logged into PSN or if I am playing it on a PS4 or a PS5.
Years ago, when the PS4 launched, the philosophy was still different. Games were generally released in a semi-complete state on disc and were at least potentially playable without massive downloads. Go back another generation and it was even better. Games shipped complete, were fully playable right out of the box, and if you bought them, you still own that experience today. I still have my Xbox 360 collection, and from time to time I play those games on my fully functional Xbox 360.
What I’m talking about is this generation, and the end of the previous one, where more and more games began shipping incomplete or effectively unplayable without day-one downloads and patches.
Yes, I use Gran Turismo as an example because it illustrates the point. I’m not hung up on that one game. I play plenty of others.
You indeed failed to see the issue.
It is not really wise to compare Steam with the console ecosystem, especially when there exists several alternatives to obtain games on PC.
Physical discs matter more on consoles than on PCs, given that there is not a whole lot one can do if their account gets banned for the silliest of reasons, or if one wants to share a game.
Also, have you thought that you might be referring to two different sets of customers: one that is fine with digital purchases on Steam/PSN, and the other that strongly supports physical purchases?
Using a single example of GT is insufficient to make a broad statement like the one you made.
Not really sure what you mean here. Do you have a disk drive installed on your PC? If so how old is your case? Or when was the last time you had a car with a cd player in it? Or are you talking about any other store front like epic or battle.net? Because they’re all in competition with one another.
This is categorically and objectively not true. Bans on consoles are few and far between and many times they actually brick the console itself. You’re not sharing games. No one is sharing games. The extreme vast majority of games are digital downloads. You’re not passing around your cartridge of super smash bros 64 between school mates in 2026.
No. Why would I do that? I don’t care. I own a PS4, a Steam Deck, and a gaming PC. They’re all fundamentally the same customer experience built on similar architecture. This is just a ridiculous argument.
In fact, I feel like, deep down, you generally agree with my original comment but didn’t want to say so for fear of being ostracized by the community in this thread. It feels like you picked the most ridiculous, indefensible arguments against what I was saying and just ran with them.
You are arguing against points I did not make. Do not confuse consumer preference with consumer rights.
The fact that most people buy digitally does not magically eliminate the benefits of physical media: resale, lending, collecting, and not tying every purchase to a single account or storefront. That is especially relevant on consoles, where you don’t have the competitive marketplace that exists on PC. Comparing Steam to PlayStation as though they are equivalent ecosystems ignores the very thing being discussed.
You went from making weak arguments to inventing facts. “No one is sharing games” goes against the used games market as well as game lending. As earlier, your point about Gran Turismo is just an anecdote dressed up as a general principle.
And your last paragraph is a joke. If you have to speculate and invent my position instead of addressing it, that is a sign your rebuttal is weak, just like your original comment.
Dude, I literally quoted what I was responding to. I don’t think you actually understand what you’re talking about.
You made a few weak points that don’t amount to a hill of beans, then acted as though my argument was the weak one.
The Gran Turismo example still stands because it’s a well-known issue, not just an anecdote. Gran Turismo is notorious for taking an extremely long time to install even with the physical disc inserted.
And bringing up niche markets like collectors who want the box art is irrelevant. They make up a tiny fraction of the people who actually buy and play these games.
The reality is that physical media generates far less revenue than digital sales through online storefronts.
It’s a business. You understand that, right?
You are still arguing against a position I never took.
I never disputed why companies are pushing digital. I disputed the idea that losing physical media is not a loss for consumers. Rights like resale, lending, ownership independent of a single account, and preservation do not stop to matter because digital is more popular.
That is an explanation for why companies make these decisions, not a defence of them. By that logic, any reduction in consumer rights would be acceptable so long as it increases profits. I don’t think that is a particularly compelling standard.
We are discussing two different questions: you are defending the business incentive, while I am discussing the consumer trade-offs. There is nothing more to add, so I will leave it at that.
Wow. Just wow.
You completely dismissed what I was saying. You ignored my points and arguments, ignored me when I corrected your incorrect interpretation of what you called an anecdote, and now you’re bowing out by claiming we’re talking about two different things.
It doesn’t matter. Your position is no different than arguing that cars from the 1960s were better simply because they were easier to work on. That’s irrelevant because cars have fundamentally changed. The same applies here.
Christ. Why are there so many people like you on Lemmy?