But these are two different topics.
GOG is all digital but all the games are drm free and you get to fully own them, including an downloadable installer and everything, you just don't get anything physical.
Absolutely on GOG, I was eluding to them for digital game ownership and the small handful of marketplaces I know of that do this. I would love to see more of this or industry wide would be ideal. And if we did my argument would lose it legs.
Thus GOG is also my point, digital game ownership is exception and not the rule. And of course using services like GOG doesn't include all games being released at any given time (if ever in some cases). So then your forced to be excluded or get the 'lease' the usual industry players so 'graciously' offer instead.
By eliminating physical media the industry is forcing the hands of consumers to go digital. And to lose out on game owner ship, at the very least for some games and at worst, all games (say if your using steam/epic/MS exclusively). While it is easy to no want to conflate physical media 'dying' from game ownership, when the elimination of physical media is the vehicle driving consumers to digital only games it makes it as such that they can't be divided as different problems/issues quite so easily. They end up as one and the same for many users.
Which brings me back to why the elimination of physical media is so anti-consumer (and its not just gaming but they seem to be the worst or close), you either have to agree to lose ownership of some if not all of your games because you can no longer buy a disk for PC or not play at all. And console is heading that direction with the ground work laid in digital only titles now and drive-less console models at a cheaper price point to entice us into the idea of losing that control over our purchasing power. My guess is the industry is hoping we'll think it was our idea to make this transition happen.
I respect your posts and hope you can at least see where I am coming from. I never expect someone to 'fall in line' with my thought process because I have a better argument (besides it stink of arrogance to think in that fashion), though it would be nice if folks were easier to convince of at least finding some middle ground. Plus who is anyone to say 'they know it all', certainly not myself or anyone I know. Rather when I post on topics like this I hope that I can get someone to at least see where I am coming from. Plant a seed and hope it grows. You never know when your bridge to far will come. I embraced early PC digital games out of necessity as a disabled person as it made my life easier finding titles much to the disparagement of my fellow gamers (in and out of my gaming clan...shout out to my fellow atomics...). Not having to drive to four different PC stores as many had very limited titles available and that was assuming I was healthy enough to do so as I got sick a lot, just to see if they had the game in stock. It was tough on my body when I had to transfer in and out of my truck/wheelchair as a paraplegic using only my arms. So I got on board to quickly and it was too late not long after when Steam blew up. If I could I would kick my younger self square in the back side...but for multiple reasons I clearly can't.
Regardless the current state of digital game ownership is appalling and needs to change. It is IMO as things currently stand, it is out of greed through anti-consumer tactics that physical media is being killed off or more accurately, assassinated by the tech/media industry. From my perspective the killing of physical media and digital games leasing titles in lieu of ownership, are very much part of the same problem. Granted there are some solutions out there but they incomplete and are niche at best at the moment though they do have potential of solving the problem IF the rest of the industry can get on board and support digital game ownership
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram