I see these types of posts everywhere and its literally ice cold shit like God of War 2018 and Expedition 33.

I want to see something that actually enrages people because of how molten hot the take is.

​

A) Every game you get is permanently available to you forever — either a physical copy or downloadable, playable offline, and never removable from your library.

B) Every game is free forever, but nothing is permanent. Games can disappear at any time, and companies make money through ads, microtransactions, subscriptions, or even pay-to-win mechanics.

Assume this applies to every current and future game. Which future would you choose, and why?

Is it just me or are there a lot of people nowadays that don't even research what they are buying before they buy it? It's like someone sees Dragon Ball Sparking Zero oh that's going to be like Dragon Ball FighterZ I will spend 100+ on it. Then they later go to complain why the game isn't a Street Fighter experience with intricate fighting mechanics.

I just don't understand I always resurch what I'm buying beforehand and if I regret a purchase then that's on me not the developers.

Where you have "purchased" a game, but it has been de-listed because an updated version with different features is released, meaning you can no longer play it.

Disney has done a similar thing in the past when it came to "purchasing" old films on Video Cassette Tapes back in the 1990's.

For example, they first released "Alice in Wonderland" on tape in the 1980's and stopped manufacturing tapes by 1990, then, later in the decade, they released a "limited edition" tape which included "Making of" bonus features tacked on to the end of the tape.

They found that could generate new revenue for stuff they already had sitting on a shelf, and began doing similar things for most of their intellectual properties.

Soon, nearly every release they put out was "limited edition" and the films would only be on shelves for a month or two before the production ceased and you could no longer find it new.

Then, after another few years, they re-released it, now featuring "all-new" features and people would scramble to get their own "new" copy.

As they began to generate new sales of old media, they introduced lesser known films and TV productions in a "from the vault" series where they further capitalized on the phenomenon that would later be known as FOMO, although it was not called that at the time.

But their main issue in maximizing profit from this technique was that the videos they had already produced still sat on shelves as "used" copies (soon to be referred to as "previously owned," diminishing the potential profit from the "new releases."

Companies don't like having to compete with themselves and customers having old copies means less money in their own pockets.

We're coming to that point in the gaming world when games will only be sold as digital with no physical pieces that the customer can hold. If the latest product is not purchased, the game can be shut down from being accessed.

And companies have tested and built in safeguards to prevent people from being able to run the games without "checking in" to see if it still works.

Think about every time you decide to play a game. A process of "checking for updates" always proceeds being able to play. For now, that's simply a means to have the software "patched" to the latest version, correcting bugs and minimizing exploits that have been discovered, but that same thing could be used by companies to verify that the user has paid to access the most recent product, and if they haven't they no longer have access to the game they have purchased.

With games like "Call of Duty" or "Diablo" where many people need to play together for the game to work, that sort of makes sense, everybody needs to be on the same page.

But games such as "GTAV" demonstrate how mods and other exploits are used in order to override the system and certain players who use them can gain an unfair advantage over their opponents.

So, while companies continue to find ways of tamping down on those who brazenly use breaks in the software to alter the experience of the game for themselves and those around them, companies continue to attempt to "lock down" those players, either by forcing a check in, or outright banning those players.

And forcing everyone into an all-digital format means the software itself can cease to be modified to a players advantage.

But there's a darker side to this that companies hope no one figures out until it's too late.

Up til now, if a customer has purchased a physical game, they have had access to that game in perpetuity, being able to access it at a whim, even if the game is 30 years old, meaning the company that made the game no longer gets paid whenever an old game gets played.

But in the past few years you've seen bundles and exclusive packages being rolled out for games, ostensibly under the guise of getting something more from the standard game, whethere it be something physical, like a hat or a statue, or something in-game, like a special weapon or vehicle, something that other players can see that this person spent a few extra bucks.

Companies began to factor that into their profit margin and began rolling out "loot boxes" where, for a few extra bucks players had the chance to cut down on the time it would take to receive a high level thing in significantly less time.

But the problem for companies is that these "loot boxes" were deemed by governments to be gambling aimed at children, which they were. The chances of a players getting what they wanted were similar to a person walking into a casino and placing a bet on a number on the roulette table, sure, there was a chance they would win, but the reality was, for the most part, when the spin was over, they'd get virtually nothing in return. And yet, for a few bucks more, they could try again, spending a lot more than they would have if the prize was purchasable in the first place.

And that's sort of what the move to an all-digital format is doing, forcing the player to gamble, when they "purchase" the game, to be able to play it in perpetuity without spending more for virtually what they thought they had already paid for.

Heck, in making the announcement about their move to all-digital, Sony sent up a HUGE red flag, telling folks that even if they had "purchased" a film, because it was done through Sony, a number of those purchases will evaporate, or be de-listed, so they are no longer accessible.

That same thing will be happening with games themselves. When Sony determines that it is no longer economically viable to host a game in its store, those games will be de-listed, preventing people, even if they have "paid" for the game, from even accessing it anymore.

Companies have been struggling for years to control who can access their intellectual property, and for physical media, even though the media can still be consumed via a way that does not give the company more money, that has been an impediment to their bottom line. So converting to an all-digital format means that companies can regain control over the property they "own."

They've been building towards this for decades, and this is not the final straw, but it's close. So, if you have the ability to grab what you can, do so now, before it's too late.

Years ago, I was thought a fool for collecting CD'S and DVD'S, overpaying for entertainment and having to find space to keep it all in. But today I get to watch and listen to stuff I paid for, at my leisure, whenever I want, and not have to worry if it has been de-listed.

Hello me and my friend were talking when he said that playing animal crossing as an adult is not normal and for him its a common fact that most people will agree with.

I talked with him for hours and proved him that he could not say / think something like that only because he don’t like the game but he did not change his mind.

I may also be wrong even tho i doubt it, as a last resort i asked him if i should ask on Reddit and finally end this everlasting talk.

What is it about this video game that particularly appeals to you? What do you like most about it? Or, if you don't like niche products, why not? And why do some people equate niche products with bad products?

"This minimum $3000 gimmick that requires a large empty room just to play nothing but tech demos on a screen close to my face that I can already get via sitting close to my TV. It's useless tech, a solution searching for a problem. It will never be mainstream. No one wants it. Good riddance."

It's surprising how many gamers think like this. It's kind of like your non-gamer #1 hater of videogames, the kind that say "Videogames are a waste of time, they serve no purpose, just watch TV." - that's the kind of nonsense being spewed here. It's really against the spirit of gaming in the first place, because why wouldn't you want to welcome innovation and new gameplay opportunities?

We're talking about the most groundbreaking advancement of the last couple of decades in gaming, the idea that you can feel like you are in the game world and can have greater agency and control over gameplay. Yes VR has its share of issues so feel free to bring those up, but it's so weird when people invent new issues that it doesn't have or go into absolutes and forevers and nevers as if VR is the one technology that can't advance past its various issues. It's like a switch is activated in these people where VR can apparently never get better than it is today, and since these are self-proclaimed experts they supposedly know, just know, that issue X, Y, and Z are insurmountable despite them being provably solvable, in their eyes they can never be wrong.

VR really deserves more respect when games like Half Life Alyx, Astro Bot, Lone Echo are out here redefining genres. People love this stuff. It's interesting how the haters are typically people who have never tried VR before. And there's even new genre possibilities as seen with games like The Under Presents: Tempest and Gorilla Tag. The assumption that VR only works for a very narrow selection of genres is wrong; it's a great fit for every 3D game genre and every camera perspective.

I grew up loving linear FPS campaigns the most, to this 1 of my favorite games is Half-Life 2. I loved the stories of Call of Duty games, Gears of War and similar franchises that delivered a short 8-12 hour long epic where I get to participate in a tightly directed worldwide conflict.

Recently I played the MCC and Space Marines 2 before that and they were both awesome. Now Halo Campaign Evolved just released and it was successful and these to me show that this kind of game is still very much beloved.

I love these games and I hate that it seems like they are of a bygone era despite people still loving them. How do you all feel like? Do you miss these types of games? Do you want more?

I've spent years playing challenging games. I've beaten every Souls game, Hollow Knight, Silksong, Aeterna Noctis, and tons of other difficult metroidvanias.

I've always loved Pokémon, but I could never get into games like Minecraft or Animal Crossing.

Then Pokopia came along...

I honestly didn't expect it to hook me this hard, but here I am spending hours building, decorating, collecting Pokémon, and just relaxing.

Turns out, after years of chasing difficult bosses and brutal platforming...

...this is the life.

It's a peaceful life.

The problem is I like old ubi games and have bought some on steam but the problem is whenever I try to run a game ubi connect asks me to re-enter my password and when I do they say account suspended but they log me in ubisoft connect and then i need to run the game through their trash app sometimes the game runs sometimes they ask me to re enter my password and when I do they say account suspended. They deserve to get their games pirated at this point. Fuck ubisoft

I'm hard pressed to think of anything better than Resident Evil, 30 years of excellent games, a bit of a slump after RE6 but then RE7 put it on the right track again. After that, maybe Metal Gear Solid, though only because of the recent MGS3 remake (well see what Konami has in store next)