Full Games not on Disc anymore? (Rant)

Social_Outlaw

G.B.A.T.e.m.p T.e.m.p.l.a.r K.n.i.g.h.t
OP
Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
579
Trophies
1
Age
26
Location
Where all things matter
Website
wiki.gbatemp.net
XP
1,025
Country
United States
Is anyone getting annoyed that lately games like Fallout 76 and Black ops 4 are only getting a VERY small percentage of the game on disc and the rest you have to Download? Like I really hope this is a minor issue for current gen and multiplayer games because regardless if its only a multiplayer experience that doesn't mean I want download the whole game from the internet (only the patches). Nobody hasn't really spoke on this issue as far as I know and I just wanted see if anyone is feeling the same way. I mean my internet is good but it still bugs me, I heard Red Dead is doing the same thing to but I don't know for sure anyhow what do y'all all think about this issue? If there is a reason for this could someone please explain why?
 
Last edited by Social_Outlaw,
  • Like
Reactions: Ryccardo

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,684
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,062
Country
Belgium
It's not the first time I've heard that complaint. If I still bought AAA-games I would've been bothered, but to tell you the truth it's been 4 years (since bayonetta 2) since I last bought a physical game, and I don't miss it at all.

I can name a few reasons for the practice, but none are really valid excuses. So please: don't take my arguments as if I personally like the tactic.

That said: there are following reasons (maybe I miss a few):
* by having a partial download, companies aren't restricted to the maximum size of the disc or cartridge. They can even skim production costs a bit by opting NOT to go with the large size cartridge, but instead have users download part of the game.
* you can't have games without patches nowadays. Since these update or change earlier files, why fill the disc with files that will probably be outdated before the first month after release?
* it's a form to keep control of the second hand market. Somewhere in a future when everyone is distracted with dozens/hundreds of other games, companies can just quietly remove the patches from the servers and thus remove competition to these later games
 

Tom Bombadildo

Dick, With Balls
Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
14,572
Trophies
2
Age
29
Location
I forgot
Website
POCKET.LIKEITS
XP
19,170
Country
United States
Games sizes are getting huge, and we're getting to a point where it's not financially feasible to include an entire game on multiple discs anymore. Thats likely the large chunk of the reason why, pressing millions of triple layer discs or even multiple single/dual layer discs is way too expensive when you can just plop part of the data on a significantly cheaper single layer disc and let users download the rest from servers.

You mention RDR2, so I'll use that as an example. The games data, in total, is 99gb when all said and done and installed on a PS4. Which means it would either require 4 single layer Blu-ray discs, or two dual layer Blu-ray discs, or 1ish triple layer Blu-ray disc. The problem here is that, the more layers required, the most expensive pressing those discs is going to be. It might be a few cents for those extra layers per disc for whatever publisher, but when you factor in the sheer number of discs being manufactured (ie: millions) it just adds up to way too much production cost for the amount of budget a large AAA game might have already spent in developing the game itself.

Now are there games that would totally fit on a cheaper dual layer disc, but the publisher can't be bothered to actually shell out the little extra cash for that? Absolutely, and those publishers are just being greedy shits (no fucking duh, they're a business, they're out to make money not be your friend). Is it some big issue in 2018 when most of the gaming market has access to high(ish) speed internet? Not really.

Nintendo will have this issue worse off than the PS4/xboner for future "large" games (assuming any devs can bother gimping those large games to run on the Switch, that is), purely because their cartridges are incredibly more expensive to produce with a smaller max capacity, so any large size game is basically going to guarantee a required download. There are already games that aren't fully on the cartridge, and I expect that practice to continue throughout the Switch's lifespan.

The worse is, really the only way to fix that issue and push more publishers into providing a whole game on disc is simply upping the base price of a game to cover those exponentially higher production costs. Would you rather spend $80 for a AAA title, just because games have gotten infinitely more complex and huge and require higher capacity, and therefore more expensive, discs, or keep spending the usual $60 and have to download a part of it for a few hours?

Some people would probably answer "sure, I like physical games enough to spend extra money!" But the average consumer doesn't give a rats ass, or at least enough to do anything meaningful, so nothing will change.

I personally prefer digital titles, simply because I don't care about cheap plastic cases and artwork I could just print myself. I have 0 actual risk of losing any of the titles I buy like I may with physical copies, and I don't have to dedicate some significant amount of physical space for all the games I might buy, so meh.
 
Last edited by Tom Bombadildo,

osaka35

Instructional Designer
Global Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,729
Trophies
2
Location
Silent Hill
XP
5,896
Country
United States
Is it some big issue in 2018 when most of the gaming market has access to high(ish) speed internet? Not really.

Most of rural america, and I'd wager much any other rural area in the world, has poor internet. It's a huge problem for rural education, for example. Even large cities tend to have just the one company, and you're stuck to whatever limits they impose. Even if you find internet that is considered "high speed" compared to dial-up, there are usually data caps. I know personally having an Xbox 1s generally means 50-100GB a month in "updates" alone from the amount of games I have. And that's on a good month. If I actually bought a few games, that could easily double or triple. most lower tier data caps are 300-500GB. Watch much netflix and you go over quite frequently. and that's before you play many online games :3

The main complaint I have is having digital-only means we lose a lot of rights as consumers. You move from "game-as-product" to "game-as-service". You are required to use their services in order to download a game. Violate their ToS (terms of service) and you are no longer allowed to download games, updates, or dlc when it has been legally purchased. ToS is just random stuff they made up, which may or may not be anywhere near legal. Good luck fighting their legal team. Games actually put on disc are "game-as-product", and as such you are entitled to play it regardless of what ToS you violate (unless there's an online service inside the game, like match-making or something. Those particular aspects would fall under their ToS...unless you can get a custom service going)

So while it's convenient for them, and saves them a few bucks, we as consumers get royally borked in the process. And as soon as their servers go down, or they just don't wanna, you *can never play that game if you don't already have it downloaded*. And even then, they might be able to remove it from your console if they don't want you to have it. Look at P.T. for the consequences when a company decides they just don't wanna. Can't really download games like that after the fact...not in any way that would probably be considered legal :P. Not unless they offer another way to do so, which they are under no legal obligation to do so.

So, yeah, it makes fiscal sense. and it's more convenient. But it should be fought tooth-and-nail by consumers, at least until there's some sort of safeguard in place to protect our digital heritage and games as products rather than services. This includes games on-disc that require a download before you can play it. That's personally my main reason for getting hackable consoles and keeping on lower firmwares. For me, it means I'll actually be able to play these things 50 years from now.
 
Last edited by osaka35,

Tom Bombadildo

Dick, With Balls
Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
14,572
Trophies
2
Age
29
Location
I forgot
Website
POCKET.LIKEITS
XP
19,170
Country
United States
Most of rural america, and I'd wager much any other rural area in the world, has poor internet. It's a huge problem for rural education, for example. Even large cities tend to have just the one company, and you're stuck to whatever limits they impose. Even if you find internet that is considered "high speed" compared to dial-up, there are usually data caps. I know personally having an Xbox 1s always means 50-100GB a month in "updates" alone from the amount of games I have. And that's on a good month. If I actually bought a few games, that could easily double or triple. most lower tier data caps are 300-500GB. Watch much netflix and you go over quite frequently. and that's before you play much online games :P
Rural areas are slowly gaining faster internet speeds, thanks to satellite ISPs (even if they are ass and still slow compared to cable or fiber), so much so that the lowest average internet speed in the US (in Montana) is 20mbps now in 2018. While that's still 5-6 hours for a 50GB update, it's better than the days required by slow DSL. But even if they didn't have those speeds, I'm talking about mass market, not the 15% of people (in the US, anyways) who live outside normal broadband coverage.

Same thing for bandwidth, the average game isn't going to hit potential data caps (with 1TB being the norm, can't say I've ever seen 300gb or even 500gb limits myself, but I suppose this may vary) in a month unless they're downloading every game they see, so it's still not a real issue to the largest marketshare, or at least not enough to warrant any changes.

Don't get me wrong, they are definitely faults with going all digital (and so is the rest of your post, plus other points not mentioned, too), but it's just not something the average gamer really cares enough about to actually change anything. So long as they can play their Call of Battlefield and their Grand Steal Cars, who cares if they have to wait 3 or 4 hours for some patches and downloads?
 
  • Like
Reactions: osaka35

osaka35

Instructional Designer
Global Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,729
Trophies
2
Location
Silent Hill
XP
5,896
Country
United States
Rural areas are slowly gaining faster internet speeds, thanks to satellite ISPs (even if they are ass and still slow compared to cable or fiber), so much so that the lowest average internet speed in the US (in Montana) is 20mbps now in 2018. While that's still 5-6 hours for a 50GB update, it's better than the days required by slow DSL. But even if they didn't have those speeds, I'm talking about mass market, not the 15% of people (in the US, anyways) who live outside normal broadband coverage.

Same thing for bandwidth, the average game isn't going to hit potential data caps (with 1TB being the norm, can't say I've ever seen 300gb or even 500gb limits myself, but I suppose this may vary) in a month unless they're downloading every game they see, so it's still not a real issue to the largest marketshare, or at least not enough to warrant any changes.

Don't get me wrong, they are definitely faults with going all digital (and so is the rest of your post, plus other points not mentioned, too), but it's just not something the average gamer really cares enough about to actually change anything. So long as they can play their Call of Battlefield and their Grand Steal Cars, who cares if they have to wait 3 or 4 hours for some patches and downloads?
satellite usually have terrible limits, like 50gb limits a month(last time i checked). my folks are rural and they use att internet, which uses cell towers and are limited to 30gb a month. basically, they cant watch netflix or play video games that aren't nintendo.

but you're right, that's the minority. personally, my 1tb limit was always surpassed, but I'm what they call a power user so...again not the every person situation.

i do worry about basing our reaction on the uninclined and uninterested, though XD. I'd rather fight for their rights even if they're clueless. what other reasons are anti-consumer about this digital future? I'm guessing the next xbox, possibly playstation, will try and do the digital-only/nearly-only thing again. possibly offer even just a streaming console as a cheaper option. i feel like i should know them all.
 

Social_Outlaw

G.B.A.T.e.m.p T.e.m.p.l.a.r K.n.i.g.h.t
OP
Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
579
Trophies
1
Age
26
Location
Where all things matter
Website
wiki.gbatemp.net
XP
1,025
Country
United States
Games sizes are getting huge, and we're getting to a point where it's not financially feasible to include an entire game on multiple discs anymore. Thats likely the large chunk of the reason why, pressing millions of triple layer discs or even multiple single/dual layer discs is way too expensive when you can just plop part of the data on a significantly cheaper single layer disc and let users download the rest from servers.

You mention RDR2, so I'll use that as an example. The games data, in total, is 99gb when all said and done and installed on a PS4. Which means it would either require 4 single layer Blu-ray discs, or two dual layer Blu-ray discs, or 1ish triple layer Blu-ray disc. The problem here is that, the more layers required, the most expensive pressing those discs is going to be. It might be a few cents for those extra layers per disc for whatever publisher, but when you factor in the sheer number of discs being manufactured (ie: millions) it just adds up to way too much production cost for the amount of budget a large AAA game might have already spent in developing the game itself.

Now are there games that would totally fit on a cheaper dual layer disc, but the publisher can't be bothered to actually shell out the little extra cash for that? Absolutely, and those publishers are just being greedy shits (no fucking duh, they're a business, they're out to make money not be your friend). Is it some big issue in 2018 when most of the gaming market has access to high(ish) speed internet? Not really.

Nintendo will have this issue worse off than the PS4/xboner for future "large" games (assuming any devs can bother gimping those large games to run on the Switch, that is), purely because their cartridges are incredibly more expensive to produce with a smaller max capacity, so any large size game is basically going to guarantee a required download. There are already games that aren't fully on the cartridge, and I expect that practice to continue throughout the Switch's lifespan.

The worse is, really the only way to fix that issue and push more publishers into providing a whole game on disc is simply upping the base price of a game to cover those exponentially higher production costs. Would you rather spend $80 for a AAA title, just because games have gotten infinitely more complex and huge and require higher capacity, and therefore more expensive, discs, or keep spending the usual $60 and have to download a part of it for a few hours?

Some people would probably answer "sure, I like physical games enough to spend extra money!" But the average consumer doesn't give a rats ass, or at least enough to do anything meaningful, so nothing will change.

I personally prefer digital titles, simply because I don't care about cheap plastic cases and artwork I could just print myself. I have 0 actual risk of losing any of the titles I buy like I may with physical copies, and I don't have to dedicate some significant amount of physical space for all the games I might buy, so meh.

Why would it be so expensive when there's micro transactions that's been going on for years for the consoles? As much stories we hear about people spending close to 5'000$... that shouldn't be a problem? We pay for a lot close to buying a High end computer, and that can't be helped with discs? Didn't the Xbox one at launch get bad criticism for having to be connected to the internet at all times? I'm pretty sure people feel the same way and more insulted for downloading the full game when you already have the physical disc as opposed to just downloading the patches. I'm all for digital games, but I know eventually the servers are going to shutdown and we're just going to be stuck with digital if companies agree upon doing this method of error.

Now PC on the other hand :wub:
 
Last edited by Social_Outlaw,

naddel81

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,548
Trophies
1
XP
3,772
Country
United States
here in germany Internet is basically a mess (as mobile phone network is, too). not my opionion, but common knowledge. why? because we never took the effort to build a fibre network. we are still using the same old copper cables that were used for phones in the last century!
although I can call myself quite lucky for 500 mbit/s stable (but only 50 mbit/s up), there are millions of people who cannot get faster than 16 mbit/s DSL. and try to get RDR2 with that connection! LOL!
in the next months I will be able to get 1 gigabit/s (still only 50 up) for 20 bucks a months, but I have friends who pay twice the amount for "up to" 16 mbit/s. and there is no faster connection coming to them in the next years, I promise.

6832123655.png
(faster than 99% of GERMANY). that is sad in 2018!

just took the test again and in the last 12 months, nothing has changed here in good ol' germany. still faster than 99% of the rest of the nation. pathetic!

7884593838.png
 
Last edited by naddel81,

Chary

Never sleeps
Chief Editor
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
12,329
Trophies
4
Age
27
Website
opencritic.com
XP
127,895
Country
United States
As someone with a data cap, I'm angered by the fact that two or three AAA games on Steam will take up about 1/4th of my monthly internet. At the end of the day, though, I'd rather download extra data than pay more for fancier disc. If I didn't live in a major city and had to deal with slow internet, too, that'd just be an absolute killer. Luckily, I can bypass my monthly cap, and have amazing speeds as well. Once the worldwide infrastructure gets better for downloading, it'll be a cheap, easy way to get the physical box, the disc, and the game all in a cheap manner and I won't mind it at all.
 

Sakitoshi

GBAtemp Official Lolimaster
Member
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
2,256
Trophies
2
Age
33
Location
behind a keyboard or a gamepad
Website
sakiheru.blogspot.com
XP
2,911
Country
Chile
here in germany Internet is basically a mess (as mobile phone network is, too). not my opionion, but common knowledge. why? because we never took the effort to build a fibre network. we are still using the same old copper cables that were used for phones in the last century!
that can't be true. cooper has its limits at long distances and the problems go up with old and busted cables.
here movistar has literally the same cooper cables used for phones for the past century and when we tried to pay for more than 2Mbps they weren't able to deliver (this was way back on 2012 or maybe a little before). we changed to claro (they claim to use fiber outside but we receive a coaxial cable) and boom, we have 50Mbps (2Mbps up which sucks balls, no streaming for me) now and find it quite fast, the past 20GB overwatch patch finished downloading in like an hour.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy: Switching my home routing/firewall solution from pfsense to OPNsense. Boy how I hate networking...