Do you consider digital games to be part of your collection?

[BetaWolf47]

When you download a game off of Live Marketplace, Playstation Network, or Wii Shop Channel, do you consider that part of your collection among your classic, 15+ year old games?

It's a tough choice for me. I paid for the game, but collection-wise it doesn't contribute to filling up shelving space and providing the satisfaction of owning a physical copy.

[rpepper9]

No! Because I don't physically posses it, therefor it can be lost or discarded when a console is dead/sold or no longer played. Plus you cannot trade or transfer the games "legally". So, nope.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Big question.

Not a bad one, but a big one ... I think we can expect this thread to be as active as if the title were "Politics: discuss!".

If I paid for it (or obtained it through some type of promotional code) and it's tied to my account information for whatever platform I DL it on, then yes, I consider it part of my "collection", certainly more so than say a MAME or Atari 2600 ROM-set that I may have on my HDD or on a disc somewhere.

Physical media and/or packaging certainly constitute something, but "ownership" is always a tricky word when it comes to software and "collection" is broad enough that I don't have a problem considering DL content to be included if I've purchased it.

[Kid Ice]

No.

Collecting as we know it is ending.

[Ed Oscuro]

Collecting physical junk is okay, but the point of games is...the game itself. There will eventually need to be some strong laws regarding ownership of downloaded copies, none of this "pay for it every time a new system comes out" junk.

You still can collect digital files, much the same as somebody can collect copies of all the Internet hoaxes they find. With a digital system, the framework is already there for being able to preserve things better than is possible with a single physical copy which will eventually degrade. Unfortunately there's no clear balance between consumer rights and preventing people from trading games around without paying for them at all.

Edit: Forgot to post. I have some games on Steam, and I can get them whenever I need to, and they can be backed up. Fair enough to say that I consider them to be part of my "collection." I'll say that to take some wind out of the sails of some of the snobs out there :)

[s1lence]

Yes and No. I consider them part of my gaming library but I don't consider them part of my collection/collectable. I think attitudes about it will change though as there are a couple XBLA games that are no longer possible to get unless you already have them. Also being that they are games they should be cataloged for reference.

[Zthun]

When you download a game off of Live Marketplace, Playstation Network, or Wii Shop Channel, do you consider that part of your collection among your classic, 15+ year old games?

It's a tough choice for me. I paid for the game, but collection-wise it doesn't contribute to filling up shelving space and providing the satisfaction of owning a physical copy.

No. I'd rather have the physical game.

That's not gonna stop me from downloading them though.

[Kid Ice]

There will eventually need to be some strong laws regarding ownership of downloaded copies, none of this "pay for it every time a new system comes out" junk.

What makes you think the laws will change from what they are right now? The game's distributors already detertmine the terms of gamers' "ownership", why would they be any different in the next generation of consoles?

This is purely speculation, but I doubt you're going to be able to keep/re-download all your PS3 content on your PS4 (if there is such a thing). Yes you will be paying for Gunstar Heroes and SOTN all over again, I'm pretty certain.

[Nebagram]

Yes. I paid for it, simple as. Though I do keep separate lists for physical/non-physical media.

[kupomogli]

Nope. If I don't own a physical copy then I don't count it as part of my collection.

Not that I care much. There are hardly any download only titles that I'm even remotely interested in.

If I ever buy MvC2, it'll be from Gamestop so I atleast get packaging with it.

[Porksta]

I count it as part of my XBLA collection, but like saying I own Marvel vs. Capcom 2? No. I would the actual disc for it to count.

[TonyTheTiger]

If I paid for it (or obtained it through some type of promotional code) and it's tied to my account information for whatever platform I DL it on, then yes, I consider it part of my "collection", certainly more so than say a MAME or Atari 2600 ROM-set that I may have on my HDD or on a disc somewhere.

Physical media and/or packaging certainly constitute something, but "ownership" is always a tricky word when it comes to software and "collection" is broad enough that I don't have a problem considering DL content to be included if I've purchased it.

That's the tricky part I think people have trouble reconciling. People generally don't consider MAME roms as part of their collection because, generally, they didn't pay for them nor go through much effort to actually obtain them.

But it can't just be about money and effort. I doubt somebody would not consider X game part of his collection if he just happened to find it lying on the side of the road.

Moreover, pirated copies of digitally distributed games are sometimes identical to legitimately purchased copies. So does that mean somebody who buys Mega Man 9 can consider it part of a collection whereas somebody who pirated it cannot? Or does the purchase not factor in because the product is the same regardless?

I think it can boil down to authenticity. What makes the game authentic? A MAME rom is copied from an original so without an original the ROM is just phantom data. Mega Man 9, however, is the original, digital download or not. It didn't come from anything before it.

[DragonmasterDan]

That's the tricky part I think people have trouble reconciling. People generally don't consider MAME roms as part of their collection because, generally, they didn't pay for them nor go through much effort to actually obtain them.

But it can't just be about money. I doubt somebody would not consider X game part of his collection if he just happened to find it lying on the side of the road.

Moreover, pirated copies of digitally distributed games are sometimes identical to legitimately purchased copies. So does that mean somebody who buys Mega Man 9 can consider it part of a collection whereas somebody who pirated it cannot? Or does the purchase not factor in because the product is the same regardless?

I don't consider it to.

A good example is also this. Let's say I buy Sega Genesis Collection that has 30 games on it. Did I buy 30 games, or one game (Sega Genesis collection) I bought the rights and a digital copy of 30 games,but I physically only posses one game. So I consider it one game.

When it's something like Mega Man 9, Braid, Castle Crashers it pains me that I can't own a physical copy.

[BetaWolf47]

I don't consider it to.

A good example is also this. Let's say I buy Sega Genesis Collection that has 30 games on it. Did I buy 30 games, or one game (Sega Genesis collection) I bought the rights and a digital copy of 30 games,but I physically only posses one game. So I consider it one game.

When it's something like Mega Man 9, Braid, Castle Crashers it pains me that I can't own a physical copy.

I feel the same about compilations... even if the thing has over 10 games on the disc, it's still one game.

But otherwise, downloading Stadium Events from a ROM site isn't quite the same as, say, finding it in a thrift store for $4, is it? :P

[TonyTheTiger]

When it's something like Mega Man 9, Braid, Castle Crashers it pains me that I can't own a physical copy.

Why?

That's not a flip question. In some ways I share the sentiment but I have yet to figure out why. I use the sentiment as an argument for why full scale digital distribution will not take hold anytime soon. People just have too much of a personal interest in being able to hold something. Call it an emotional attachment to the concrete or whatnot. But...why?

[DragonmasterDan]

Why?

That's not a flip question. In some ways I share the sentiment but I have yet to figure out why. I use the sentiment as an argument for why full scale digital distribution will not take hold anytime soon. People just have too much of a personal interest in being able to hold something. Call it an emotional attachment to the concrete or whatnot. But...why?

Let's say my Xbox 360 dies. I then lose my copy of Castle Crashers or Braid because it's tied to my system. I can't bring it to a friends house, and if the system dies in order to keep my games, I have to have that particular 360 repaired just to not have to rebuy them.

I can't point to it on a shelf. I can't give it to someone else as a gift, I can't find it cheaply in a thirft store years down the line. It's not part of a collection.

[Ed Oscuro]

What makes you think the laws will change from what they are right now? The game's distributors already detertmine the terms of gamers' "ownership", why would they be any different in the next generation of consoles?
Have you been paying attention to consumer outrage over the Amazon recall of 1984? Or did you see what Wal*Mart competition for pricing on this year's crop of bestsellers pushed prices down to? Digital distribution has changed everything. Sure, there's business interests at stake here, which will likely make this a decades-long battle (and it doesn't help that the ESA is pretending to be the voice of gamers) but people are getting fed up with the status quo. It's probably also a pipe dream to imagine that novels or magazine articles (for instance) will be treated the same as games, movies, or music.

It's hard to imagine what a "good" settlement that would please software developers that doesn't shut down consumer rights would be, but anybody playing on a console is already at the complete whim of manufacturers, as you say.

On the other hand, I think a more likely scenario (and possibly better) than outright legislation would be companies finding themselves eternally dancing on the line between protecting their interests and sparking outright revolt and boycotts. Without that pressure things would have assuredly become much worse.

Back on topic, though - for the future there's really no reason to assume that games are going to go back to physical media over digital. Even the weakest modern hardware can host digital distribution. I guess the choice is between continuing to pay to play, or just giving up gaming altogether. That's every individual's choice and I don't care (or care to be told otherwise). That said, what a buyer has accreted in an online account like Steam's is still a collection going by the dictionary definition. It doesn't remove the possibility to lose a game - password thieves, bankruptcies, mismanagement prevent that - but let's not joke that physical games were ever covered by comprehensive warranties outside of specific circumstances. Thieves, floods, fires, and more make certain of that.


Let's say my Xbox 360 dies. I then lose my copy of Castle Crashers or Braid because it's tied to my system. I can't bring it to a friends house, and if the system dies in order to keep my games, I have to have that particular 360 repaired just to not have to rebuy them.
This is just a quirk of the particular system the Xbox 360 uses. I had always thought that games were tied to your account, but I'll just assume you're right for the sake of argument. If the 360's system sucks, there are alternatives - you might just have to skip out on some game or another for a while. You can vote with your dollars.


I can't point to it on a shelf.
Who gives a rip? Point to your achievements and learning, not your dust and fantastic ability to avoid disturbing things. LOL


I can't give it to someone else as a gift, I can't find it cheaply in a thirft store years down the line. It's not part of a collection.
These are better points, but again a better system will handle this differently. Steam will let you transfer games to other people, albeit with a fee. The biggest thing to be excited about with digital distribution is that prices and dev. costs are often lower right out of the gate, and as long as there is some digital distribution system in the world, chances of getting the game re-released are high. This is of course why many call for better laws; copyrights should not be so long and people should not be expected to pay repeatedly for the same material. On the other hand, Steam is wearing down the need to make an issue of it by bringing rereleased games out at much, MUCH reduced prices, down to the point where it's like Disney re-releasing some classic. That's another point - code can be updated, much like the Disney classics can be touched up and rescanned (transfered in the old jargon) for release on new formats, and you get some extra detail or features out of it. That's not new in gaming, of course.

[Zthun]

Let's say my Xbox 360 dies. I then lose my copy of Castle Crashers or Braid because it's tied to my system. I can't bring it to a friends house, and if the system dies in order to keep my games, I have to have that particular 360 repaired just to not have to rebuy them.

I can't point to it on a shelf. I can't give it to someone else as a gift, I can't find it cheaply in a thirft store years down the line. It's not part of a collection.

Exactly. They're tied to the system. In a sense, you own a 360 with xyz list of games with it. You don't own a copy of castle crashers. You own a 360 with castle crashers on it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Exactly. They're tied to the system. In a sense, you own a 360 with xyz list of games with it. You don't own a copy of castle crashers. You own a 360 with castle crashers on it.
Again, this is a particular system - if you don't like it (which is reasonable) you should avoid buying things through it, and tell Microsoft you don't like it.

The topic is about digital distribution games in general, not just Microsoft shenanigans.

[TonyTheTiger]

Exactly. They're tied to the system. In a sense, you own a 360 with xyz list of games with it. You don't own a copy of castle crashers. You own a 360 with castle crashers on it.

Arguably you don't own a PS3 game either. You own a Blu-ray with a PS3 game on it.

While I do like to be able to hold things in my hand, arbitrarily saying what is or is not worthy of being in a collection sounds...well...arbitrary. All the reasons people tend to give for why something doesn't belong in a collection is usually more personal than practical. They personally don't like that they can't take the game to a friend's house without lugging around a 360. They personally don't like the idea of never being able to find a copy in a thrift store. But how does that impact the definition of a "collection" or the nature of the bits and bytes that make up the game?

[DragonmasterDan]

This is just a quirk of the particular system the Xbox 360 uses. I had always thought that games were tied to your account, but I'll just assume you're right for the sake of argument. If the 360's system sucks, there are alternatives - you might just have to skip out on some game or another for a while. You can vote with your dollars.


Nintendo uses the same system of games being tied to your system as Microsoft. I don't know about Sony but for Nintendo and Microsoft they're not tied your account.

As far as not being able to put it on my shelf. I give a rip, I own limited rights to use something. Not a physical copy I can use in the same manner.



These are better points, but again a better system will handle this differently. Steam will let you transfer games to other people, albeit with a fee. The biggest thing to be excited about with digital distribution is that prices and dev. costs are often lower right out of the gate, and as long as there is some digital distribution system in the world, chances of getting the game re-released are high. This is of course why many call for better laws; copyrights should not be so long and people should not be expected to pay repeatedly for the same material. On the other hand, Steam is wearing down the need to make an issue of it by bringing rereleased games out at much, MUCH reduced prices, down to the point where it's like Disney re-releasing some classic. That's another point - code can be updated, much like the Disney classics can be touched up and rescanned (transfered in the old jargon) for release on new formats, and you get some extra detail or features out of it. That's not new in gaming, of course.

There are benefits to digital distibution. But as I said before, they are not part of a collection because digital copies of games aren't collectible. They're always available, their value rarely changes.

[DragonmasterDan]

Arguably you don't own a PS3 game either. You own a Blu-ray with a PS3 game on it.

While I do like to be able to hold things in my hand, arbitrarily saying what is or is not worthy of being in a collection sounds...well...arbitrary.

PS3 games are transferrable. I can take Little Big Planet to my friends house and play it on his PS3 and vice versa.

[Zthun]

Arguably you don't own a PS3 game either. You own a Blu-ray with a PS3 game on it.

While I do like to be able to hold things in my hand, arbitrarily saying what is or is not worthy of being in a collection sounds...well...arbitrary.

But that ps3 game can be played on any ps3. It's an individual object, it's not dependent on the system.

Don't forget that there's no value in digital games. A digital copy can be copied a million times over and no raw materials have been used in the copy (only virtual space). A digital game that is worth $8 today may be worth $2000 in the future due to economic and dollar values, but it will always be available.

[DragonmasterDan]

This is a double of my last post due to hitting submit twice.

[Sonicwolf]

In the future, people may change there minds about digital games being part of there collection or not if physical media stops being released.

I for one dont count them as part of my collection yet.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

That's the tricky part I think people have trouble reconciling. People generally don't consider MAME roms as part of their collection because, generally, they didn't pay for them nor go through much effort to actually obtain them.

But it can't just be about money and effort. I doubt somebody would not consider X game part of his collection if he just happened to find it lying on the side of the road.

Moreover, pirated copies of digitally distributed games are sometimes identical to legitimately purchased copies. So does that mean somebody who buys Mega Man 9 can consider it part of a collection whereas somebody who pirated it cannot? Or does the purchase not factor in because the product is the same regardless?

I think it can boil down to authenticity. What makes the game authentic? A MAME rom is copied from an original so without an original the ROM is just phantom data. Mega Man 9, however, is the original, digital download or not. It didn't come from anything before it.

I agree. While I have a collection of MAME Roms, and I'll probably hold on to them as long as I will all my other legit paid DLC games (if I can), I wouldn't consider them to be a part of my legacy/personal videogame "collection".

[TonyTheTiger]

There are benefits to digital distibution. But as I said before, they are not part of a collection because digital copies of games aren't collectible. They're always available, their value rarely changes.

What does changing value have to do with a collection? Likewise, what does availability have to do with it? A person can collect ants. Which, by my account, are always available and generally worth squat.

Besides, imagine if Nintendo pulled a game. Now the only way to obtain a copy is to either already have it or buy a Wii with it already installed. I don't know whether or not those consoles would go for a premium but that would in some sense change the availability.


PS3 games are transferrable. I can take Little Big Planet to my friends house and play it on his PS3 and vice versa.


But that ps3 game can be played on any ps3. It's an individual object, it's not dependent on the system.

See, here you're arguing for specifics to a certain scenario rather than the nature of digital distribution itself. So that means that if a digital distribution system came into fruition where you could download a game and freely play it anywhere, on any system then that would qualify as something "collectible"? Or, what if the opposite happened? What if a new Blu-ray disc is sold and somehow becomes tied to the console you first play it on? The end result is the same. You can't freely move it around. Is that not part of a collection?

The point is, just because a particular facet of the current distribution system is frustrating can't be used as an argument for why the actual product is barred from being part of something as vague as a collection. If somebody is going to argue that a digital download can't be part of a collection the argument must find some fatal flaw in the very nature of the digitally distributed product. Not a flaw with the delivery method or the restrictions placed upon it. Those things can change.

Simply put, the question is not whether or not there's something wrong with the way digital distribution is currently handled. The question is why data sold without a physical housing (cart, disc, etc.) can't be part of a collection. Provided all else is equal (being able to transfer the data, being able to give it as a gift via putting it on a disc, etc.) why does the physical housing matter?

[Zthun]

See, here you're arguing for specifics to a certain scenario rather than the nature of digital distribution itself. So that means that if a digital distribution system came into fruition where you could download a game and freely play it anywhere, on any system then that would qualify as something "collectible"? Or, what if the opposite happened? What if a new Blu-ray disc is sold and somehow becomes tied to the console you first play it on? The end result is the same. You can't freely move it around. Is that not part of a collection?

Yes, I would. Because then I could always put them on external media and transfer them around, let my friends borrow them, trade them, sell them, and do everything else. It's like what Ed said above. It has a lot to do with the way it is done. Right now, I don't consider them a part of my collection.

And yes, if blu-rays did that, it would piss me off to no end because now they are tied to something else. They are no longer individual objects that can be played on any blu-ray player. You now own a blu-ray player with more parts than you probably want.

I have sonic mega collection for the gamecube. I consider that one game. If I want to play Sonic 2, I play Sonic Mega Collection because I can't play Sonic 2 without it.

[DragonmasterDan]

What does changing value have to do with a collection? Likewise, what does availability have to do with it? A person can collect ants. Which, by my account, are always available and generally worth squat.

Besides, imagine if Nintendo pulled a game. Now the only way to obtain a copy is to either already have it or buy a Wii with it already installed. I don't know whether or not those consoles would go for a premium but that would in some sense change the availability.

Quite a bit, changing of value as a game becomes less sought after or more sought after is a big part of collecting.

If a game is always available it's not collectable. It's available at any time any place.

Also if a game is pulled yes, that raises the value of the console. But again, that just adds to the frusturation of the problem. Example, I buy a 360, I buy a game that is pulled. Years later, after Microsoft quits repairing them it dies. I can't just buy the game again, I have to find another system with that game. That's not collectable, that's just frusturating. Also it leads to big changes in the second hand market that while present today haven't been seen yet. A consoles value is then determined by the games installed on it, not by the games itself. Because Wii #1 might have 20 VC and WiiWare games, and Wii #2 is brand new.




See, here you're arguing for specifics to a certain scenario rather than the nature of digital distribution itself. So that means that if a digital distribution system came into fruition where you could download a game and freely play it anywhere, on any system then that would qualify as something "collectible"?

Only if the game is transferable between independent parties, and limited in availbility in some way.

[TonyTheTiger]

Yes, I would. Because then I could always put them on external media and transfer them around, let my friends borrow them, trade them, sell them, and do everything else. It's like what Ed said above. It has a lot to do with the way it is done. Right now, I don't consider them a part of my collection.


So it's not the nature of the product but rather the restrictions placed upon it that determine whether or not you count it in a collection? That's a very unique outlook. One I don't really understand but it's interesting to say the least.


Quite a bit, changing of value as a game becomes less sought after or more sought after is a big part of collecting.

Well, while it might be a big part for some people it's not the definition of collecting. People collect things first and foremost because the act of doing so is fun. Hell, if profit is really first on the list people would be better off playing the stock market.


If a game is always available it's not collectable. It's available at any time any place.

So are bugs. People collect them.


Also if a game is pulled yes, that raises the value of the console. But again, that just adds to the frusturation of the problem. Example, I buy a 360, I buy a game that is pulled. Years later, after Microsoft quits repairing them it dies. I can't just buy the game again, I have to find another system with that game. That's not collectable, that's just frusturating. Also it leads to big changes in the second hand market that while present today haven't been seen yet. A consoles value is then determined by the games installed on it, not by the games itself. Because Wii #1 might have 20 VC and WiiWare games, and Wii #2 is brand new.

Consider it part of the "challenge" of collecting perhaps? Sounds like splitting hairs. If people want to collect in that fashion then more power to them. If you or I don't feel compelled to do so then that's our choice. Different people have different priorities.


Only if the game is transferable between independent parties, and limited in availbility in some way.

I fail to see why limited availability means anything. Why can't a person have a collection of freely available items or, God forbid, a collection of items not worth any money?

[TonyTheTiger]

Double Post

[Zthun]

So it's not the nature of the product but rather the restrictions placed upon it that determine whether or not you count it in a collection? That's a very unique outlook. One I don't really understand but it's interesting to say the least.

Exactly, because then I consider it an individual object. Something that isn't dependent on another object. For example, collecting xbox games does not mean I collect atoms which make up the game.

[DragonmasterDan]

Well, while it might be a big part for some people it's not the definition of collecting. People collect things first and foremost because the act of doing so is fun. Hell, if profit is really first on the list people would be better off playing the stock market.



It's not about profit. I don't sell my games. It has more to do with there being a sport in collecting it. It's part of the reason I don't consider repro-carts collectible. They're available for extended periods of time beyond the normal shelf life of a product new.



Consider it part of the "challenge" of collecting perhaps? Sounds like splitting hairs.

It's not really part of the challenge,what it's really tied to is the fact that you don't have the same freedoms with a digital download in any system I am aware of currently available as you do physical mediums.

With regards to being limited, it goes along with what I said about repro carts, if something is constantly available I don't consider it to be particularly collectable. I guess that's where we get into the authenticity issue mentioned earlier, even if a game is licensed.

[TonyTheTiger]

Exactly, because then I consider it an individual object. Something that isn't dependent on another object. For example, collecting xbox games does not mean I collect atoms which make up the game.

I might be splitting hairs myself here by being overly technical but wouldn't that mean that a person with a lot of NES games doesn't really have a bunch of NES games but rather a bunch of NES cartridges and PCBs? This person owns the physical cartridge but the game data itself is dependent on that physical cartridge.

What is it about the Mega Man 9 data in the physical housing of the Wii that so very much differs from the Mega Man 5 data in the physical housing of an NES cartridge?

[DragonmasterDan]

I might be splitting hairs myself here by being overly technical but wouldn't that mean that a person with a lot of NES games doesn't really have a bunch of NES games but rather a bunch of NES cartridges and PCBs? This person owns the physical cartridge but the game data itself is dependent on that physical cartridge.

What is it about the Mega Man 9 data in the physical housing of the Wii that so very much differs from the Mega Man 5 data in the physical housing of an NES cartridge?

If I yank the internal memory out of my Wii, or copy my Mega Man 9 to an SD card as the Wii allows. I can't play it on someone else's Wii since it's registered to one particular serial #'d motherboard.

[Bojay1997]

So it's not the nature of the product but rather the restrictions placed upon it that determine whether or not you count it in a collection? That's a very unique outlook. One I don't really understand but it's interesting to say the least.



Well, while it might be a big part for some people it's not the definition of collecting. People collect things first and foremost because the act of doing so is fun. Hell, if profit is really first on the list people would be better off playing the stock market.



So are bugs. People collect them.



Consider it part of the "challenge" of collecting perhaps? Sounds like splitting hairs.



I fail to see why limited availability means anything. Why can't a person have a collection of freely available items?


You're right that in theory, each person's collection is defined by what they consider to be part of it and what's not. Having said that, however, I think most collectors would agree that unless you can freely exchange a particular item from a collection on the open market, it's not really in your collection. If you consider downloads to be part of your collection, you have to include every other item for which you only have a limited amount of ownership. For example, are streaming flash games part of my collection since I can theoretically play them at any time even though I don't technically have a local copy on my hard drive? What about the old arcade games at the 24 hour convenience store on the corner. In theory I can walk down there and pop in a quarter 24 hours a day and play the games and for the five minutes or so I stay alive, I have the unlimited right to play the game.

Digital downloads are not a collectible product in my opinion. They are simply a lease to play the games for a finite period of time whether that's until my console dies or the manufacturer stops supporting the servers. Cartridges, discs and physical media are mine forever and therefore are my collection.

[TonyTheTiger]

If I yank the internal memory out of my Wii, or copy my Mega Man 9 to an SD card as the Wii allows. I can't play it on someone else's Wii since it's registered to one particular serial #'d motherboard.

Assume that's not the case as it very well doesn't have to be with all digital distribution.

[DragonmasterDan]

Assume that's not the case as it very well doesn't have to be with all digital distribution.

If the game is available new for a longer than regular shelf life period of time, at a set price that's always the same then it has the same value to me as a repro cart.

If it's availbility limited it some way, then yes it's collectible.

[Zthun]

I might be splitting hairs myself here by being overly technical but wouldn't that mean that a person with a lot of NES games doesn't really have a bunch of NES games but rather a bunch of NES cartridges and PCBs? This person owns the physical cartridge but the game data itself is dependent on that physical cartridge.

What is it about the Mega Man 9 data in the physical housing of the Wii that so very much differs from the Mega Man 5 data in the physical housing of an NES cartridge?

It's like what you said above. It's like bugs. If a person collects bugs, they can always move them to a different environment. You don't need a specific environment that once you place the bug into, you can't move it anywhere else into a similar environment (probably a really badly worded sentence). The bug itself is not dependent on something.

If my wii dies and I can only get used Wiis and Nintendo is not repairing Wii's anymore, the only way for me to get Megaman 9 on the Wii is to buy a Wii with Megaman 9 on it. In essence, I'm not collecting games at that point. I'm collecting Wiis.

[TonyTheTiger]

Digital downloads are not a collectible product in my opinion. They are simply a lease to play the games for a finite period of time whether that's until my console dies or the manufacturer stops supporting the servers. Cartridges, discs and physical media are mine forever and therefore are my collection.

But aren't you only licensed to use the data on those discs just the same? Disregarding whether or not I agree with all those provisions or whether things like DRM and EULAs will hold up in court after extensive testing, it sounds like any explanation can be met with a similar analogy to digitally distributed data. Or, likewise, any explanation for why digitally distributed data isn't collectible can be met with a similar analogy to physical media.

Even the idea of "I can hold it" can be explained away by saying "you can hold a Wii." The point is, there doesn't seem to be a justification either way. No explanation is sufficient. The only explanation that works is just what something "feels" like. If digital downloads don't "feel" like a collection then they're not one. If they do then they are. There's no explaining it because all the explanations fail when pressed.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

...actually, XBLA titles are tied to your gamertag and console, but in different ways.

- Game is downloaded to console. Original console will allow for any gamertag to play said game, offline and online.
- User brings gamertag to a friend's house. Game is downloaded on different console. Game is only available while User's gamertag is signed into Xbox Live.

The DRM license for the console can be transfered via the Xbox.com website (once per year) or via the Transfer Kit. The actual console is a moot point - it's the gamertag that you're purchasing that matters, since that has the licenses.

Also, Mega Man 9 is available on a disk, but you would have to purchase the Press Kit (which was sold in limited quantities).

...now on to the question at hand. I do not consider digital content to be considered part of my "collection" because it is not physical media. I consider it part of my "library". It's an outdated way of thinking for sure, but that's how I track my items. It almost equates to the same as "cartridge vs. rom" for me. I doubt that I will ever accept digital media as a true "collectible" media.

[DragonmasterDan]

But aren't you only licensed to use the data on those discs just the same? Disregarding whether or not I agree with all those provisions or whether things like DRM and EULAs will hold up in court after extensive testing, it sounds like any explanation can be met with a similar analogy to digitally distributed data. Or, likewise, any explanation for why digitally distributed data isn't collectible can be met with a similar analogy to physical media.

It's not even about the license. If a system of locking a particular physical media to a system existed, I would then consider those games (unless brand new) to not be collectible. If say the Playstation 4 has a serial # on the disc that specifically registers that disc to your Playstation 4 and ONLY your playstation 4. The disc in my mind no longer becomes collectible. This is regardless of any encryption or other digital rights management on the system.

[DragonmasterDan]

.
Also, Mega Man 9 is available on a disk, but you would have to purchase the Press Kit (which was sold in limited quantities)..

The press kit DOES NOT include a copy of the game. "these carts contain a small CD with artwork, game information and screenshots."

[TonyTheTiger]

It's like what you said above. It's like bugs. If a person collects bugs, they can always move them to a different environment. You don't need a specific environment that once you place the bug into, you can't move it anywhere else into a similar environment (probably a really badly worded sentence). The bug itself is not dependent on something.

Technically all games are dependent on something. If a CD gets scratched to hell you lose access to the data on it. If an EEPROM gets erased, bye bye game. You technically can't move the data from one cartridge to another without transferring the guts. But, likewise, you can just the same transfer the guts of one Wii to another. Whether or not that qualifies as actually "moving" the data is another question entirely but the gist is that data confined to a single Wii is not really that much different from data confined to a single cartridge. It's just that the cartridge is easier to take to a friend's house.


If my wii dies and I can only get used Wiis and Nintendo is not repairing Wii's anymore, the only way for me to get Megaman 9 on the Wii is to buy a Wii with Megaman 9 on it. In essence, I'm not collecting games at that point. I'm collecting Wiis.

Well, again, they're not making any more copies of Mega Man 5 anymore. Your cartridge that has Mega Man 5 on it gets busted. You go out looking for another one. You're not buying copies of Mega Man 5. You're buying NES carts with Mega Man 5 on them.

I realize what I'm saying is not practical in the least. But it's the logical extension of your argument. It's why I'm saying there's not much of a point in trying to justify what's in a collection or what isn't. It all comes down to a gut instinct not easily explained through logic. The logic ends up failing when you realize that data must be tied to something and you're only buying whatever that something is rather than the 1s and 0s that make up the data. It just so happens that cartridges and discs are more convenient to buy and trade than Wiis and Xbox 360s.


Also, Mega Man 9 is available on a disk, but you would have to purchase the Press Kit (which was sold in limited quantities).

Not true. The game was never on the disc though I wish it were.

[Zthun]

Well, again, they're not making any more copies of Mega Man 5 anymore. Your copy gets busted. You go out looking for another one. You're not buying copies of Mega Man 5. You're buying NES carts with Mega Man 5 on them.

Correct. I'm buying the NES cart with Mega Man 5 on it. I am collecting NES carts (NES carts vs NES games - I consider these to be the same thing). I consider those collectible. If I wanted to collect virtual console games, I would be collecting Wiis because I'd have to have the specific Wii to be able to play those games. That is my definition. That is 100% on what I consider to be collectible.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

The press kit DOES NOT include a copy of the game. "these carts contain a small CD with artwork, game information and screenshots."

I've seen copies of the game sent as disks for review and always assumed it was the Press Kit. It's actually a common practice for XBLA titles.



In any case, digital media can have the licenses stripped and distributed via the internet. Are you collecting the license or the game for digital media? I personally believe that it's the license, since all that you are purchasing is the license that allows the content to be accessed.

[TonyTheTiger]

Correct. I'm buying the NES cart with Mega Man 5 on it. I am collecting NES carts (NES carts vs NES games - I consider these to be the same thing). I consider those collectible. If I wanted to collect virtual console games, I would be collecting Wiis because I'd have to have the specific Wii to be able to play those games. That is my definition. That is 100% on what I consider to be collectible.

Most people, myself included, also consider NES carts and NES games the same thing. It's only rational to not bother with minor technicalities.

But your definition of virtual console games necessarily implies that you would also make the same distinction between NES carts and NES games. To say you would be collecting Wiis with virtual console games on them (separating the data from the hardware housing it) but simultaneously considering the NES cart and NES game data the same thing, does not logically match. It doesn't flow.

[DragonmasterDan]

I've seen copies of the game sent as disks for review and always assumed it was the Press Kit. It's actually a common practice for XBLA titles.



In any case, digital media can have the licenses stripped and distributed via the internet. Are you collecting the license or the game for digital media? I personally believe that it's the license, since all that you are purchasing is the license that allows the content to be accessed.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/johndmoney/blog/2008/09/16/mega_man_9_retail_packag (http://www.capcom-unity.com/johndmoney/blog/2008/09/16/mega_man_9_retail_package)

It includes a disc, but it's art and stuff.

[Bojay1997]

But aren't you only licensed to use the data on those discs just the same? Disregarding whether or not I agree with all those provisions or whether things like DRM and EULAs will hold up in court after extensive testing, it sounds like any explanation can be met with a similar analogy to digitally distributed data. Or, likewise, any explanation for why digitally distributed data isn't collectible can be met with a similar analogy to physical media.

Even the idea of "I can hold it" can be explained away by saying "you can hold a Wii." The point is, there doesn't seem to be a justification either way. No explanation is sufficient. The only explanation that works is just what something "feels" like. If digital downloads don't "feel" like a collection then they're not one. If they do then they are. There's no explaining it because all the explanations fail when pressed.

Nope. The courts have shut down that argument. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as used DVD or game sales. In theory, if there was a piece of downloadable media that could be permanently owned, able to be freely resold and easily transfered to the subsequent buyer without going through some third party, I agree with you that at that point, I would consider it part of my collection. There is, however, no such thing and I don't believe there ever will be.

To me, it's not so much the physical media, but the full range of ownership rights which are passed fully to me when I buy physical media now. Those rights simply don't exist in the digital world and likely never will.

[DragonmasterDan]

Most people, myself included, also consider NES carts and NES games the same thing. It's only rational to not bother with minor technicalities.

But your definition of virtual console games necessarily implies that you would also make the same distinction between NES carts and NES games. To say you would be collecting Wiis with virtual console games on them (separating the data from the hardware housing it) but simultaneously considering the NES cart and NES game data the same thing, does not logically match. It doesn't flow.

I think what you're missing here is that the game data that makes up a virtual console game on a Wii is limited in its use and functional. It's this change in use, availbility and functionality that separates something from being collectible and not.

If I could independently transfer the game without transferring the system (which to me is not a game though may include a game or games) or a gamer tag then it's potentially collectible. An NES cartridge just contains the game data. That's the difference, so to me it's a game individually. Not a system (or gamer tag) that includes a game. I can't individually sell it from other games registered to that system.

[TonyTheTiger]

Nope. The courts have shut down that argument. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as used DVD or game sales. In theory, if there was a piece of downloadable media that could be permanently owned, able to be freely resold and easily transfered to the subsequent buyer without going through some third party, I agree with you that at that point, I would consider it part of my collection. There is, however, no such thing and I don't believe there ever will be.

To me, it's not so much the physical media, but the full range of ownership rights which are passed fully to me when I buy physical media now. Those rights simply don't exist in the digital world and likely never will.

Have they shut down the argument? If so that actually makes me happy but I thought the issue was still up in the air as far as actual ownership of the data goes. I thought that the support for used DVD/game sales came from the argument that the actual item can be bought and sold freely whereas the issue of the data itself is still a touchy subject. The legal distinction between the 1s and 0s and the medium by which it's transferred is muddy at best.


I think what you're missing here is that the game data that makes up a virtual console game on a Wii is limited in its use and functional. It's this change in use, availbility and functionality that separates something from being collectible and not.

Don't many current physically distributed PC games have the same problem with DRM? Does that mean that people who bought Spore or Final Fantasy XI don't actually have it in their collection?

I get what you're saying but I can't see why DRM (as frustrating as it is) determines where the line is drawn. If anything, that just means these particular games are annoying to work with rather than it having any impact on whether or not they belong in a collection. It's at the very least a debatable benchmark.

[TonyTheTiger]

Double Post

[DragonmasterDan]

Don't many current physically distributed PC games have the same problem with DRM? Does that mean that people who bought Spore or Final Fantasy XI don't actually have it in their collection?

I get what you're saying but I can't see why DRM (as frustrating as it is) determines where the line is drawn. If anything, that just means these particular games are annoying to work with rather than it having any impact on whether or not they belong in a collection. It's at the very least a debatable benchmark.

Yes, I don't consider used copies of them to be collectible. See my theoretical PS4 post a page ago. They're a part of a library, but they're not part of a collection.

[TonyTheTiger]

Wouldn't that definition also bar new copies of those games from being counted, too?

[Shadow Kisuragi]

http://www.chasethechuckwagon.com/item.cgi?show_item=0000162440

That is what I was referring to with my second post. I've seen Wii review copies as well.



http://www.capcom-unity.com/johndmoney/blog/2008/09/16/mega_man_9_retail_packag (http://www.capcom-unity.com/johndmoney/blog/2008/09/16/mega_man_9_retail_package)

It includes a disc, but it's art and stuff.

Since Spore was brought up...
I own a physical copy of the game - I consider that to be part of my "collection". I would not consider the same game downloaded from Steam or the EAStore as part of my collection, and instead part of my "library".

I consider the two terms separate. "Collection" implies physical media to me, while "Library" implies all of my video-gaming media, including digital media. Would Downloadable Content be considered part of a "collection"?

[TonyTheTiger]

Hm. I would very much love to get my hands on one of those review copies. Any console would do. I wonder what his reserve price was.

As for the "library" vs. "collection" thing, I've never made a distinction. Never felt the need to. I think this is getting way too complicated. As far as I'm concerned, my "library" or "collection" or whatever you want to call it consists of games I have. I don't really give a shit about this or that because all that does it give you a headache. Life's full of enough headaches. No need to add one more about whether or not Mega Man 9 is part of a collection or a library or something else. I got it, I can play it, that's good enough for me.

[phreakindee]

I certainly don't, no matter how hard I try to make myself think it.

I consider it like going to a theater or streaming a movie from Netflix or going to a concert. I pay for the privilege to enjoy a piece of media, but I don't have anything to show for it except the experience. I know it's not the same, but that is how downloaded games make me feel.

I use Steam, PSN, GoG, and Xbla but it is mainly due to the convenience or more often due to the unfortunate exclusivity. Like Shadow Complex, I bought because it was excellent, but I don't keep it or any other Live game in my list of owned games. I simply bought the rights to play it for a time. I hate that.

[Bojay1997]

Hm. I would very much love to get my hands on one of those review copies. Any console would do. I wonder what his reserve price was.

As for the "library" vs. "collection" thing, I've never made a distinction. Never felt the need to. I think this is getting way too complicated. As far as I'm concerned, my "library" or "collection" or whatever you want to call it consists of games I have. I don't really give a shit about this or that because all that does it give you a headache. Life's full of enough headaches. No need to add one more about whether or not Mega Man 9 is part of a collection or a library or something else. I got it, I can play it, that's good enough for me.

For a guy who supposedly doesn't care at all, you sure have thought about it alot and spent a lot of time posting here on the subject. It makes a difference to me because I pay a pretty substantial amount every year to insure my collection. I don't list digital downloads on the insurance inventory forms and I'm relatively certain my insurance company wouldn't allow me to anyway.

[DragonmasterDan]

Wouldn't that definition also bar new copies of those games from being counted, too?

A new copy still has value because it can be used (though only once to a particular system) on any system you choose it to. A used copy is valueless without the original hardware. That's where I see the difference.

[jb143]

I wonder if book collecting forums are having this same discussion with ebooks, kindles, and the like...

Book collector 1: "If I don't own the physical book then I don't consider it part of my collection."

Book collector 2: "If I bought it in any form then I guess I'd say it's in my collection."

Book collector 3: "Yes, you bought the book digitally but you don't own the words(the data) the author owns those. The same can go for a physical copy, you own the paper, the cover, the ink, and glue holding it all together but you don't actually own the words on the page. Just a license to read them..."

...repeat ad nauseum...

I do find this topic pretty interesting though.

[acem77]

I hate the push for digital only media! gag..........

[Fuyukaze]

No. Otherwise I'd just download emulators, roms, and have a complete collection. I'd rather go pirate at that point.

[Oobgarm]

Yes and No. I consider them part of my gaming library but I don't consider them part of my collection/collectable. I think attitudes about it will change though as there are a couple XBLA games that are no longer possible to get unless you already have them. Also being that they are games they should be cataloged for reference.

This.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

I'd be interested in where this discussion ends up down the road in 5-10 years when physical media is phased out. It is inevitable, as profits will increase for developers/publishes with the removal of middlemen and goods.

...rarity will be a thing of the past. How will prices be driven, considering that supply is no longer part of the equation? Will big publishers like Activision and EA be able to hold their grip on top of the industry? That's another discussion though.

[Ze_ro]

To me, it's not so much the physical media, but the full range of ownership rights which are passed fully to me when I buy physical media now. Those rights simply don't exist in the digital world and likely never will.
I agree with this. It's all about control. When you have a cartridge or a disc, you have full control over how you play it and what you do with it... but with digital distribution, your control is usually severely limited (in different ways depending on the implementation). For most people (including myself), these limitations aren't particularly intrusive, but it still bothers me to think that there's a good chance that one day all my XBLA games will be simply unplayable. In many cases, I've refused to buy something through one of these services because of such concerns.

--Zero

[TonyTheTiger]

For a guy who supposedly doesn't care at all, you sure have thought about it alot and spent a lot of time posting here on the subject. It makes a difference to me because I pay a pretty substantial amount every year to insure my collection. I don't list digital downloads on the insurance inventory forms and I'm relatively certain my insurance company wouldn't allow me to anyway.

You're mistaking me not caring about coming up with different definitions of "collection" and "library" and the like with not caring about the topic at all. I do care about the topic. It's relevant from both an analytical and practical point of view. I don't personally have much interest in coming up with different categories where I put different games in different places. I do have an interest in finding out whether or not I'm the outlier. What I've wanted to do here more than anything was challenge people to come up with arguments defending their positions. It's why I brought in what is admittedly basic philosophy. Philosophically speaking, logically speaking, what is the difference? And if there is a difference, how and why does it matter? That kind of thing.

You do bring up a good point about insurance, though. Regardless of whether or not digital downloads fit into what somebody might define as a "collection" there's no doubt that a downloaded game still has value to whoever purchased it. That being the case, I wonder if as digital distribution becomes more commonplace these little hiccups will have to be addressed.


I'd be interested in where this discussion ends up down the road in 5-10 years when physical media is phased out. It is inevitable, as profits will increase for developers/publishes with the removal of middlemen and goods.

...rarity will be a thing of the past. How will prices be driven, considering that supply is no longer part of the equation? Will big publishers like Activision and EA be able to hold their grip on top of the industry? That's another discussion though.

I personally don't think physical media is going anywhere anytime soon. Possibly within our lifetimes but I'm fairly convinced that ten years from now we'll still be buying some kind of item in a store. But that's an entirely separate argument.

Here's one problem that I see. People seem to have different ideas of what they're entitled to based on whether or not the product is physical.

Take this example. A person buys a bunch of PS2 games. Somebody steals those games. Ignoring insurance for a second, the victim has little recourse. Sony does not owe this person new copies of those games. And even the victim would likely not expect Sony to be on the hook for that.

But let's say this same person buys a Wii and downloads a bunch of games. Then the Wii is stolen. This same person would probably expect Nintendo to honor his purchases and let him redownload all the VC games free of charge.

Now it could be argued that the rules should be different because the download doesn't necessarily hurt Nintendo (as they don't have to print a new copy to send out but rather just honor a previous purchase at no cost to them). But it does show that people have a different idea of basic fairness when it comes to digital distribution. Now maybe they're right to feel that way. But it's obvious that a consensus is not coming anytime soon.

I also think the period of time we're in right now, where games that are digital download only are the exception rather than the rule, makes it easier to not include them on a list. If we do eventually get to the point where digital distribution is the exclusive delivery method, I'd be hard pressed to believe owners of Playstation 8s and Xbox 900s would openly say "I have no game collection whatsoever."

[Famidrive-16]

Yes and No. I consider them part of my gaming library but I don't consider them part of my collection/collectable. I think attitudes about it will change though as there are a couple XBLA games that are no longer possible to get unless you already have them. Also being that they are games they should be cataloged for reference.

Pretty much this. If you have Double Dragon or Speedball 2 in your XBLA library you've got something at least brag worthy.

[kupomogli]

But let's say this same person buys a Wii and downloads a bunch of games. Then the Wii is stolen. This same person would probably expect Nintendo to honor his purchases and let him redownload all the VC games free of charge.

This is one good thing about being able to link five different PS3 systems to your PSN account. I'm against digital distribution, but if I did purchase digital copies and my system happened to be stolen, then this is something I would be glad for.

I would know that I wouldn't really have to worry about the purchases. Until my system was stolen five times atleast, then I'd be screwed.

[The 1 2 P]

On the one hand I do but like others have said: owning a physical copy and downloaded copy are two different things. DLC save shelf space but they can also become obsolete if the servers are permanently shut down. Luckily most of my XBL dl games are small games like 8 Ball and Aeris Wings.

So do I consider them part of my collection? Yes but I don't count them towards my total game numbers of how many games I have for a system. My XBLA games are counted completely seperately.

[megasdkirby]

No!

If I don't have the game physically, I will never consider it part of my collection.

[ScourDX]

Imagine one gamer showing off his/her 10,000+ digital game collection. How can you tell if it is fake or legit? I encounter so many gamers out there showing off their massive ROM collection. It become so common because it takes them no effort to download digital file vs come who takes 10-20 years collecting games. Everytime I post my legit physical game collection, their jaws drop in disbelief.

[TonyTheTiger]

Hm. You raise an interesting question. Let's imagine a world where games could be duplicated flawlessly. So instead of just burning a blank DVD it were possible for a pirate to reproduce the cart/disc, manual, case, etc. with little expense and effort. In this imaginary world, where you can't tell whether somebody's 10,000 game collection is legitimately purchased via retail/Ebay/trade/etc. or simply run through the magic "copy game machine" would that diminish the concept of collecting? Is the psychological benefit of having a collection now lost because of how easily the guy next door can duplicate what you've done with ease?

If so, does that have something to do with why digital downloads are considered "lesser"? Because the difference between legit and pirate is pretty much nil?

[ScourDX]

If so, does that have something to do with why digital downloads are considered "lesser"? Because the difference between legit and pirate is pretty much nil?

Because you can download them with ease. I can download Megaman 9 or Contra Rebirth now if I search Google. It takes no effort at all vs someone who takes ages to find R9 game. Digital game are worthless because you can obtain it so easily and even illegally. How can I trust anyone with digital game when I can easily find it online.

[TonyTheTiger]

It can't just be about ease. Anybody with a Mario/Duck Hunt cart considers it part of a "collection" right? And those are as easy to find as dirt.

[Agressivadue]

No.

Collecting as we know it is ending.

That's ridiculous! You're implying that collecting is dying; If that was the case, collecting games ended 15 years ago with the rise of console emulation. It's merely evolving.

Anyway if someone downloads a TG-16 game, decides they don't want their Hu-card anymore, puts it on the market and it's something YOU want, are you going to cry about it?