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

[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.