You are arguing against points I did not make. Do not confuse consumer preference with consumer rights.
The fact that most people buy digitally does not magically eliminate the benefits of physical media: resale, lending, collecting, and not tying every purchase to a single account or storefront. That is especially relevant on consoles, where you don’t have the competitive marketplace that exists on PC. Comparing Steam to PlayStation as though they are equivalent ecosystems ignores the very thing being discussed.
You went from making weak arguments to inventing facts. “No one is sharing games” goes against the used games market as well as game lending. As earlier, your point about Gran Turismo is just an anecdote dressed up as a general principle.
And your last paragraph is a joke. If you have to speculate and invent my position instead of addressing it, that is a sign your rebuttal is weak, just like your original comment.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Dude, I literally quoted what I was responding to. I don’t think you actually understand what you’re talking about.
You made a few weak points that don’t amount to a hill of beans, then acted as though my argument was the weak one.
The Gran Turismo example still stands because it’s a well-known issue, not just an anecdote. Gran Turismo is notorious for taking an extremely long time to install even with the physical disc inserted.
And bringing up niche markets like collectors who want the box art is irrelevant. They make up a tiny fraction of the people who actually buy and play these games.
The reality is that physical media generates far less revenue than digital sales through online storefronts.
It’s a business. You understand that, right?
AusatKeyboardPremi@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You are still arguing against a position I never took.
I never disputed why companies are pushing digital. I disputed the idea that losing physical media is not a loss for consumers. Rights like resale, lending, ownership independent of a single account, and preservation do not stop to matter because digital is more popular.
That is an explanation for why companies make these decisions, not a defence of them. By that logic, any reduction in consumer rights would be acceptable so long as it increases profits. I don’t think that is a particularly compelling standard.
We are discussing two different questions: you are defending the business incentive, while I am discussing the consumer trade-offs. There is nothing more to add, so I will leave it at that.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Wow. Just wow.
You completely dismissed what I was saying. You ignored my points and arguments, ignored me when I corrected your incorrect interpretation of what you called an anecdote, and now you’re bowing out by claiming we’re talking about two different things.
It doesn’t matter. Your position is no different than arguing that cars from the 1960s were better simply because they were easier to work on. That’s irrelevant because cars have fundamentally changed. The same applies here.
Christ. Why are there so many people like you on Lemmy?