Hideo Kojima ‘really sad’ about PlayStation killing discs, ‘frightened’ for future of ownership

Well because the game got cancelled by Google after the closure of the platform. After Microsoft decided to resume thst game and now he is building it with them

Well, you see, Ju$tice is expensive and unreliable.

So the decision of using or not the Justice System for enforcing one's rights isn't purelly "am I likely to win", it's also about "is it worth it bringing it to Court", which is especially important when the damages one is entitled to get are low (like the price of a game).

At which point "who controls the thing under dispute", which is theoretically unimportant in a perfect Justice System, becomes the main deciding factor.

Maybe an example will make it clear:
- You have a game which the publisher wants to take away from you. They're actually in their right to do so: you actually read through and accepted BEFORE PURCHASING (this is important in jurisdiction which aren't legal jokes, unlike the US) a set of terms and conditions that gave them that right and it was clearly that this wasn't a sale but a time limited licensing. However you have the actual installer for a single player game (in your computer, physical disk, whatever), totally free to install, no phone-home DRM authorization check - you control that copy. They have to actually take you to court to force you to delete that game from your system and destroy all copies. This is a $50 game. Are they really going to do it for a $50 game?!
- Similarly but reversed: you bought a physical disk with a game, it cost $50, it has phone-home DRM to install and to run. You didn't agreed to anything before the purchase and you're in a legal jurisdiction (such as Germany) which is not a joke so the implicit rights from a sale cannot be altered unilaterally post sale by a forced change of the contract terms of the sale (i.e. EULAs aren't valid there). You're in the right yet they block you from installing or running that game. To get back what you're entitled to or compensation (all of $50) you have to take them to court. Are you really going to do it for a $50 game?!

Anyways, the point I'm making here is that well before a Court of Law actually goes through the whole thing and determines who is in the Right and orders a certain action in favor of and/or compensation for the injured side, de facto the outcome is often decided by the actual stakeholders deciding "is it worth it taking this to court?" and in a system where Justice has costs (the bigger the costs the more that's the case) "who controls it" is pretty much the single biggest factor in that decision.

In simple terms, unless there is some kind of streamlined Judicial process for that kind of case (like there is around things like loans) bringing a case to court to force the side in control of something to act in a certain way with it is only worth it for large monetary amounts, and generally the price of a game is below that.

It just so happens that at the moment for console games having the installer for it in a physical medium in your control is having control of that copy but, as my example above illustrates, if the game does phone-home DRM authorization checks like some PC games go, it's actually not really under your control even if you have it in physical media.

hence why I'll never own a playstation device again.

Can't wait for Death Stranding 3 to feature a character called "Sad Discman"

Should Kojima have died on the DRM hill

Yes, because it would be based. Release on PC only and tell them to go fuck themselves.

Yes that's perfectly reasonable, hence a matter of taste.

I acknowledge all those things but I like them. I hope everyone is able to find games they love according to their own subjective tastes.

I 100% agree especially now my time is so limited and I have so many amazing experiences to choose from, but the thing is some of us are enthralled by these games from start to end.

There's no one else around who actually makes games like this.

Death Stranding 3 will likely be lost in the stranding because it will not be stored on physical media. This will make Sad Discman really sad.

But who is left? Nintendo?

And that's only because Nintendo tend to lag about 5 years behind everyone else. They're not sticking with physical out of their belief in physical games, that's for sure. Half their stuff is already a key and a download.

Realistically, it wouldn't really matter about discs at all if we had real digital rights. The rights to transfer games from one account to another, or even between stores. The rights to copy games to other devices, and copy them back again, or even from an online source if the original disappears for whatever reason.

Physical games could take the form of a keycard with a license on it, similar to a credit card chip. Scan it on my machine to attach to my account. Scan it on another to attach to someone else's account and remove from mine. Run offline by leaving the card in the machine.

I still buy blurays because I like owning the disk. I should have the same option for video games

I agree, and buy physical games too, but I don't think the law can mandate a disc drive.

It could mandate that digital goods remain ours forever, and that companies provide a way to keep them forever.

We've been lucky that the main players in this are still going. Valve, Sony, MS and Nintendo have deep pockets. But we've seen companies go bust before, and they'll go again. Sega were the top dog until they weren't. Before now we've always had the physical option. Now we won't. This is the tipping point and laws must be made to protect us before we lose everything.

Same kojima who is apparently very good friends with Geoff "the Doritos pope" Keighly

Yeah that's probably the worst I can say about him, but Geoff's events really makes my skin crawl with his overly sponsored/branded shows

Even less reason to refer to it as a Stadia game then.

Hidden Kojima

The stadia never has physicals. Playing console used to had it so the sony case is removing options from consumers