Will Current-Gen Games Be Collectible? []

This is a serious question I was asking myself the other day, and I'm sure it's one others have asked as well. It's a question that may seem odd at first, but the more I look at current trends in the video game industry, the more I begin to suspect that it will be much more difficult for people in the 2040s and 2050s to be retro collectors for current-generation games.

"But JT, you numb-witted fearmonger!" you shout at me, "surely you must be jesting. There will always be those who collect games, and perhaps you're just bigoted against the present generation and hence simply want to take opportunity to disparage it via Internet weblog post!"

Believe me, I've got plenty of disparagement to hurl at some of the current-gen systems and games, but this isn't just about my love of systems from the '80s and early '90s. This is just something I'm noticing, and something about which I'm hoping I'm wrong. Let me elucidate my reasoning:

1. Gaming is going digital.

Collecting anything usually requires that that thing be physical (well, unless it's Pokemon or something). So when games stop being physical, they stop being collectible in the essential sense.

Lamentably, this is what seems to be happening. I first noticed this trend when they introduced the PSP Go, which completely ditched the traditional physical media for games downloaded from the PlayStation Network onto Sony Memory Sticks. The PSP Go was a bit of a flop, but the idea stuck, and now it's everywhere.

Whether via PSN, XBLA, whatever the Wii uses, Steam, Origin, and too many others to list, the last few years have seen a large rise in games delivered via download instead of physical media (disc, cartridge, floppy diskette, etc).

This is a major step forward in convenience to the user, without question. I've personally downloaded a number of games via PSN to my PS3 and PSP, many of them retro titles like Metal Slug, King of Fighters '95, R-Type Delta (yes, PS2 counts), et al. Not only is downloading them easier than tracking them down at a resale store or flea market/garage sale, but it's a lot cheaper.

This means that (a) a lot more people will be encouraged to play games they otherwise wouldn't, and (b) the costs for independent developers to produce a title need no longer be bound by the cost for producing the physical medium plus packaging.

At this point, you're now re-reading the title of this post and realizing what this means for collecting. Simply put, digitally downloaded games are platform-dependent and service-dependent. They last so long as there is still a platform to play them and a service that can provide them. So, by way of example, were PSN ever to go away:

• You would need to maintain that PS3/PS4/PSP/PS Vita (and not all PSN games can play on all of those). More specifically, the storage device which holds the data for your game on that device. Better hope the hard drive never crashes or the memory card never gets corrupted.
• Even so, a lot of digital titles require you to be logged into PSN to validate that you own the game. Therefore, you may not even be able to start it anymore.

And this is only for keeping your own games. It won't exactly be possible to pick up a copy of a digital-only game secondhand. Nor will you be able to sell off your old digital games. Digital downloading is really convenient, but it doesn't exactly help the collector.

On that note:

2. Game purchases are becoming non-transferable.

We as gamers are not tremendous fans of Digital Rights Management (DRM), although we know why it exists. Piracy hurts sales, and that discourages developers from producing more product. Thus, panicky producers pick pesky, ponderous protection packages to perplex proponents of perfidious piracy (for a while), in the meanwhile peeving paying patrons.

Let us all thank social media and public outcry for scoring a major victory last year. Microsoft was all set to release their Xbox One console with built-in DRM that would effectively nullify the ability to trade in games or share with friends. We stopped that. At least for now, that is.

Even with that pat-on-the-back moment to our credit, it's just a fact of the world now that DRM is and will continue to be present on new software titles for all platforms. It's going to be there, and there's no saying that in the future they won't try again to use DRM to cut off used game sales at the knees. It's already being done at the game level in some cases (see 2011's Mortal Kombat), with "passes" that require players who buy the game used to pay extra for the right to play the game they already purchased. 

This directly affects collectors, because it makes both resale and purchase thereof more difficult. With current retro collecting, you can pick through a group of loose cartridges, pay whatever the seller asks (and maybe less if you bargain correctly), and use them as if you were the original owner on your own console. In the future, this will almost certainly not be the case.

3. Gaming is moving away from consoles.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to observe how quickly the mobile and online game market is growing. Nearly everyone in the United States has some form of mobile device, and even I have been known to use my phone to play Tetris or Solitaire in a spare moment. Whether on Android, iOS, or Facebook, the mobile/web platform is growing steadily, taking more and more time and money away from console gaming.

What does that do for collecting? Same effect as moving to digital games. Nobody is going to be collecting copies of Angry Birds or Temple Run (even if, for some reason, they wanted to do so) for the simple reason that they don't exist apart from a mobile device and an account that says you bought the game.

Let me reiterate: this is where the market is growing on an incredible level, and it's where the money is. Mobile games can be sold for free on the knowledge that users will likely pay more for add-on content than they would for the game up-front. This is great for the economy, but not so much for collectors. If all games go mobile, we just won't be collecting them in the future.

4. Buying a game no longer buys you the whole game.

While we're on that subject, let's talk about DLC. I love DLC; I hate DLC. You'll hear both opinions, and I happen to share both, depending on the context.

I love DLC because it (a) expands the life cycle of a game and (b) allows any major flaws to be corrected without having to re-purchase the game.

I hate DLC because (a) it allows developers to release unfinished games and charge ransom for fixing it; (b) it means that whenever you think you've bought a game, you haven't really bought the game.

Let me illustrate with a common experience: you've just bought Shiny-Awesome-Game for PS3, a couple weeks after the release date. You paid $60 for it, and it's got that wonderful new-game smell to it. You tear off the plastic wrap, open up the case, and pop it into your console. It's ready to go, right?

Well, it would be ready to go, except that you first must download "the most recent version" of the game, because there's been a patch already. Actually, I've gotten pre-ordered games that had updates pre-release. See my first reason above for hating DLC.

Even though patches and upgrades are often free, I still consider them as holding the game for ransom, because it means that, essentially, you haven't bought the game just by purchasing it from the store. This is doubly true for purchased DLC (and triply so for disc-locked content that's actually on the disc but won't be available until you buy it).

Imagine a future collector buying Shiny-Awesome-Game for PS3 in 2034. He dusts off his PS3, boots it up, puts in the disc, and has to hope there's still a PSN around, at least one that will still speak to his PS3, or else he's only going to be able to play the initially available version on the disc. Who'd want to collect that?

5. Everything has a life-span, especially optical media.

I saved this one for last because it's probably the weakest point, but it's still important. In fact, it's one that currently affects collectors for CD-based consoles (Sega CD, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn, etc). It's called disc rot. Sounds like a horrible disease, and it is. And it's incurable.

Essentially, CDs will accumulate scratches which expose the data layer to the air, causing oxidation and hence data loss. Once the data's lost due to disc rot, it's just gone. While ROM cartridges have an incredible shelf life (my Atari games from the 1970s – almost 40 years old now –  still work just fine), it's really only a matter of a decade or so before CDs start to degrade. DVDs last longer, due to their better protective coating, but they're still susceptible. I've even seen stories of Blu-ray discs going bad already, although those may be just bad batches (do a Google search to see the horror stories for yourself). So this is a problem that will affect current games less, but may still become an ever-increasing problem.

By the way: this affects solid-state storage (like flash drives and memory cards) as well. Keep backups of your games for PSP, in other words.

Okay, JT, we get it...final thoughts?

So all of these factors are what have me worrying about the future of collecting. It's not that games being released now aren't good enough to be worth collecting (well...not just that) or that the market is about to collapse, leaving games worth nothing (we've survived that before),  but simply that future collectors may not have anything that can be collected.

Where do we go from here? Well, unfortunately there's not much we can do. It makes great business sense to move to the digital distribution model, so there's not much stopping it. We can protest DRM all we want, but it's going to persist.

If all else fails, though...well, let's see how long my Atari lasts.



Peace,
JT

On Game Controllers

So let's get this straight from the outset here: in the great battle between the current generation of video game consoles, I'm firmly in the PS3 camp (although I do still have an XBL gamertag, but that's beside the point).

The first console I ever got was the PS2 (15th birthday), and during that gen I also got the GameCube and then the Xbox (mostly so I could get all three versions of Soul Calibur II). My PS2 was my family's first DVD player (much like my PS3 is now the family Blu-ray player), and it still works perfectly, despite it now being ten years old (say that about any piece of modern technology, and you know you've got a winner). For me, there really wasn't much of a decision as to whether I would go PS3 or 360; I was always going to go with the PS3, although it took me until last year to be able to purchase one. I've played on both the 360 and the Wii with friends, and have enjoyed them both, but when it came down to buying one for myself, I knew the PS3 would be the answer.

Important note: everything from here on down is largely my own personal opinion.

Why? Put simply, it's because I'm a fighting gamer. Fighting gamers gravitate toward the PS2/PS3 for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are more titles to choose from, although a lot of the formerly Playstation exclusive series (Tekken comes to mind) are no longer so. There are notable Xbox-only exceptions: Dead or Alive (although with the 3DS version it's no longer Xbox exclusive), Samurai Spirits Sen (disappointment and not missing it at all), Tao Feng (flop of a failure by former Mortal Kombat people, played the demo and wished I hadn't), and the online version of NeoGeo Battle Coliseum (first released for PS2...would have preferred that over the NeoGeo Station, but I still have hope), to name...all I can think of at the moment. Even so, the history is behind the Playstation for fighters, especially with the long list of port compilation titles released in the waning days of the PS2.

On top of that, there's the issue of the controllers...ah, here at last we come to the post topic. I contend very strongly that the DualShock line of controllers, in use from the PS1 through the PS3, is the superior controller, especially for the fighting gamer.

Let's look at the competition:

Exhibit A: Original Xbox

Insert jokes about t3h hug3 ecksbawks contrlolr lolz here at the beginning just so we can get past them and move forward. Instead, let's analyze:

Face buttons: The first series had six face buttons of oblong shape and arranged in a rather awkward pattern on the highly convex controller. The later versions weren't much better, although the rounder buttons in the more "Playstation-like" layout did make it easier to use. Still no easier to use the black and white buttons, of course (although third party controllers did sometimes have these two buttons as "shoulder buttons," much like the L1/R1 buttons on the DualShock. The highly convex face and raised, rounded buttons means that an individual button can be pressed relatively easily, but combinations (X+A or Y+B, etc) become quite hard marginally more difficult to do, and the large shape almost forces one to hold the controller in the double-under position, with both hands underneath the controller, which again hampers button combinations (more on that later...just bear with me). Oh, and also, with the newer version it's very possible to hit the black & white buttons accidentally if you grip too hard with your right hand.

Shoulder buttons/triggers: Two triggers, located underneath. Again, forces the user into a set grip, which isn't always optimal. Still, they work pretty well for shooters...

D-Pad: Horrible. Okay, maybe that's too strong. It's not as bad as, say, the GameCube's d-pad, or the Dreamcast's d-pad...but still, it's small and cramped in down at the bottom.

Analog sticks: I find the position of the Xbox controller's two analog sticks quite interesting. They had a job to do differentiating themselves from the DualShock, and one of the major differences is that their analog sticks are not parallel, like on the DualShock, but with the left near the top outer edge and the right near the bottom center. Very different feel, but for games that rely a lot of analog stick movements (say, to aim the crosshairs for a FPS game), it's very handy to have the left analog stick, which is standard for movement (since the other hand's using the face buttons for action functions), easily accessible near the top. The controller's grip design puts your thumb more or less right on top of it, so there's little wasted effort. Also, in situations where you're using both analog sticks, there's much less chance of becoming thumb-tied, since they're in two very separated positions. Good design, but for fighting gamers the D-pad is the better choice for fine control, since a good d-pad is faster and more accurate than a thumbstick (although an arcade joystick, held with the whole hand, is also very accurate).

Exhibit B: Xbox 360

This design is so much cleaner than the original Xbox controller design that I'm going to have less to say; I really do like this controller, but I still believe the DualShock is better.

Face buttons: Pretty much the same as the second version of the original Xbox controller, minus the black and white buttons. The buttons themselves are also now on a more level surface, and still, like the original, more raised than on the DualShock, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and your situation. On the one hand, it makes them easier to feel when you're playing and looking at the screen, rather than your hands. The other hand really comes from the fact that they're convex, not flat like on the DualShock. It's easier to half-press a convex button, and one's can more easily slip (Note: "more easily" does not mean that it happens all the time).

Shoulder Buttons/Triggers: The black and white buttons are gone, having morphed into the shoulder buttons, located above the triggers (much like L1/L2 and R1/R2, although to be fair, the Xbox had the button/trigger combo before the PS3). I like this configuration; much more sensible now, and makes it actually possible to use the 5th and 6th buttons, as opposed to having them squeezed onto the face. As always, the triggers make it very good for shooting.

D-pad: Same story, bro...I never found much change in feel between the Xbox and 360 D-pad. If anything, the leap backward to a single-piece D-pad is a bad thing.

Analog sticks: Really same story...just see above.

Exhibit C: Nintendo Wii

Okay no...no, the only Wii exclusive fighting game is Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, which was basically thrown as a bone to them so they could have a decent fighting game...still hoping it gets ported to PS3. Also, when playing games like Smash Bros (not a fighting game!) on the Wii, I found it much preferable to plug in a GameCube controller. That's right...I'd rather take a step back to the GameCube controller than use the Wiimote/Nunchaku. Don't own a Playstation Move, not really planning to get one. Sixaxis for the win, but pointing a Wiimote for the awkward.



Now, finally, for the DualShock:

Exhibit D for DualShock 1,2,3

I mean, I really don't have to say much. This is a tried and true design. The only major changes were with the DS3 to give it Sixaxis functionality, triggers instead of buttons for L2/R2, and the PS button in the middle. But, because I'm making a comparison, here's the run-down:

Face buttons: This is by now a classic. Square, Triangle, X, Circle. The iconic button set for the Playstation controller has mostly-flat buttons placed in a cross/diamond arrangement, far enough apart to avoid accidental button presses but close enough to facilitate both rapid movement from one button to the next but also button combinations. These have not really changed or needed to change since the original Playstation controller (which was without analog sticks) and the Dual Analog controller (which lacked rumble capability). Their smooth, flat surfaces make them very good for fighting games, being well suited to agile and quick movements. It's worth noting that the Xbox controller design started off very different but gradually changed to an almost identical button configuration. Really not much else to say here.

Shoulder buttons/triggers: Also classic, these buttons fit right underneath the index and middle fingers, allowing for easy access (although you can also just use your index finger for both upper and lower). The trigger version of L2/R2 with the DS3 takes a bit of getting used to at first, but it adds the capability for designers to set up control schemes such that holding the trigger halfway does one thing, and holding it all the way does another.

D-pad: The Playstation D-pad, while it's certainly not perfect, is pretty close in my opinion. The separate directional buttons, while they may seem at first awkward, actually make it more accurate, and it's really no more difficult to do diagonal directions than with another controller. Quick, precise movements on the d-pad are very important to a fighting gamer (try doing Geese's Raising A Storm motion on another d-pad...it's madness). The DualShock d-pad is big and accessible, right under the player's thumb.

Analog sticks: This is what separated the Dual Analog and DualShock series from the original PS controller. The Analog sticks also function as L3 and R3 buttons when pressed in (a feature shared by Xbox controllers, but which the DualShock had first), and the "cup" in the middle of the analog sticks holds the player's thumb steady very well. I personally prefer the DualShock's analog sticks over the Xbox/360's any day. They just feel better. The DS2 also made them more accurate, which, although fighting games rarely require them, can be all-important in other genres.


So I promised to talk about the "under-under" position earlier. For a lot of games, you really only need to hold the controller in the way that seems natural, with both palms supporting the controller from underneath. However, with fighting games, one often must press two or more of the face buttons together, which can be awkward, if not impossible, while holding the controller in this manner. A lot of fighting gamers (myself included) thus use what I'm calling the "under-over" position, with the left hand as normal but the right hand held on top of the controller, using the thumb to hook under the right handgrip for support. In this way, the fingers can easily access all four face buttons in any combination much more easily. With the DualShock controller, this is pretty trivial; the shape of the handgrips allows the thumb to hook under it easily. With the Xbox controllers...it's possible, but not as much, especially with older models that have a more convex face shape. The handgrips flow more smoothly into the center of the controller, which can hinder holding the controller in this way.


Let me throw out some overused, clichè buzz-words: all in all, at the end of the day, in summation, in conclusion, it just goes to show that, so we can clearly see. Now let me start to wrap up this incredibly long post. I'm not saying that the Xbox controllers are horrible. They're good at what they do. For all the FPS-ers out there who need fine control, the Xbox control is very good (although I never really got the hang of it). For all those action-adventurers who just need two analog sticks and some action buttons...they're about mixed. For fighting gamers, it's really all about the DualShock.


Peace,
JT


P.S. You'll notice I didn't say anything about the rumble feature...I never use it. Just a distraction.