Due to new tariffs, many more physical game discs may "simply not get made"
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Current process is very simple and direct, and you can go from seeing a game on Steam to installing it in under a minute. That is a huge win for customers and publishers both. I do wish there was still a way to replicate it, and I do laud the few game developers who do put their manuals on Steam, as the service definitely offers it.
Where have you been living? Big-box releases of PC games have been dead for at least 10-15 years now since digital downloads like Steam took over and people stopped queuing en-mass for midnight launches of physical copies.
Only special editions still come in boxes now but those are mostly for AAA games and for enthusiasts and collectors of the franchises as they come with a hefty markup.
Ironically, I don't have my Half-Life 1 Anthology box, because it was huge.
Now it's one standard dvd-case sized box with one sheet of paper and a cd... or not even a cd, but just a download code.
The good thing about CDs is, that you can archive them and use them even after 10, 20, 30 years, you cannot do so with steam, if they decide to remove that game or when eventually steam disappears. On the other hand, many games don't even work anymore without an internet connection and some backend service (that'll disappear soon), even single player ones.
Most people will play the game when they buy it, for some time... in modernish times, the cd/dvd will be used only once (no one expects you to keep the cd in the drive anymore when playing), so the disc should be good for a decade+, much more than most of the modern game services stay online, and requiring them even for single player games is a scam.
I am not aware of any case in which the game was removed from Steam and made unavailable to those who purchased it.
I have several games in my Steam library where they stopped offering for sale and I can still download and play.
I also have one game I can download but not play since the publisher took the backend servers offline. Steam is still hosting the installer.
Of the two, which is a greater impact? I know of many games with bugs, some even showstopping ones and can't think of any game that I want to play "as released" because the patch makes things worse.
Speedrunners, for instance, often prefer very specific releases of games, because they rely on glitches that have since been fixed.
Sometimes the latest rev a dev shipped before falling off the planet has game-changing behaviors, like stripping all the licensed music because you lost the license.
Physical games or a model like Gog ensure you will be able to play the games in the future. Digital games where you can't transfer the offline installer to any platform you want is trading convenience today for a guarantee you will buy or pirate it in the future.
For those that buy games on Gog, what has been your strategy for backing up the installers? It seems they only make the last few patches available for download. Do you download every patch, or just the installers?
They could be acquired or go under just as well and I doubt that most people are keeping backups of all the installers.
But unlike a disc or cartridge you can have it backed up in multiple places, more similar to family photos.
Also, fundamentally the issue of copyright is a government enforced artificial monopoly. It's ultimately up to to the governments whether you can "own" any digital media in the future. Hypothetically, the governments could come to take your physical media, and the only thing you can do to defend your rights is with arms, hence the US's fixation on their Second Amendment.
We live in an era of extremes now. You either get an all-digital experience, an anemic cartridge/disc only experience, or a lavish, $100+ omake box from someone like Limited Run Games with a crapton of extras that the vast majority of people never actually see or use in-person, because paradoxically the people who can afford the lavish deluxe boxes are also the people who will never open them out of fear of ruining the "collectible" value.
I miss the era of the middle-ground, in which a Standard Edition came with a physical game, case, and manual, and the Collector's Edition maybe contained a metal tin instead of the standard plastic case.
Even for games I really like, where I might be encouraged to get a collector's edition--I don't think a freaking card game included with my videogame to extract more dollars from me[0].
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Unicorn-Overlord-Collectors-Monarch-P...
If reshoring manufacturing was an honest goal, the way to do it with tariffs would be to start them at some very low amount, to get the systems in place running smoothly without real money being involved. Then have tariffs rise on a schedule designed specifically to give importers time to adapt economically, and provide horizons for existing & new manufacturers to plan and execute expansions.
Tariff rates rise and target rates would vary for classes of products based on the relative challenges of and urgency of rehoming.
Given all the tension with China, and the realization of our vulnerabilities & dependencies, I would think a sensible restoring of manufacturing to the US would have broad bipartisan support.
Sudden tariffs cause disruption and losses for everyone, except the recipient of the tariffs. I.e. Gov. But economic disruption can stall economic activity too, so that “return” isn’t simple or guaranteed.
What were the examples of scheduled-increase tariffs that resulted in successful reshoring of manufacturing in the recent history? It does not look obvious that gradual increase would work better.
It does look as if it would give manufacturers more time to adapt, but also it would give them more time to counter-lobby/circumvent/sabotage the tariffs, and the certain growth of costs would still be priced-in from day one.
If he was serious about restoring industries, then we would have targeted tariffs. Tariffs on coffee is not useful, and is silly.
Similarly a lot of raw commodities, we will not be smelting the amount of aluminum the US needs because we do not have the same low cost power as iceland.
They could have gone slower, and planned things out, but chose not to. And are doing exceptions based on who can talk to trump.
If you are a business that does international business that might be onshored, how confident are you that the tarrifs are here to stay? That you should invest 200 million in American manufacturing, and that government policy will not change in 6 months,or 3 days, or 4 years.
Thats the problem with these tariffs is that they rely on the belief of business that they are here to stay.
This administration is taking a gamble on a strategy of going as fast as they can to ram changes through before bureaucracy and red tape gets in the way.
I don't expect it to work, primarily because it hinges on a false hope that anyone can know exactly how such large changes will play out and avoid going down the wrong path.
It is an intentional strategy though, and to their credit its been made clear by countless administrations that meaningful change quite often gets roadblocked when you try to move slower and more carefully.
Local supply prices will then go up the supply-command curve, to match pricing of importing + tariff prices. That is a very sudden shift in pricing, it cannot be good for our local businesses who import. Some will go under.
The alternative is just as effective. More effective.
Also, I didn't say raise tariffs gradually. I said on a schedule. If supply can be ramped up quickly here, that could mean very fast. Just at a rate the supply side of the market can actually respond to.
But with this you inevitably create a bureaucratic committee that would hold the power to decide if it's time to continue increasing tariffs or the supply (estimated by them) hasn't ramped up quickly enough yet. These people will have their own priorities in mind, they will quickly be surrounded with high-profile industry connections and lobbying budgets. Moreover, continuing with the tariff increase schedule will be their lowest priority, because as long as the schedule is complete, they lose their jobs and temporarily mandated powers over many billions of trade flows.
You have vastly increased local demand without increasing local supply.
Businesses are forward looking. If they know they are going to become unprofitable importing over the next 2-3 years they will be scrambling to work with local suppliers. Or become local suppliers themselves.
You don't need to suddenly bankrupt, or force many companies to exit markets, to make the transition if tariffs changes match the practical time it takes to make the change.
Businesses are not magical. Local supply doesn't magically appear, it actually takes time. This is especially true for tariffs over a wide enough array of products and materials to impact the whole economy.
If tariffs are on a schedule, you can even raise the final tariff rates higher. Achieving even deeper changes, without the waste of suddenly incentivizing the impossible.
Unless you would be bringing only the disks and putting everything together yourself (including paying the licensing fee separately from the disk cost)
I don't know if the license value must be included.
I'm sure the fact that this kills the ability to resell the games is in no way a consideration for companies aggressively migrating this way.
Western countries, including US and EU, are on a slow path of decline. The lessons of WW2 about the value of cooperation are forgotten. Trump creates a lot of mini crisisses, but these are as easily resolved as they were made by the next president. As a result, a lot of captains asleep at the wheel are getting a rude wake up. Meanwhile, there is a sanity to go back to.
The EU finally gets serious about defence. Countries start doing thing without asking US permission first.
In the US, the left is still in denial, but they keep getting whacked. They are also under shock and awe from the ongoing Trump legal blitzkrieg. But that won't stay. What's happening now will start a counter reaction, it's just too bizarre and extreme. Once they get themselves organized and fighting, they'll be a huge counterforce. Congress might start working again, and maybe some new amendments will even happen.
I don't think the USA will return to absolute top dog status again, rather I think we end up with a multipolar world. But hardship will teach some much needed lessons.
To whom is this lesson being taught? The general public or the leadership that is increasingly untethered from the general public's oversight?
Seems to me that the lessons of the war on Iraq was to subsidize regional dictatorships even further to fend off Iran and Syria. The Great Recession of 2008 caused suffering too. The lesson for that appeared to be to cut interest rates to 0% for corporations for 14 years while retail consumers paid 'market rates'. And now they're about to pay higher prices due to leadership committed to speedrunning the 1920s.
It’s unfortunate but a global depression might be a good thing in that regard.
And yes, I too strongly dislike Trump as a human being
I'll never forget Mitch McConnel blaming Barack Obama for a bill Obama told them not to pass that they passed anyway. And then when he vetoed it, they overrode his veto. But it's Obama's fault because he didn't tell them not to do it earlier.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congr...