However, at a fundamental level, I have 2 major objections which stop me from jumping on what I see as "the bandwagon":
I consider personal freedoms more important than the instant gratification. I think the "right to be unplugged", is just as important as (and arguably a component of) free speech/free choice/free action. And I can foresee Orwellian futures where that gets taken away.
The irony is that most "Orwellian" futures predicted by the right seem to depend on governments assuming full control, while the apparent reality is that private corporations seem to be the ones that are doing a lot of the "Orwellian" stuff. As an American, you expect your goverment to safeguard, and not to overstep, boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution. But private corporations get around that by forcing you into legal contracts, such as the EULAs in practically all software. Or by monopolies (cable TV), HOA's, and so forth.
If you're on the Internet, you're on "the grid" in some form or other. And your emails are being perused, your posts analyzed, your purchases are databased, and so forth. If you want digital product, your privacy and rights are at the whims of the corporation.
Shane Monroe made the case that he won't play Diablo III because of it's always-on DRM, even in single-player mode. But I recall that he is a devotee of one of these online multi-player FPS games (Call of Duty?). He won't be able to enjoy that game in the future when the servers are turned off. I'm not sure what the practical difference is from a data-transfer standpoint. I also seem to recall that you (Shawn) gave WoW a try, which is another always-online game. If the objection is that you can't enjoy a solo game like Diablo 3 offline, then I'm with you. If the resentment is based on the extra inconvenience given to a paying customer, I'm with you. But if it's out of a concern for privacy, well.... I'm still with you, but the battle is already lost. I'm definitely not saying that's a good thing.
Bill's argument that you're not affecting anyone but yourself is kind of true. But I think resistance to, rather than hailing, our Orwellian overlords is a good thing in the long term. I'd like to think so, anyway.
Shawn Delahunty wrote:
At the very most basic level, we are physical beings. Get far enough from the physical and tangible, and I believe (no matter what generational differences exist) the satisfaction and joy ebbs. No e-book reader will ever be as 'satisfying' to me as holding a real book. Admiring shelves of carefully collected and maintained books/games/computers/spoons/coffee-mugs/whatevers, has much more meaning than saying, "Look! I have to scroll through 14 screens of games on Steam!"
I'm different from you (to a certain degree) in this regard. Like most of you, I have a fair selection of books in my house. But they're just sitting there, taking up space. If I want to reference one of them, I need to find it on the bookshelf, pull it out, flip through the pages, peruse the index, and so forth to find the information I want. With a digital book, I push a few buttons, and wham, I have what I needed. Getting rid of physical books means less clutter and more convenience. I could replace my bookshelf with a personal cold fusion reactor (in the future)! Yes, there are exceptions; I have some books with sentimental value, but certainly not ALL of them! Click click... digital! It's cool, it's convenient, it's Star Trek!
As for games, it's the gaming experience itself that matters most to me. I'm not likely to keep replaying old games I've completed over and over, so when I'm "done" with a game, I'd just as soon get rid of it. With "digital" games, I don't really have to. But, I can't give away a "digital" game like I could a boxed game. That's the rub.
I know this goes against the philosophies of many AA'ers, and if it weren't for collectors, much of our history would be lost. Collectors are great, but I am not really one of them. I can't think of any games I purchased with really cool boxes or trinkets that were worth saving (to me), it was ancillary to the game itself. At least at the time I didn't, but seeing what these games might be worth nowadays, I regret I didn't keep (or take care of) the games or trinkets I did buy. But even that's mostly because I can't give these "valuables" away to someone who really wants it. The memories of enjoying the game(s) are the principle value to me.
However, at a fundamental level, I have 2 major objections which stop me from jumping on what I see as "the bandwagon":
The irony is that most "Orwellian" futures predicted by the right seem to depend on governments assuming full control, while the apparent reality is that private corporations seem to be the ones that are doing a lot of the "Orwellian" stuff. As an American, you expect your goverment to safeguard, and not to overstep, boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution. But private corporations get around that by forcing you into legal contracts, such as the EULAs in practically all software. Or by monopolies (cable TV), HOA's, and so forth.
If you're on the Internet, you're on "the grid" in some form or other. And your emails are being perused, your posts analyzed, your purchases are databased, and so forth. If you want digital product, your privacy and rights are at the whims of the corporation.
Shane Monroe made the case that he won't play Diablo III because of it's always-on DRM, even in single-player mode. But I recall that he is a devotee of one of these online multi-player FPS games (Call of Duty?). He won't be able to enjoy that game in the future when the servers are turned off. I'm not sure what the practical difference is from a data-transfer standpoint. I also seem to recall that you (Shawn) gave WoW a try, which is another always-online game. If the objection is that you can't enjoy a solo game like Diablo 3 offline, then I'm with you. If the resentment is based on the extra inconvenience given to a paying customer, I'm with you. But if it's out of a concern for privacy, well.... I'm still with you, but the battle is already lost. I'm definitely not saying that's a good thing.
Bill's argument that you're not affecting anyone but yourself is kind of true. But I think resistance to, rather than hailing, our Orwellian overlords is a good thing in the long term. I'd like to think so, anyway.
At the very most basic level, we are physical beings. Get far enough from the physical and tangible, and I believe (no matter what generational differences exist) the satisfaction and joy ebbs. No e-book reader will ever be as 'satisfying' to me as holding a real book. Admiring shelves of carefully collected and maintained books/games/computers/spoons/coffee-mugs/whatevers, has much more meaning than saying, "Look! I have to scroll through 14 screens of games on Steam!"
I'm different from you (to a certain degree) in this regard. Like most of you, I have a fair selection of books in my house. But they're just sitting there, taking up space. If I want to reference one of them, I need to find it on the bookshelf, pull it out, flip through the pages, peruse the index, and so forth to find the information I want. With a digital book, I push a few buttons, and wham, I have what I needed. Getting rid of physical books means less clutter and more convenience. I could replace my bookshelf with a personal cold fusion reactor (in the future)! Yes, there are exceptions; I have some books with sentimental value, but certainly not ALL of them! Click click... digital! It's cool, it's convenient, it's Star Trek!
As for games, it's the gaming experience itself that matters most to me. I'm not likely to keep replaying old games I've completed over and over, so when I'm "done" with a game, I'd just as soon get rid of it. With "digital" games, I don't really have to. But, I can't give away a "digital" game like I could a boxed game. That's the rub.
I know this goes against the philosophies of many AA'ers, and if it weren't for collectors, much of our history would be lost. Collectors are great, but I am not really one of them. I can't think of any games I purchased with really cool boxes or trinkets that were worth saving (to me), it was ancillary to the game itself. At least at the time I didn't, but seeing what these games might be worth nowadays, I regret I didn't keep (or take care of) the games or trinkets I did buy. But even that's mostly because I can't give these "valuables" away to someone who really wants it. The memories of enjoying the game(s) are the principle value to me.