[jaideep singh]

I like Steam, but that's just me. I'd like to have Skyrim in Steam, so that way I can never damage my disk like I did with Oblivion or lose it. Because it's a PC game, you really can't resell it anyways so I don't mind all that much. I don't really lend games to friends, so I don't mind that either. Personally, I will be buying a physical copy anyways, hopefully the collector's edition. I don't usually like physical copies, but Elder Scrolls is one of my favorite series and I'd like to display this particular box alongside any expansions it may have. I would like that physical copy to work with Steam, so I don't need to buy it again to go digital.

Personally, it'd be good if there was a Steam DRM that didn't actually require an installation of Steam. I think that'd make more people happy. But as is always the nature of DRM, no one really wins except the company that isn't having its games stolen. SecuRom is no different, it just doesn't tell you when it installs things.

And for you pro-disc check people, I'll tell you that it doesn't work. Especially when you have a case like Morrowind and Oblivion where expansions aren't installed on the disc you play with.

[Peter P Canning]

Its not in their EULA, its officially stated by employees.
I searched a bit for this statement, but the only thing I found in a quick search was this thread in the official steam forums.
You can search for older threads about this in their forums if you want; for me the statement of an official moderator is enough at the moment.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1378587


EDIT: Steam in offline mode doesn't need any server authentification. The only thing that has to be added is that games can be installed in offline mode. And thats a boolean variable I guess.

If the most official statement comes from a volunteer moderator saying: "Seam has been tested without server authentication in case everything goes down." (sic) then I would say there is reason to be worried about it.

I do agree that having the ability to install without having to go online would be a huge plus, but at that point why even bother with Steam. If I go to the store and buy a game that upon installation asks, "Do you want to download otherwise unnecessary 3rd party software that has to constantly run in the background whenever you play this game giving you one more password you have to remember, or just install the game without internet support?" I know option I'm picking, in fact I doubt that there would be "3,201,366 Gamers Online" with Steam if it were setup this way from the beginning, so I don't see it happening.

I spent over $1,000 total to get the rest of the software for my computer, this is for things like Windows, Office and Acrobat Pro, and never had any type of copy protection more robust than a serial key. But spend $60 for a game and suddenly I have setup a user name and password for online digital authorization. That's like having Brinks install a security system on my tool shed but not my house.

The Skyrim forums are weird. So many Steam haters. :wacko:

I made a http://www.giantbomb.com/steam/92-718/do-you-refuse-to-buy-games-that-require-steam/35-486157/ on Giant Bomb eight days ago and 528 people has voted.

Do you refuse to buy games that require Steam?
-Yes 2.7%
-No 94.3%
-I don't play PC games 3.0%

I doubt Bethesda will lose many sales by going Steam only for Skyrim.

Well I, for one, have never heard of Giant Bomb, and I've not gotten around to doing a massive search for every forum that has a poll with the words Refuse, Require and Steam in it just so I can create a profile and voice my opinion. But my guess would be that going the forums for game that were Steam Free not to long ago (Like Civilization) is where you will find the backlash. Personally, if I find a game that looks interesting but see that it requires Steam I say "oh well" and keep looking, but if the next installment of one of my favorite franchises (Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Splinter Cell) has Steam or worse as DRM then I do get upset enough to voice my opinion.

[latrina]

"Personally, it'd be good if there was a Steam DRM that didn't actually require an installation of Steam. I think that'd make more people happy. But as is always the nature of DRM, no one really wins except the company that isn't having its games stolen. SecuRom is no different, it just doesn't tell you when it installs things."

Asking for a Steam DRM that didn't require the installation of Steam would just be asking for Ubisofts always on setup with an iffy offline mode. Which is essentially Steam already if you take away Ubi's intermitent downloading of data as you play.

If Steam works for you then great for you.

It doesn't work for everyone however which makes it a valid point to consider when buying unless you'd like a collection of ￡30 novelty drinks coasters.

We know disc checks don't stop piracy. Nothing does, disc checks, securom, steam, ubi's always on. If someone is determined enough to acquire something without paying they will find a way. DRM essentially functions as a way of disuading the less determined pirates and reducing day one piracy and arguably crippling the second hand market.

A one-off online activation would be logical as long as there is a way for those without fast/reliable/any internet connections to activate by phone or an alternative method. Steam exclusivity would only alienate potential customers. Selling via Steam and other digital platforms however I can't see any logical issue with. It's the activation and running that gets peoples goats.

[Leticia Hernandez]

The Skyrim forums are weird. So many Steam haters. :wacko:

I made a http://www.giantbomb.com/steam/92-718/do-you-refuse-to-buy-games-that-require-steam/35-486157/ on Giant Bomb eight days ago and 528 people has voted.

Do you refuse to buy games that require Steam?
-Yes 2.7%
-No 94.3%
-I don't play PC games 3.0%

I doubt Bethesda will lose many sales by going Steam only for Skyrim.

no , not much actual Steam "hate". Steam is good since it's generally one option Steamworks makes Steam the ONLY option (meaning none) aside from using a console version.

I have no issue with anyone wanting to use a Steam version but given my connection it's not really an option for me to use Steam & consoles aren't an option either.

Beth did lose sales on New vegas & others were burnt by steam when they thought they could just buy the disc install & play with no connection needed (just check the "Fallout: New Vegas Hardware and Software Issues PC board" here on these forums, so potentially sales could be even less.

[laila hassan]

You do know that the quote in that thread is by a "volunteer moderator" who probably isn't even a Valve/Steam employee and thus cannot make any kind of "official" statement about Valve's business practices or future. In any event, Steam's official stance is the EULA itself, not what a random "volunteer moderator" says in an archived (not stickied) thread.

If the most official statement comes from a volunteer moderator saying: "Seam has been tested without server authentication in case everything goes down." (sic) then I would say there is reason to be worried about it.

I said something about "doing a quick search". I searched for 5 minutes and thats all I got.
But ok, lets put the moderators away, thats no proof.

Lets try a different approach:
Do you really think Steam will disappear in the next 20 years?
Do you really think there won't be a patch to play the game afterwards? Official or unofficial?
Seriously, be realistic! <_<

And if you're still afraid that Steam suddenly disappears, Bethesda Softworks just have to release a patched skyrim.exe and you can play the game again. Its nothing more.
I will enjoy Skyrim in November, with or without Steam.
It would be a pity if you won't enjoy it too only because of that.

Just for the record: I would prefer the game NOT to use any 3rd party application for DRM. But we all know that won't happen.

[!beef]

"Personally, it'd be good if there was a Steam DRM that didn't actually require an installation of Steam. I think that'd make more people happy. But as is always the nature of DRM, no one really wins except the company that isn't having its games stolen. SecuRom is no different, it just doesn't tell you when it installs things."

Asking for a Steam DRM that didn't require the installation of Steam would just be asking for Ubisofts always on setup with an iffy offline mode. Which is essentially Steam already if you take away Ubi's intermitent downloading of data as you play.

If Steam works for you then great for you.

It doesn't work for everyone however which makes it a valid point to consider when buying unless you'd like a collection of ￡30 novelty drinks coasters.

We know disc checks don't stop piracy. Nothing does, disc checks, securom, steam, ubi's always on. If someone is determined enough to acquire something without paying they will find a way. DRM essentially functions as a way of disuading the less determined pirates and reducing day one piracy and arguably crippling the second hand market.

A one-off online activation would be logical as long as there is a way for those without fast/reliable/any internet connections to activate by phone or an alternative method. Steam exclusivity would only alienate potential customers. Selling via Steam and other digital platforms however I can't see any logical issue with. It's the activation and running that gets peoples goats.

Well, I can see you've never used Steam before.

Steam does not require an always online connection. What it does is that it has a one-time online authentication, and then saves those user credentials to your computer to be played offline if you so choose. The ideal way would be to acquire those credentials without having to use the program itself. That would probably mean that the DRM chunk of Steam gets built into the game, removing the need for the client to perform that function. The main argument I see against Steam is that it's forced on you if the physical copy requires it. You have to download a program you don't care about. Primarily, it's bad because it's a marketplace program and the forced installation of it makes it seem like they want you to only buy through Steam.

In the grand scheme of things, there is DRM that is much worse than Steam's. Like you said, Ubisoft's original DRM was atrocious. Steam or not, it came with it because it was built into the game regardless. Games for Windows Live is no better either. I had to have two different saves to play Fallout 3 because it wouldn't let me play my main save game offline. And no DRM is perfect, but it helps believe it or not. Steam can be pirated and Disk Checks can be pirated. The only difference I see between them is that Disc Checks don't require you to visit any pirating websites or download the game in order to steal it. The fear of pirating websites itself is enough to keep some people away, thus creating sales. For the most part, you will not be able to take a Steam copy and create a stolen copy directly.

Steam is also very secure. Your account doesn't just get hijacked and ruined. Your library of discs, however, can be taken from your home any time you leave a window unlocked. And the only time they ever ban accounts and the games they contain is if you are caught attempting to sell it. A dirty business practice, but online services really hate RMT for whatever reason. Probably for the scamming potential.

[Jenna Fields]

Lets try a different approach:
Do you really think Steam will disappear in the next 20 years?

Quite frankly? Yes.

We have seen other large software and hardware companies go under in the last 20 years, Steam is no different to say Netscape - in fact it is a minor fish in the ocean compared to the user base Netscape once had.

Steam will either:
1) be technologically superseded
2) become subject to a monopolies break up
3) be sued in an American litigation case (whether by private citizens or a competitor)
4) be bought out and asset stripped by a larger firm
5) go bust from over expenditure or lack of revenue in the next cyclical financial crash

Its just a matter of time, especially since they are just a software service and have no real material wealth or technological value to secure their independence.

[Kelly Tomlinson]

Lets try a different approach:
Do you really think Steam will disappear in the next 20 years?
Do you really think there won't be a patch to play the game afterwards? Official or unofficial?
Seriously, be realistic! <_<

And if you're still afraid that Steam suddenly disappears, Bethesda Softworks just have to release a patched skyrim.exe and you can play the game again. Its nothing more.
I will enjoy Skyrim in November, with or without Steam.
It would be a pity if you won't enjoy it too only because of that.

Just for the record: I would prefer the game NOT to use any 3rd party application for DRM. But we all know that won't happen.

Walex, I'm not sure where you are writing from, but here in the U.S., a number of big financial institutions collapsed in the past 3 years, and we nearly lost our entire automobile industry. That's aside from all of the mortgage defaults, high employment, and other economic troubles. So to answer your question: Yes, I could easily imagine Valve/Steam, or any other corporation, disappearing in the next 20 years. Actually, 2 decades is a really long span of time in the world of digital technology and video gaming, and I would really be surprised if some other business model has not eclipsed Steam within the next 10 years.

In any event, I would not assume that either Steam or Bethesda would rush out a patch to make Skyrim assessible in the event that Steam has to close its doors one day. That suggestion assumes a great deal of good will and selflessness on the part of corporate types, for which they are not known.

[kelly thomson]

The Skyrim forums are weird. So many Steam haters. :wacko:

I made a http://www.giantbomb.com/steam/92-718/do-you-refuse-to-buy-games-that-require-steam/35-486157/ on Giant Bomb eight days ago and 528 people has voted.

Do you refuse to buy games that require Steam?
-Yes 2.7%
-No 94.3%
-I don't play PC games 3.0%

I doubt Bethesda will lose many sales by going Steam only for Skyrim.

Flawed poll? Considering you posted it in a Steam forum, what results did you expect? :bonk: You might also want to take a look at http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=115256.

[Batricia Alele]

I'd like it to have the option to not require Steam cause when I dug up my Morrowind goty box it had a nice layer of dust that I got to wipe off cliche movie style (was tempted to blow the dust off) and for some reason that made me giddy.

And that would be kinda nice 5-6 years from now for when I dust off my Skyrim box after they announce TES: VI

[Sammygirl]

God I hope it doesn't require steam. I love steam for some game, ones that I can get cheaply, and don't want to mod. I however, HATE steam for games I mod. Patching is a nightmare. You cannot select which patch to use, and steam adds no value to the product (for me).

[Julie Ann]

@Proditus I've tried using Steam on multiple occasions, most recently about a month ago and I've never had the offline mode work correctly along with numerous inability to connect, or server busy messages, that's the reason that I would describe Steam as an "always on setup with an iffy offline mode" because without that offline mode working to me it becomes an always on setup. I recognise that it works flawlessly for some, it is helpful to recognise that this is not the case for everyone however.

Ubi's setup is by far more draconian which is why I mentioned the intermitent downloading of during play and load, not to mention its closing the game on a failure to connect.

Personally I had no problems at all with GFWL but I recognise it caused big problems for others that prevented them from enjoying a title they bought. It wouldn't be right for me to push for adoption of GFWL due to the problems it can cause for some users so I don't. The fawning that Steam receives I've never understood or liked. That's on my personal experience with the platform.

The longevity of Steam is my other main concern as there is no assurance that titles will be patched and relying on goodwill is foolhardy at best. That would usually mean it would be left to the communities to patch titles which opens up an entire raft of ownership and copyright issues. Put it this way, I'm still playing Forsaken which came out in 1998 what guarantee do I have that I'd still be able to play that through Steam if it came out this year and I wished to play it in twelve years?

The more venues the title is distributed through with maximum ease of use the better, restricting to Steam would be a kick in the teeth for fans of the TES Series that either have tech issues with Steam or issues based on principle, not to mention unfounded hysteria.

[jennie xhx]

Steam should be optional and not required to actually play the game. Beth will lose sales if it's required to use Steam.

[Shelby McDonald]

I hate steam games... I havea few and if I want to play them I have to have steam installed and 1 requires a connection with steam to run... so if steam goes belly up welll... I may never be able to play them again even though I own the CD. I never buy a digital copy of a game. I like my CD's

[brandon frier]

Like I have mention previously. I wouldn't mind it if it did or not. But ES has always been its own. So not sure if they will require it.

[Stephanie I]

I want to thank everyone for excellent, cvil, well-reasoned contributions to the discussion. In particular, thanks to Hoblak for that link to the poll at Bohemia games. All too often these threads about Steam turn into silly "Steam hate vs. Steam love" nonsense, and it is refreshing to have a calm civil thread in which each of us shares his/her experiences. I know that some of you feel it is tiresome for there to be yet another thread about Steam. But some of us are really, _really_ worried that we will be forced to forego buying Skyrim, as we did with Fallout New Vegas and Civilization 5. I don't "hate" Steam. I have limited experience with it years ago, and I have also read a lot of forum discussions about it, and I read their EULA. Based on those experiences I do not want to be part of it, as long as they continue with the same basic business model. It is just as simple as that. I don't "hate" them; I just don't want to be involved in their service. I can respect that some of you really like Steam. Given it is presently a dominant force in PC game distribution, it therefore makes total sense that Skyrim be available via Steam as one option, and I hope for the sake of those of you who like Steam that it is. But I also hope for the sake of those of us who do not like Steam that we do not have to get involved in that service.

Mount&Blade Warband published by Paradox and developed by Taleworlds is a perfect example here. I do not know about the contractual dealings that are behind the story, but what I do know is this: There are plenty of guys who bought their version of Warband on Steam. I don't even think any CD was involved at all. They authenticated and activated their version on Steam. To some extent patching and modding and such are different for the Steam versions of the game, I've seen threads about such matters on Taleworlds forums.

However, I and many other consumers bought Warband from the Gamersgate digital download site. Similar to Steam in that I have an account there, and I can buy online games there using a credit card, etc. Different in that, there is no client application like Steamworks that is installed and the security anti-shrinkage method used is a simple serial key that is displayed on screen when I go to My Games list on the site. After downloading and installing, I have to entere that key to get the game running. Then I could unhook my game from the internet, and NEVER be rquired to EVER go back to Gamersgate and play Warband forever. No need to fiddle with switching to "offline mode" no need to disable the auto-updating functions, just plain install, via digital download, activate and play. If Gamersgate goes out of business, I do not need to worry about it, because once the sale is done, my copy of the game simply does not need them or their site or software in any way shape or form to be able to conitinue to operate (assuming no corruption of the app of course).

This to me is a very reasonable business model which it would seem affords most of the benefits to both publishers and consumers which Steam affords, but without the reduced autonomy for the user which the Steam client app and default networking expectations involve.

For me, I don't want to have to choose not to buy Skyrim simply because of a decision made about how to distribute and authenticate the game. It is edifying to see that, I am not alone in this regard. Assuming the poll is representative, something like 35 or 40% of us feel that way, plus the additional 25% who express that they would prefer if their are options, but will likely buy it if it requires Steam anyway.

In sum, it would appear there are a significant chunk of us who do not want to have to use Steam to play Skyrim. I hope Bethesda is listening, and I hope they realize that they will do better business if they provide more options to their consumers instead of fewer options.

[BlackaneseB]

xbox 360 ftw

[gemma]

Steam always gives you less and the content is always somehow different. Whether that be patching, activating or whatever.
Remember when there was Oblivion and also Half Life? Well guess what ruled? (for the thinking gamer of course).
Bethesda makes TES, valve made some one hit wonder that no one can remember any more. Need I continue? I will anyway.
Steam is desperately leeching off everyone else because Valve are too fat and lazy to contribute such masterfull works as Bethesda.
They are complete opposites and should NEVER be in the same show. Or given a start for that matter.

I certainly wouldn't mind activting online with Bethesda themselves. It's THEIR game.
Why on Earth should it be on Steam when ANY TES forum knocks Steam for 6 any day of the week.
a heaving, smelly, stinky pile of Steam. eeeeeew NO THANKS!

[Saul C]

Steam is for new age gamers and kiddies who haven't got a clue and will never contribute a darn thing apart from emo, misspelt posts and threads.
Steam always gives you less and the content is always somehow different. Whether that be patching, activating or whatever.
Remember when there was Oblivion and also Half Life? Well guess what ruled? (for the thinking gamer of course).
Bethesda makes TES, valve made some one hit wonder that no one can remember any more. Need I continue? I will anyway.
Steam is desperately leeching off everyone else because Valve are too fat and lazy to contribute such masterfull works as Bethesda.
They are complete opposites and should NEVER be in the same show. Or given a start for that matter.

I certainly wouldn't mind activting online with Bethesda themselves. It's THEIR game.
Why on Earth should it be on Steam when ANY TES forum knocks Steam for 6 any day of the week.
a heaving, smelly, stinky pile of Steam. eeeeeew NO THANKS!

What are you going on about, Valve still makes great games, Portal, Left 4 Dead, Half-Life 2. Valve is just like walmart or Gamestop, they are just an online game store. Not the devils distributor you guys are making it to be.
I don't "Love" steam, I could care less about whether or not it requires steam activation.
But I'm leaning towards Steam activation, because of all the unfair, baseless, misinformed arguments made against it.

[Alexis Acevedo]

Steam is for new age gamers and kiddies who haven't got a clue and will never contribute a darn thing apart from emo, misspelt posts and threads.
Steam always gives you less and the content is always somehow different. Whether that be patching, activating or whatever.
Remember when there was Oblivion and also Half Life? Well guess what ruled? (for the thinking gamer of course).
Bethesda makes TES, valve made some one hit wonder that no one can remember any more. Need I continue? I will anyway.
Steam is desperately leeching off everyone else because Valve are too fat and lazy to contribute such masterfull works as Bethesda.
They are complete opposites and should NEVER be in the same show. Or given a start for that matter.

I certainly wouldn't mind activting online with Bethesda themselves. It's THEIR game.
Why on Earth should it be on Steam when ANY TES forum knocks Steam for 6 any day of the week.
a heaving, smelly, stinky pile of Steam. eeeeeew NO THANKS!

Excuse me? As a Steam user, I don't think I'm very "emo", "new age", or a "kiddie", nor do I particularly enjoy poor grammar in my posts and topics (which I can see you handled in shining hypocritical fashion). If you want to compare Oblivion and Half-Life 2, you can look at sales. Half-Life 2 sold 6.5 million copies without PC taken into consideration, while Oblivion sold 5.6 million copies without PC. There aren't really any records of how well Oblivion fared on PC, but the Steam release of Half Life 2 added approximately an additional 2 million sales to it's total, bringing it up to a total of 8.3-8.6 million copies worldwide. Yes, I would be very surprised if Oblivion sold better than Half-Life 2 considering the PC market is generally the smallest chunk of sales. If you want to talk about Valve, they've made more than a "one-hit wonder". I assume you don't even know much about Valve at all, if you didn't even bring up Portal, which is probably their most successful title. I also assume you've never played Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike: Source, or Left 4 Dead 1 and 2. All of them were very successful titles with fan followings of several million each. Valve isn't "leeching" off of anyone, rather they simply created a one-stop marketplace where developers could sell their games to a wider audience. The requirement of using Steam is entirely up to Bethesda; go yell at them for making the decision in the first place.

So please, know the things you're trying to discuss before you come here and spout nonsense. Your post is a heaving, smelly, stinky pile of fail, much more than Steam anyways.

[Alex [AK]]

God I hope it doesn't require steam. I love steam for some game, ones that I can get cheaply, and don't want to mod. I however, HATE steam for games I mod. Patching is a nightmare. You cannot select which patch to use, and steam adds no value to the product (for me).

Patching is a nightmare? So you hate it when the latest patch it automatically applied for you and you don't have to worry about patching errors and whatnot?

You can always choose whether to update or not. Learn to use Steam.

Steam should be optional and not required to actually play the game. Beth will lose sales if it's required to use Steam.

I seriously doubt that

I hate steam games... I havea few and if I want to play them I have to have steam installed and 1 requires a connection with steam to run... so if steam goes belly up welll... I may never be able to play them again even though I own the CD. I never buy a digital copy of a game. I like my CD's

Valve has a plan in case Steam goes down permanently, they will remove the steam-lock from your games so you can play them without Steam.

CDs are a thing of the past

Steam is for new age gamers and kiddies who haven't got a clue and will never contribute a darn thing apart from emo, misspelt posts and threads.
Steam always gives you less and the content is always somehow different. Whether that be patching, activating or whatever.
Remember when there was Oblivion and also Half Life? Well guess what ruled? (for the thinking gamer of course).
Bethesda makes TES, valve made some one hit wonder that no one can remember any more. Need I continue? I will anyway.
Steam is desperately leeching off everyone else because Valve are too fat and lazy to contribute such masterfull works as Bethesda.
They are complete opposites and should NEVER be in the same show. Or given a start for that matter.

I certainly wouldn't mind activting online with Bethesda themselves. It's THEIR game.
Why on Earth should it be on Steam when ANY TES forum knocks Steam for 6 any day of the week.
a heaving, smelly, stinky pile of Steam. eeeeeew NO THANKS!

:blink:

First of all, I'm not a Valve/Steam fan boy, but I recognize a quality service when I see one.

For those who are complaining about downloading games because they won't have a CD : Download the game on Steam, then create a backup and burn it to a DVD. Problem solved.

Steam always gives you less and the content is always somehow different.

The content isn't different. Steam doesn't modify any game content except the main executable.

Remember when there was Oblivion and also Half Life? Well guess what ruled? (for the thinking gamer of course).

Half-Life, obviously.

Bethesda makes TES, valve made some one hit wonder that no one can remember any more. Need I continue? I will anyway.

'scuse me? No one remembers Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead or Counter-Strike?

Weird, because if I remember correctly Team Fortress 2 was voted the best game ever by PC Gamer this year, with Half-Life 2 following closely (in the top 5)

Half-Life 2 is widely regarded as the best FPS ever created. Team Fortress 2 is probably the best online FPS experience you can find. Portal is (in my opinion) one of the best recent IPs. I don't need to mention how popular Counter-Strike and Left 4 Dead are.

Most people these days know of only 2 games Bethesda created, Oblivion and Fallout 3. It's sad but true that most people don't remember Morrowind, Daggerfall or any of the old TES games.

Valve created the source engine which powers hundreds of games and mods created by other studios. Bethesda used NetImmerse/Gamebryo and failed horribly at it.

Steam is desperately leeching off everyone else because Valve are too fat and lazy to contribute such masterfull works as Bethesda.

Every single IP Valve owns is valued highly in the gaming community and Valve has done nothing but support the PC Gaming scene.

[CHANONE]

To say digital overtakes a hard copy form of media is ignorant but thats a argument for a differnt thread/forum.

[Claudz]

To say digital overtakes a hard copy form of media is ignorant but thats a argument for a differnt thread/forum.

• There were more games purchased digitally than retail last year.
  
• My only newspaper subscription is digital, I don't get anything delivered to my house.
  
• I haven't rented a DVD in more than a year, I always rent movies online. Same goes for my friends.
  
• No one buys CDs anymore, everyone buys them digitally through iTunes or some other music service.
  
• More ebooks are sold than paper books on Amazon.

You might want to reconsider your statement ^

[Cody Banks]

• There were more games purchased digitally than retail last year.
  
• My only newspaper subscription is digital, I don't get anything delivered to my house.
  
• I haven't rented a DVD in more than a year, I always rent movies online. Same goes for my friends.
  
• No one buys CDs anymore, everyone buys them digitally through iTunes or some other music service.
  
• More ebooks are sold than paper books on Amazon.

You might want to reconsider your statement ^

No im stating theres a viable market for hard copies. I buy CD's of everything. Why because I like to have a hard copy with me. I also make Digital copies and I have bought digital media. Just because You do somthing more or somthing or a website says they sell more of this than that does not mean this or that is outdated. there is still a market for a hard copy of media.

[Stacey Mason]

Withdrawn, as it is "argument for a differnt thread/forum".