I appreciate all of the comments so far. Lots of really ace responses here! To respond to just a few, We agree. As far as I'm concerned, the non-ownership already took permanent residence with the widescale implementation of Steam (so, well over a decade ago). The hope at this point is that companies will act in an economically rational fashion, as clearly there is still demand for DRM-free gaming. I think if hypothetically any big DRMed service were to lose content that a lot of people care about, there would be outcry. Imagine for example if del Toro's Silent Hill had been released, people paid full price for it, bought cosmetic DLC, etc, only for it to be removed from services and their accounts.

But back to niche markets, it is a shame that Kickstarter has a mixed reputation in videogaming circles because the potential with a platform like that is there to really quantify what kind of niche market may exist for a given game/genre/franchise. It has literally resulted in beloved genres finally getting new games, no thanks to the big publishers. I also think the increasing development of board game kickstarters may be representative of a desire for people to get away from all the always-plugged-in, always-microtransaction trends, but can't prove this yet.

This is a very interesting point but I think the analogy with the rollercoaster is flawed (other than that nearly every game anymore is so obviously "on rails"...see that epic Dragon Age II meme earlier in this thread). A rollercoaster is a "fun thrill ride" but can't offer the same escapist universe experience a great RPG can, for instance. And I would imagine the technology would go the most towards graphics rather than trying to recreate a deep RPG-like experience. Decades of gaming have gone this way, using technology to push graphics over fully realized worlds, after all. But that said, even if a future company would indeed make the game to end all games, I think the value of owning that game would only be increased. Maybe not to the masses. But I certainly would be content not supporting it if I couldn't own it.

In theory, they should be able to. However, the publishers have a vested interest in killing off traditional ownership models, so steps toward streaming end up being steps away from ownership.

The direction has been obvious for nearly two decades now and was predicted way back when games started requiring online verification en masse. For pointing it out we all got called conspiracy theorists and told to tighten our tin foil hat because it would never happen.

We screamed even louder about the direction when private servers started vanishing from new releases and EA never said anything about them again despite very public outcry.

We complained when they began to make games driven by analytics rather than feedback, analytics that would be used to maximise 'surprise mechanics' rather than make better games.

We groaned in despair as their forums for games began to evaporate in favour of social media and conventions where only 'the true fans' went and cheered at every little nail in the coffin of gamers having any right of their game.

You only need to look at how quick EA dropped Mass Effect Andromeda vs the constant defending and propping up of Anthem. They'll cut their own noses off to save a dying slot machine, but won't lift a finger for something that could be a strong game.

Yep, EA are not just one of the biggest show cases of everything wrong with the gaming industry, they're the ones who have actively been driving it this direction for years. Knowing full well if they kept targeting successive generations, the new gamers coming through would eventually never remember a time when we did own our games, and thus think we're all nuts for complaining about the things we complain about.

EA deserve every bit of the evil tag they get, and a lot of other gaming companies are not far behind.

Outside of that tirade; like you, I don't have a problem with DLC in principle (though I prefer stronger separate from the base game expansions). DLC can be an effective way to support smaller developers and support servers for multiplayer games. It's just so much of the DLC out there is batshit crazy handled wrong.

Even with Netflix most of them were naive and thought a $12 monthly subscription was going to replace all their DVD renting and buying. Now we're gonna have 20 different streaming services all with exclusive content because of that. Of course many of the average Joes will just go back to piracy, and us honest folk will be the ones getting screwed.

Honestly your doom scenario is oddly comforting to me, because the more games become something I have zero interest in... online only worlds driven by microtransactions... the more I can ignore them. If every shooter is Borderlands or Destiny in 10 years then I don't have to ever buy a new shooter, which I can stomach more than seeing some amazing new Doom game that's only available through streaming with input lag that makes mouse control impossible. If I'm majorly lactose intolerant it's easier if ice cream just doesn't exist, you know?

Anyway my core point is consumers will always choose convenience and perceived value over anything else, and will always be ignorant of the risks, and I don't think there's anything we can do about it. If Stadia works like the Assassin's Creed beta did in a reliable way for everyone anywhere near a Western city, I think we're screwed. But we'll see.

And they always have. Remember self-destructing DivX discs? Point is, there will ALWAYS be a huge market for people who want to HAVE things. It's why Blockbuster didn't kill off VHS purchasing, or later DVD, why people didn't embrace music purchasing until Steve Jobs convinced the record labels to just sell the fucking things as DRM-free files, and why, despite the cries of the PC Master Race, console SKUs are more profitable. Yeah, companies would LOVE to just not worry at all about consumer rights, but they'll never leave the money on the table, especially with internet sucking the way it does in most rural communities, to say nothing of the rest of the world outside of Japan, South Korea and maybe France.

I think Valve showed what would really happen earlier this year, when they ditched support for older operating systems, with zero recourse for users. It seems you don't get a non-updating "final" version that will launch your games (even if it didn't do anything else) or anything like that, instead you are just locked out. Their official answer to "what if I have an old OS" is "upgrade, sucka". (OK, that last word is more implied than stated, but still.)

Corporations want to own everything, so naturally they hate the idea of the common peasants owning anything.

EA dnt get why there the bad guys if any EA people are here il give you some reasons why you think that

1. every game you make is the same every year boring
2. all your games are littered with lootboxes
3. your predatory lootbox systems turn kids and adults into digital gamling addicts ( this isnt just EA)
4. the sheer fact you care about money more than the psycological welfare of people who buy your games
5. killing all ip's you take control off such as need for speed, star wars and others

maybe if you fix all of the above people wont hate you EA, until then il continue to hate EA and the sooner you dissapear as a company the better all the money oyu get is dirty

Did you see the Blizzard 'don't you people have phones' diablo mobile presentation. lol that one will make you laugh even if it's not EA; same out of touch douche bags.

Yeah I did, but EA's recent statements kinda blew that out of the water, but it was also pretty damn funny.

The bbc has an article about kids emptying parents bank account with regards to fifa. Mor ammo against EA but also the parents are to blame as well for not checking the bank account. Here is the article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48908766

They can offer what they like as a consumer my choice is to buy or not.
My choice is based on value.
In the share economy viewpoints are free, almost instantaneous, multitudinous for cross referencing.
Thus it becomes plainly obvious where values align and what is happening in the background.
It's why there was such a big push for esports.
They need esports to get truly mainstream so the next generation of kiddies dreams that their future job will just be playing entertaining self ingratiating & engaging games.
That will force a keep up or lose out mentality that will force these draconian idea's past the first part of the techno bell curve into mainstream acceptance.
Once there is mainstream acceptance options retract & diminish till their way is the only way.
Then owning computer hardware becomes a mute point.
Why spend $3000 on a pc or console even with games accessories etc. (because they'll end up the same experience) when all it will do is cannibalise that value back into capitalist pockets.
I don't buy steam. Not one steam game, ever.
For me multiplayer has retracted and AAA are usually not on offer.
With that I have more cash, I have found alternatives to entertainment; I now watch a lot more tv, play boardgames, I've just bought an archery set to get back into one of my childhood loves, I do firespinning and my interests in games have gone to things that are likely not to become diminished any time soon.
Labors of love like dwarf fortress or classic games atari joust, retro arpg's & of course the free home brew scene including some visual novels.
My point is the more consumer hostile the market becomes the more market hostile consumers will become and this massive increase in expectations fueled by the hardware acceleration will plateau when things are real enough that adding gimmicks won't help and companies will simply have to become more efficient as the only route to making games affordable enough that they don't feel the need to be so draconian with the impetus driving not to be so draconian because they will see the profit graph crashing because of an anti-consumer stance.
Companies want DRM for 2 reasons: to gate access and to prevent undermining initial sales.
What they need to be doing is making a game that lasts they can use initial piracy to scream past the tech 'early adopters' part of the bell curve into being mainstream & successful; then add value from there without diminishing the game to only being 'part of the whole experience.
The former (gating access) will just push people off the platform altogether and make it even harder to get them back.

I already woke up to that like ten years ago or so, when Valve/Steam dropped support for Windows 2000. I was playing my Steam games (meaning Half-life 1-2 I guess; I didn't really own any other Steam games back then), when one day I suddenly couldn't launch the Steam client anymore, as it just stated support for my OS (Windows 2000) was dropped.

Yes yes, I later upgraded to Windows XP and could play the games again, but it did reveal to me what an extra risk it is if there is the extra layer, the forced client, between the game and you. So even if the games themselves would have run fine on Windows 2000, I still couldn't run them because the client didn't want to run on that OS anymore.

The analogy I used back then was that if all my PS2 games would have stopped working one day and there would have just been a message: "Sorry but Sony does not support PS2 anymore. If you want to continue playing your PS2 games, please upgrade to a PS3. Thank you for your co-operation, good night.". And then the Robocop theme music would start playing.

Here is an example of what I was talking about earlier, how "the masses" don't necessarily realize (rather than "don't care") about what DRM can mean to them:

https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-ebook-apocalypse-drm/ So I guess the point is that first the masses must understand (= be educated about) the consequences to them if and when a store/service shuts down, AND that many times there are alternatives (like GOG) and they can make choices based on what happens to the content after the store is long gone.

In this case, MS decided to refund the purchased books, but I guess they'd do this only because there were so few customers and MS has other sources of income. A digital gaming store like Steam would definitely not refund all customers all their games on the closure, after all those monies are used up and long gone. :)

I guess streaming movies/music is different from games. Those mediums are much more limited in their relationship with the audience, mostly. And then if one likes a movie/album so much that they want to own it, they can purchase physical media, and I don't feel ownable media is going away anytime soon.

In case of games, the difference nowadays is that you don't get the option to choose from either a lower priced streaming option or a higher priced copy you can own. We don't have it. It would not have been such a big issue if game streaming services offered subscription services on a similar purchase tier to movie/music streaming services. You can try out any game you want for a few $ (or your local currency) a month, and those games you really like, you can "own" if you spend full price; that would not have been bad.

Also I stay away from purchasing e-books. Not only the fear of loosing purchased books, but also the experience of reding books is much more than reading words. The tactile experience of reading a physical paper book can not be reproduced electronically.

You have to buy Witcher 3 on GOG and PS4 separately, and you'll have to buy it separately on Switch as well. That's the actual outrageous day-to-day reality: no single point of purchase with access on all supported platforms. That would be more drm-free than having an offline pc-only installer. That's what actually matters, not the possibility of a top-tier provider going completely down without any trace. Evin If steam or ea or amazon goes out of business it's only because someone bigger and better got established and serves everybody and no one cares about steam or ea or amazon anymore. You think you'll care? And if you don't like being dependent on always-online internet think about how you put up with being dependent on always-online power grid.