Nintendo tries to reassure enraged gamers that physical games probably won't ever "100% go away"

[Tharthan]

The "game-key card" debate has been a serious controversy in the gaming world.

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/as-fan ... e-of-that/

Game-key cards give users a full download of a game rather than allowing them to simply play it right out of the box, which has prompted concerns about game preservation, and generally hasn't been met particularly warmly by those who value physical media.

Game-key cards, [former Nintendo marketing lead Kit] Ellis points out, can be seen as an "extension" to [full game download codes sold on Nintendo eShop gift cards in physical stores.]

"What they had to say was, you know, even going back to the [gift] cards that you can get now, Nintendo really wanted a physical representation of a digital product in a retail store," Ellis explains. "Which makes sense, because Nintendo really values the retail channels, more so than a lot of other gaming companies."

Furthermore, he mentions that the original game download gift card idea "was really widely adopted within the company, nobody was really questioning it, it was like 'Yeah this seems like a great idea for us to kind of have it both ways.'"

Nintendo thought that they could have it both ways, huh? Why do they think they're being called out right now? Because they are trying to have it both ways, at the expense of gamers who value physical games.

[Former Nintendo marketing lead Krysta] Yang notes that "they make so much more money off of the digital games," so "of course they're going to be looking at other solutions to kind of fill that gap, or even try to transition people over to an all-digital world."

I have to imagine that at least some gamers will boycott the Switch 2 if Nintendo tries to get all gamers to go all-digital. Maybe Nintendo won't care about that, and will say "don't let the door hit you on the way out," but they can nevertheless be assured that this will get some people to drop Nintendo.

However, one key point that the three ex-Nintendo staff agree on is that it's highly unlikely the company is looking to phase out physical games entirely. "This person was also very clear in saying like there is going to be some form of physical," Yang adds. "The physical nature of video games is not something that's going away, and Nintendo is not going to take that away. They realize the importance of that."

Ellis later adds, "I can't see the physical games vanishing completely," while Yang says we'll have to "see this initial batch of sales" and how they might "inform the future decisions," but "I don't think that physical is ever going to 100% go away, I don't think Nintendo will ever do that."

"Talk about someone that knows their audience, they absolutely understand the audience, that their most dedicated audiences that just want this because they have this emotional tie to their brand, and they want to cultivate that. So I don't think that they're going to go out of their way to, you know, sever that bond."

If game-key cards are the "form of physical" that Nintendo allows to remain, that's the same thing as eliminating physical games. It's a distinction without a difference. "Reassurances" like that aren't reassuring at all, they essentially amount to deception.

But, for the record, I can definitely see that happening. Because Japanese gamers don't seem to care about this and are not pushing back. And Nintendo is a Japanese company. So, unfortunately, I don't see this turning out well.

[Moonchild]

It depends entirely on if the games involved are actually untethered. If not, and they require an on-line tether, then they are not physical games. Then the "card" is just a licensing token.

[RealityRipple]

I used to play Dauntless (2019). Now they've taken it down and I'll literally never be able to play it again. Meanwhile, I've got a CD of Diablo 1 (1995) that I still play every Halloween.

[Mæstro]

In the Beginning Was the Command Line (1999) offers the following analogy which I would like to extend:

[​I]n various parts of our world, it is possible to go and visit rich fossil beds where skeleton lies piled upon skeleton, recent ones on top and more ancient ones below. In theory they go all the way back to the first single-celled organisms… The fossil record [of] software technology is the Internet. [Underneath is technology that has already become free. Above is technology that has yet to be developed, or that is too crazy and speculative to be produced just yet.] Anything that shows up there is free for the taking (possibly illegal, but free). Executives at companies like Microsoft must get used to the experience—unthinkable in other industries—of throwing millions of dollars into the development of new technologies…and then seeing the same or equivalent software show up on the Internet…even just a few months, later. By continuing [to add features] onto their products they can keep one step ahead of the fossilization process[,] like mammoths caught at La Brea, using all their energies to pull their feet, over and over again, out of the sucking hot tar that wants to cover and envelop them.

We have cause to be uneasy. Many creatures have failed to be preserved, for they were soft, with neither bone nor shell to turn to stone. Mountain-building and weathering have warped and ruined many fossiliferous strata. Younger layers tend to bear more fossils. Beyond a certain age, the stone has all been turned to crystal and whatever it might have preserved has been destroyed. The Internet Archive estimated last year that maybe a fifth of webpages since 2013 have been lost, and its records become spottier the further back one goes. (Many of us have surely noticed the early 00s’ erratic coverage.) A site like Anna’s Archive claims maybe to preserve one in twenty books in existence. How many have been lost? I swore off DRM in 2019, and the last time I used a console at all was with a friend in 2018. I have lost enough from early childhood already, and am only interested now in what I can keep, now and for ever. I faintly predict that, as decades pass, I can only ossify further as new technology grows ever more egregious. If the passing decades make me into a trilobite, then I will wear this as a badge of honour.

[Moonchild]

I have lost enough from early childhood already, and am only interested now in what I can keep, now and for ever.

On the other hand, not all things need preserving. It's fine to let go and move on.

It just becomes different when something is taken away from you that you wanted to preserve, especially if that thing was something you purchased and are supposed to own. Too often, companies want to redefine "purchase" right now, and that's something to fight against.

[Tharthan]

It depends entirely on if the games involved are actually untethered. If not, and they require an on-line tether, then they are not physical games.

From what I understand, the "game-key cards" are basically download codes in a box, except that the piece of paper with the download link that one might expect is instead disguised as a game card. But putting in into the console and attempting to use it just brings up the eShop (either in front of the gamer or in the background invisibly) and prompts the user whether they want to download the game or not to their console.

Yet, hilariously, I believe I read that it still forces the player to put in the game-key card every time the player wants to play the game, as if it were actually a physical game. But not one bit of the game is actually on the card at all. So it's entirely performative. In contrast, simply going to eShop and getting the game digitally does not require the player to insert any game card to play it.

So the game-key card serves absolutely no purpose at all other than for Nintendo to pretend to be offering the option of physical video games when they are actually only offering digital games.

But the thing is, right now, if publishers want to fork over an arm and a leg to buy actual, genuine, licensed game card copies, they can in fact sell real physical games for the Nintendo Switch 2. But it costs a stupid amount of money to do so, and for no reason. In contrast, it didn't cost much money to release a physical game on the Nintendo Switch. And the Nintendo Switch didn't have game-key cards at all from what I understand. In any case, all of my physical Switch games are actual physical games.

I have heard that, for the time being, first-party Nintendo games will be released as actual physical games on real game cards. In other words: first party games will get actual physical releases on the Switch 2.

But not so for most third party games. I heard that Street Fighter 6 is going to be (has been?) released on the Switch only as a game-key card and on the eShop as a digital release. That's not an obscure game, obviously. So this is frightening many gamers. Are most third party games now not going to have actual physical releases any more?

So perhaps you can understand, Moonchild, why many gamers are furious at Nintendo right now. I, for one, will not be buying a Switch 2 if I can't get enough of the games I want on actual game cards.

The one thing that might be a bright spot is that more and more I have bought various games via limited time only releases published by the company Limited Run Games. Given that Limited Run specifically caters to gamers who want physical games, I can cross my fingers that they will go out of their way to put out actual physical releases of the games that they get temporary licences to publish. But in my experience, it tends to be certain high-profile indie games and sometimes certain JRPGs that end up having limited releases via Limited Run. It's not anywhere near all games. Not by a long shot. And as far as I know, Limited Run doesn't publish physical releases of games that already have (or claim to have) regular physical releases. So if a game is already released on the Switch 2 via "game-key card," I'm not sure that Limited Run will get a licence to publish an actual physical release of the game.

[moonbat]

why many gamers are furious at Nintendo right now

That has never negatively impacted their sales despite years of their reputation for being manic about DRM and siccing lawyers on anyone trying emulation. Gamers will suck it up and continue as they always have. Besides I'm guessing most of their games are focused at kids, not the triple-A gamer demographic, so parents will continue to fork over the money for titles that are 20 years old.

[Tharthan]

Besides I'm guessing most of their games are focused at kids, not the triple-A gamer demographic

I dunno. Do you consider the The Legend of Zelda series "focused at kids?"

I've always seen it as a legitimate (maybe even the premier) adventure game series.

I don't play it, but Nintendo also releases Fire Emblem. That's a pretty well-respected (if sometimes controversial) tactical JRPG series.

Games like Kirby and Mario are fun for all ages, but they are legitimate platformers. There were at least a few levels in Super Mario Wonder that were a bit difficult.

parents will continue to fork over the money for titles that are 20 years old.

Actually, those kinds of games are the sort that most people were more than willing to buy digitally via the Virtual Console since the days of the Wii. Nowadays, most of those games are available "for free" (read: available for rent as part of a subscription, for only the length of time that the service is online) if one gets a Nintendo Switch Online account.

(If you weren't aware, Nintendo stopped offering free online multiplayer several years ago, and now requires online multiplayer gamers to pay a subscription for "Nintendo Switch Online" in order to use Wi-Fi-connected functions of games that offer such things and for online multiplayer.)

However I make no bones about buying Legend of Mana's remastered release on the Nintendo Switch, along with Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX and XII on the Switch, because I had wanted for many years to play those games but couldn't because I was a Nintendo gamer. I was proud to buy my copies of those games. However, most of those were remastered and had additional features and enhancements that the original releases didn't have.

[Moonchild]

putting in into the console and attempting to use it just brings up the eShop (either in front of the gamer or in the background invisibly) and prompts the user whether they want to download the game or not to their console.

Yet, hilariously, I believe I read that it still forces the player to put in the game-key card every time the player wants to play the game, as if it were actually a physical game. But not one bit of the game is actually on the card at all.

That really isn't so problematic, as long as it's not linked to an on-line account or tether. It effectively moves hardware-stored game data from cartridge to server, and if the game key card acts as an unlock for on-device stored data similar to a cartridge with game data, then it's functionally the same. Like I said it depends entirely on how it's implemented whether this is a good or bad thing. Storing the game data as a digital download to be stored on device storage has advantages too as it can be updated as-needed; with a cartridge-stored game that would either not be possible or still use device storage to hot-patch or replace cartridge data with downloaded data (effectively making the hardware data unused) -- which would effectively end up with the same situation if enough data is updated.
In that situation, the difference is only that it requires an initial connection to download game data if the game has not been played before, and is inherently dependent on download servers being available. If the key-card is literally used like that, then it can be used just like a hardware copy of the game, meaning it can also be used on other Switch devices, borrowed/sold like a hardware copy, etc. since it will require insertion of the key to play the game.

So, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the premise of this, as long as that is how it's implemented. If it is, however, not doing it this way and requiring a tether to play, not just access to the download initially, then you don't actually own the game like a hardware copy. And once again it should be only linked to the key card, not any online switch/nintendo account, because ownership should be entirely and solely linked to the key card without further credentials.

[Tharthan]

It effectively moves hardware-stored game data from cartridge to server, and if the game key card acts as an unlock for on-device stored data similar to a cartridge with game data, then it's functionally the same.

...Other than the fact that you won't be able to play it on, for example, a new (or other) Nintendo Switch 2 once Nintendo inevitably shuts down the online servers for the Switch 2 down the line. And of course: it's all going to take up loads of space on your console's storage. None of the burden will be borne by the game card. It all will fall on your console. Not just optional DLC stuff or updates＊: the entire game. And, of course, your save data will take up separate, additional space on top of that.

＊

Obviously, the size and frequency of updates depends upon the game you're playing. Some games actually have few to no updates following release, although those games admittedly often tend to be smaller or lesser-known titles or are re-releases.

And again, you merely have a "key.". But a key to something without the actual something is meaningless, so I repeat: you are totally dependent on Nintendo's servers in order to have your 'something'. It's like a slip that has a combination to a locker that no longer exists. At that point, it's just a useless piece of paper. Or in this case, a useless piece of plastic.

This is a big part of the reason why game preservationists are especially irked by the whole thing. I don't blame them.

That really isn't so problematic, as long as it's not linked to an on-line account

I don't know if this is how it works with the Switch 2, but on the original Switch, in order for something to be downloaded from the eShop to one's Nintendo Switch, one has to have (and be logged into) an online Nintendo account. Indeed, in order to even access the eShop from the console, one has to log into one's Nintendo account. It seems, from what I read, that the game-key cards won't be locked to a specific Nintendo account, but I don't know if you still need a Nintendo account to initiate the download.

If it works anything like it does on the original Switch, you'll have to be logged into a Nintendo account to get any digital game downloads.

...

In my opinion, Moonchild, if someone is fine with a game-key card, they might as well do themselves a favour and just buy the game digitally, because that's practically what they're doing anyway.

For me, the reason I've stood by physical games (despite having occasionally bought some digital Virtual Console titles on my Wii, 3DS, and Wii U) is because I like to actually own my games. I don't want my video games to all be reliant on servers in order to even exist. I want to be able to hold up my cartridge and say: behold—the game! And always being able to share it with friends, even decades down the line, is great too.

In summary: I want to actually own my stuff. I also want to be able to have my stuff.

And I'm not the only one:

I don't play Western games for the most part, but amongst the many others who are outraged by this, the director of Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 4 has said "I hate it" with regard to game-key cards, and said that "we're losing some of what made the business special." He did say, however, the same thing that moonbat said: "Nintendo is going to get away with it."

According to what I've read, many (if not most) third-party developers have opted to release their Nintendo Switch 2 games physically thus far only on game-key cards. Even the latest game in the Bravely Default series—a series of respectable JRPGs—was released on a game-key card.

But I have in fact seen some gamers who have said that they absolutely won't buy game-key card games, or will only buy them if they're games that they don't intend to keep around anyway. The sort of "play it once, then get rid of it" kind of games. So I wonder if this will lead to a transition to just full-on digital games for most gamers, even those who prefer physical games. I've already seen some say that, in response to this, they will only buy digital games going forward. As for me though, this is a red line. No physical games? No Switch 2 for me. I guess I'll hang up my hat if that's how it has to be. But honestly, I'm hoping that there will be enough Switch 2 games that come out on real game cards that I can justify getting a Switch 2 and having at least a modest library of games for it. I'm crossing my fingers.

[moonbat]

You can't own stuff if it's tied to an online account for purchase verification. It's why I have always shunned the highly restricted walled gardens that consoles are, in favor of PC gaming. And GOG does it the best way - no DRM and you can freely download the full installers for the games you purchased for local backup so even if the entire site disappears tomorrow you will still have your copies. Plus they have several old games dating back to the DOS era, updated for direct compatibility with modern OSes.

[Moonchild]

Other than the fact that you won't be able to play it on, for example, a new (or other) Nintendo Switch 2 once Nintendo inevitably shuts down the online servers for the Switch 2 down the line.

Thanks for selectively not reading the stipulation that you need access to the servers to download...
As an important point:

in favor of PC gaming. And GOG does it the best way - no DRM and you can freely download the full installers for the games you purchased for local backup so even if the entire site disappears tomorrow you will still have your copies.

this has the same requirement of needing to download

The only difference is that you cannot backup a copy of the game. But that is true for any console, even those where you buy a full game on cartridge or disc. A console can't backup what's on its game media. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be using any console to game on.

[Mæstro]

On the other hand, not all things need preserving. It's fine to let go and move on.

It just becomes different when something is taken away from you that you wanted to preserve, especially if that thing was something you purchased and are supposed to own. Too often, companies want to redefine "purchase" right now, and that's something to fight against.

When writing, I had in mind Web sites which underwent substantial revisions for the worse beginning in the early 2010s, where Archive coverage has been spotty. I have managed to preserve enough from these that they are not simply gone for ever in total. Once, I was even fortunate enough to visit the site a week before its declared shutdown so I could archive as much as I could from it. Alas, these are both representative, substantial samples of the sites, not the sites in their entirety, and I know of other sites which have been more thoroughly lost. I agree many things can be safely discarded, and I am no longer the digital hoarder I had been in 2019. I preserve the anime I enjoy, but not the series I watch casually with family. Even now, I am sitting on gigabytes of chat logs with an ex-friend who betrayed me which I might well delete. Nevertheless, I only become attached to things I could keep as long as I choose.

Happily, I have not actually lost anything important to DRM in particular, which is more relevant to this thread. I still own my childhood CD games. When I abandoned Steam, I arranged DRM-free versions of every other game important to me. On two occasions, I contacted a visual novel’s developers for the necessary files, and on both, the teams kindly prepared DRM-free editions just for me on condition that I do not distribute them further, which I have respected. (Incidentally, this was the same time I switched to Pale Moon; the undertakings were related.) I never took much to consoles, although I would play Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers with schoolmates after one of the buildings in the school library, accessible from the main corridor, became a student lounge.

The only difference is that you cannot backup a copy of the game. But that is true for any console, even those where you buy a full game on cartridge or disc. A console can't backup what's on its game media. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be using any console to game on.

Perhaps not legally in some jurisdictions, but it is technically possible. The (original) Wii is the console with which I am the most familiar, as noted above, and it is easy to find online tutorials about how one would go about copying its discs.

[moonbat]

this has the same requirement of needing to download

True, but games have long stopped being able to fit on physical media if we're talking DVDs; 150-200 GB isn't uncommon for graphics heavy triple-A titles. With GOG, you download it once and can then keep and reuse it forever regardless of what happen to GOG itself. In that sense it is like how physical media for software used to be - completely offline and independent of the supplier.

[Mæstro]

150-200 GB isn't uncommon for graphics heavy triple-A titles.

My eyes bulged upon reading this. This is more than double, almost treble my entire home directory’s contents, including thousands of high-resolution maps. The largest games I have ever actually played on my own computer are Civ Ⅲ and Ⅳ, which each occupied 1·7 GB. My vision is poor, yet even I can make out a hair fifty micra broad. Is the common man’s vision really so sharp he can really resolve every last detail in this patently absurd mass of graphical data?

[Moonchild]

Is the common man’s vision really so sharp he can really resolve every last detail in this patently absurd mass of graphical data?

It's the inherent problem with our current solutions for 3D graphics. Real-world objects have almost infinite detail -- how much you see of it depends on how close you are to it. Games will have to compensate for that with relatively large textures, or it becomes an ugly mess when being close to the objects in view. Multiply that by the number of distinct objects (and variations) you have in a game, and you get ballooning game sizes.

[BenFenner]

Meanwhile, I've got a CD of Diablo 1 (1995) that I still play every Halloween.

I absolutely adore this game. I've played it relatively recently for the millionth time. I did not get into the sequels like my friends.
I might need to hunt down a copy of the expansion (with the monk character and vegetation levels). I have not played that part since it came out decades ago.

Similarly, I have the CD for Sim City 2000 and I will load it up and play it again soon, as I sometimes do.

Ownership includes (among other things) the ability to resell on the secondary market. Good luck reselling a digital license.

That has never negatively impacted their sales despite years of their reputation for being manic about DRM and siccing lawyers on anyone trying emulation. Gamers will suck it up and continue as they always have. Besides I'm guessing most of their games are focused at kids, not the triple-A gamer demographic, so parents will continue to fork over the money for titles that are 20 years old.

This is the sad truth, and echos my thoughts. If you're not boycotting Nintendo by now, you've not been paying any attention since the NES days. And those who are paying attention are a drop in the bucket.

[Tharthan]

Ownership includes (among other things) the ability to resell on the secondary market. Good luck reselling a digital license.

Although I am firmly against game-key cards (and as I said, despite having always been a Nintendo-only gamer, will drop Nintendo if those ever become the only 'physical' option available) one can technically resell the game-key cards. They aren't locked to any particular Nintendo account, so they can be resold and used by another person.

The concept is trying to cheat the customer out of owning the product that they bought, yet not end up losing that customer. And it tries to do that by way of offering the booby prize of a download code in a box masquerading as a game card so that the customer can still have something to display on their shelf once they buy it. But it is nevertheless true that game-key cards can, in fact, be resold.

Side note

Incidentally, someone said that this whole concept reminded them of NFTs. I don't know enough about NFTs to know if there's anything to that comparison, though.

If you're not boycotting Nintendo by now, you've not been paying any attention since the NES days. And those who are paying attention are a drop in the bucket.

Well, speaking for myself, it's not that I'm not paying attention, it's that:

A. I have a certain commitment and allegiance to Nintendo (I also have a tiny amount of their stock—full disclosure) that I have had for as long as I've played video games. Arcade games are an exception, but other than that, when it comes to video games, I've been a Nintendo gamer through and through. And I still have most of my games and consoles from decades ago.

B. They have great first-party games and franchises. Stuff like The Legend of Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Metroid, POKéMON, Star Fox, and Super Smash Bros.,just to give several examples. Now, certain games in some of those series might be less stellar than others, but the series themselves are fantastic.

C. They have had some great system exclusives. Even when it comes to genres that have often given Nintendo the cold shoulder so to speak the past couple of decades, they still have some real gems. One that immediately comes to mind is Radiant Historia. That was an absolutely fantastic, touching, and thought-provoking JRPG.

D. I had always tended to agree with Nintendo's philosophy (and particularly Nintendo of America's philosophy) that they'd had since the NES days, with regard to games. While some criticised it, they used to have a family-friendly commitment when it came to most of the content that they allowed to be published on their systems. Sure, there were some M-rated games that managed to get published, but a large swath of games on Nintendo consoles were T-rated and E-rated titles that most anyone could enjoy. They've dropped that philosophy since at least the Wii U and 3DS (they famously refused initially to allow that one popular Western game from a while ago, "The Binding of Isaac," on the 3DS eShop. They reversed themselves on that later on, I think, but you get my point) but it doesn't change the fact that they held on to it when other console developers had no interest at all on appealing to a desire for family-friendliness.

I've only played a handful of M-rated games ever, and I am a big supporter of family-friendly content when the content is really high quality and awesome, so that philosophy resonated with me.

E. The Nintendo Switch was a game changer. Many games and series that had for years been completely denied to Nintendo gamers were at last available on Nintendo. I felt as if sticking with Nintendo all these years had finally paid off.

F. Up till now, Nintendo has been the best when it comes to genuinely physical games. It is my understanding that, for years, Sony and Microsoft have already been taking an approach with their games pretty much analogous to the game-key card concept that Nintendo is only just introducing right now. So if you've wanted actual physical copies of newly-released games, Nintendo's been the way to go for quite a while now.

[Basilisk-Dev]

I purchased a Switch 2 and Yakuza 0 on release day. I was not familiar with the concept of the Game Key cards until I put the cartridge into my system and it had to download the entire 45 GB game. I'm not super thrilled about it to be honest, I will make sure not to buy any game key cards in the future.