Game Industry Association Avoids Discussion on Digital Ownership Issues

Sony is set to eliminate physical discs entirely by 2028, and this decision has sparked significant backlash from the gaming community. Many are understandably upset about the implications of this move.

One group that has voiced concerns is DoesItPlay?, a community dedicated to video game preservation and cataloging available games, particularly those with online features. They provided a comprehensive statement highlighting the potential fallout from Sony’s decision.

The shift away from physical media undermines the core principles of ownership and could have dire consequences for the gaming industry. By removing physical copies, Sony effectively eliminates true ownership within its closed ecosystem, granting them control over distribution and pricing. This change could also devastate the second-hand market, making it harder for some players to access games if they can’t afford the inflated prices. Additionally, it could stifle word-of-mouth promotion and reduce discoverability, leading to lower sales across the board. Developers have already expressed frustration over the challenges of being noticed in digital storefronts like PSN or the eShop, and this issue will only worsen without physical retail options.

Moreover, this decision threatens the viability of developers and retailers. Many developers have cited the option of physical releases as a key reason for bringing their games to PlayStation, as it not only reaches a broader audience but also allows them to see their work in a tangible format. By moving away from physical media, Sony risks alienating the very creators who contribute to its platform’s success.

The ramifications extend beyond just developers. Many content creators and media outlets rely on monetization strategies like affiliate marketing. A decrease in available games or the closure of affiliate partners could severely impact revenue streams across the industry. While some may worry about the future, many are committed to their mission, even beyond 2028.

A larger issue is the general apathy or ignorance surrounding these consequences. Rising prices due to a monopolized storefront and the absence of customer protection laws will ultimately harm consumers. Sony’s recent actions, such as the removal of Studio Canal movie purchases without compensation, highlight the potential for similar issues in gaming. Legal challenges and advocacy efforts, like those from movements aimed at preserving gaming rights, are crucial now more than ever. Without these efforts, consumers risk becoming mere wallets for corporations.

It’s frustrating that the Entertainment Software Association, the industry’s main trade body, has remained silent on this issue. I reached out for their perspective, but they declined to comment on Sony’s decision or the broader topic of digital ownership.

This lack of response is disappointing but not surprising. The ESA is made up of leaders from major gaming companies, including Sony, and it’s unlikely they would jeopardize corporate interests by speaking out against a member. Despite their claims of consumer protection, their priorities often align more with corporate profit than with safeguarding player rights. The ESA’s survival hinges on the industry’s profitability, not on whether gamers own their titles outright.

One would hope that the ESA, representing the major players in gaming, would advocate for the overall health of the medium, ensuring that as many people as possible can continue to enjoy video games. If only a few can afford to play, the entire industry suffers. You’d think they would at least acknowledge the issue, even if it’s just to say they’re working on it.

Instead, the ESA has actively obstructed efforts to keep games accessible. In the past, I covered a hearing regarding an amendment aimed at allowing legitimate researchers to access digital games for academic purposes. The ESA resisted even the most basic proposals to protect against piracy, and when I reached out to its members for comment, only one responded.

This issue extends beyond researchers; it encompasses the need for public access to games in libraries, similar to books and films. What happens when someone invests in a console and a game, only to find they no longer own it? Currently, it seems no one in a position of influence is addressing this concern.

After Sony’s announcement, I spoke with Frank Cifaldi, executive director of the Video Game History Foundation, which has been tackling these challenges for years. He noted that while Sony’s decision may not drastically impact historical preservation, it reflects a troubling trend in the industry’s disregard for physical media. Many games from the last two decades were never designed for physical release, and even those that were often required day-one patches, meaning the disc may not represent the game as it was intended to be played.

Cifaldi and I share a sense of bewilderment at the industry’s apparent indifference to the decline of physical games. The expectation that institutions like ours will find solutions is unrealistic. If platform owners eliminate physical media and older digital storefronts, trade groups like the ESA should advocate for legal frameworks that allow archives and museums to preserve digital content. While everyone acknowledges this is a pressing issue, the ESA has consistently opposed efforts to reform digital copy protection laws, making it harder for cultural institutions to do their work. The industry must engage in meaningful discussions about preservation, as relying on outdated methods is not a viable solution.

I’m at a loss for how to address this situation. We can’t rely on our government, especially in the U.S., to proactively protect consumer rights or cultural heritage, given the lack of understanding or concern from many leaders about video games. Ultimately, it seems our best hope lies in the collective efforts of researchers, preservationists, dedicated fans, and even those on the fringes, to ensure that video games remain a vital part of our cultural landscape.

If the ESA or any major companies have a better solution to propose, I’m all ears.