So you're still arguing from a "collector" standpoint but are ignoring the hardware reliability issues, and that software DRM really is not that hard to bypass, because you're more interested in your narrative then it having any relation to reality?
"Still arguing from a Collector standpoint"? well, your posts seem more argumentative, but there
are lots of collectors here. I did say that it wouldn't matter if you didn't have that mindset, but you're choosing to ignore any qualification or concession I make in my comments to pursue your own narrative! I haven't said PC DRM is un-bypassable. I didn't single out Steam. The observation I originally made in response to the thread starter stands - that there was a point in favour of the games on one of the two platforms they were comparing. A point in favour I've been at pains to add is not applicable to the broader gaming community.
The 'reality' I've clearly been failing to convey is that on a PS3, (as on other consoles, but the OP has a PS3 so here we are) 'ownership' of a game is tied up in the disc itself, the DRM is the console's arena. Assuming you have a functional console, the games work offline, and can be traded, sold, loaned - collected. This is
one reason there's still a thriving market for rental and used console games, but PC games is a minefield mainstream outlets prefer to avoid.
"Hardware reliability issues"?
The OP
has a PS3, today. Today. He already
has one. Too late to worry. My humble opinion was based on his opening question, and this fact. If hardware reliability is such a concern, maybe he should be advised to quit buying games for it at all in case it dies at some point in the future, and for some reason working PS3s become extinct and unserviceable, possibly a first for any games platform? Maybe we should start stockpiling them ourselves - we'll make a killing in 20 years!
Lots of us here have hardware 20 years of age and (far) beyond, some of it considered less reliable than current tech even when it was new!
If there's a demand, someone will meet it, or go mad trying.
"Not that hard to bypass" vs No need to bypass.
I have a friend with an XBox 360. He's
never used it online, had it for 3 years. If he gets a game and doesn't like it, he doesn't need to do anything to trade it in, sell it on or loan it to someone else.
He also has a PS3, had some updates from coverdiscs. This has no bearing on the games he has - he can loan them, sell them, use them on another PS3 without any 3rd party authentication, or need to transfer it. That difference is pleasing to the collector mindset, of which there are a few here.
If he'd asked me the same question as the OP, I 'd have pointed out the same distinction. He probably would have saved a bit of money too, as he bought GTAIV for his PC and got hacked off with it's authentication business and bought it on the 360 instead.
If you're basically 'done' with a game once you've had your fill, it won't matter at all. Both classes of gamer exist in abundance. I know people who treat their games discs with contempt and think it's normal for a game to be reduced to an unreadable scratched messed up coaster within months. They just shrug and buy a new game while I look on in horror and make sure they know they can never borrow any of my games.
All this isn't a slur on Steam.
GOG.com's service won't render it moot until they sell current non-DRM titles
Witcher 2 and as I said
GOG is shifting toward stocking new games as well.
"Shifting towards" is not today, and the OP was very much rooted in the present. In the run up to Christmas, I don 't imagine a lot of buyers itching to shoot someone new and unfamiliar in the face, or itching to buy a gift of the latest face shooting title for their nearest and dearest are going to defer their planned physical gaming purchases because GOG is
going to be carrying their desired weapons based entertainment at some unspecified date to come. They will cross that bridge once it's fully opened, although for some the allure of physical copies in nice boxes will linger for as long as nice boxes and physical copies are made. Especially extravagant collectors boxes with disappointing extras inside, surrounded by acres of styrofoam.
This thread's opening post, since resolved, buried and given the last rites, states he has a PS3 today. Today. Itching to play new games now. Face. Shoot. In. The. Must. Now. Merits of two platforms ask did he.
His needs have been resolved, his face shooting has commenced.
Of course, you are ignoring the
Playstation 3 is not the most trusting console and you might not be able to run that game even if you were lucky enough to find a PS3 20 years down the line as it might not have the required security update or other software/driver patches required to run the game installed, and the servers might not exist and thus it's software DRM has locked you out. And, sadly, thanks to the fact it is a locked down system Sony is willing to try to take on the entire Internet to protect you will not be able to do anything about it without engaging in activity that is much more illegal then using a Starforce removal utility or equivalent.
And the PC is the most trusting? Even the OS doubts it's own authenticity sometimes.
One 'might ' not be able to play a PS3 game in 20 years in exactly the same way one 'might' not be able to legitimately activate a present day physical copy PC game on the same day. A working PS3, be that a miracle or simply a well preserved, repaired or remade retro device will play a surviving disc, making it's arthritic bearded retro gamer owner very pleased with a warm self satisfied inner glow at the stress free nostalgia of it all (assuming there isn't then a loud BANG and puff of smoke).
A PC (such as they then exist) will almost certainly require some level of faffing about to get a 2011 vintage game that required activation running, even if all that means is an additional piece of software, illicit patch, archaic OS image, witchcraft or Nuclear Physics, not to mention an antiquated optical disc drive. It'll almost certainly be less painful and more convenient by then to repurchase the title ready to run from whatever online service then carries vintage face shooting titles, and that disc you've preserved all those years is a pointless shiny relic, or possibly an enjoyable technical challenge if that floats your boat.
You can kind of, sort of, not really argue that the console approach kind of, sort of, not really is more automated and thus not in your way as some standalone DRM solutions like Starforce. This collector line of thought however is just you deluding yourself. The current console hardware isn't like that of yesteryear it's not known for being particularly durable, and it does have an OS that like a PC OS does have software updates associated with being able to actually play a game. And you know how much Sony has shown they truly care about insuring backwards compatibility with the PS2 in their current console instead of seeing it as an opportunity to force you to either buy new hardware or rebuy the games through the PSN [sarcasm]so l can totally see why you have absolute confidence Sony wouldn't just see it as an opportunity to screw you for more money.[/sarcasm]
Um.. You seem to have a Bee in your bonnet about Sony. Once again, the OP's question, long since resolved, revolved around the relative merits of persisting with
current titles on a system he
already owned - a PS3 - vs splurging on a PC. Sony is the comparison platform because that's what the OP
has not because I'm their Number 1 fanboy or anything.
A, yes, functional offline PS3 will play a software title without even being aware the internet exists. The same disc can be used on another PS3 instantly. There ended my original two cents contribution for the purposes of the original thread question.
20 years down the line I'd imagine lots of innovation will exist to maintain any old hardware that may have expired parts, just look at what's out there today for systems of 20 years ago. Which is all beyond the point though, as the whole '20 years hence' business was an obviously failed injection of humour. Being able to play 2011's top face shooter in 2031, on the same platform was not one of the OP's concerns, just one of the highly speculative, limited though not non-existent appeal, potential upsides to investing in software for one of the two platforms.
The reality is your claiming:
(Gabe Newell quote disavowing DRM)
-Gabe Newell, Valve CEO
is the height of evil, but THE DRM company that is unique in going to the extremes of believing in setting up proprietary formats, rootkits, and that your devices don't belong to you is completely trustworthy.
Um.. no, I only once referred to Steam in a joking response to your quote, even then I have repeatedly conceded this model is the way things are going. Again, the OP's question was about a PS3, that he already owns, today. This is why the Sony is the comparison platform. The first post. In this thread.
Sony's rootkits, proprietary formats, anti piracy stormtroopers, orbiting death-ray satellites and lawyers of infinite evil are of no concern while they are constrained to the evirons of a PS3. There, they do not affect the workings of my PC.
!
That is a benchmark.
