As long as digital games can be preserved, and that through preservation a user has continued access to the videogame, it shouldn't be a big issue doing away with physical media. It is what it is: installation media.
There is an attempt to pivot all gaming to subscription services. The problem is that the pool is only that big, and that not every game can be sustained via subscription. It is then inevitable that game access will lapse in such a model, in particular those that are third-party.
Regardless, MS has built massive mindshare around Game Pass. I won't be surprised that questions related to this will be asked by the commission: Will gamers rather choose a subscription to a gaming service over a perpetual license to access and play a game? I know this is coming. In the future, it will be a push for cloud (or virtual) gaming.
It is good to still cherish physical media. People could potentially trade it or sell it, too, so there is that intrinsic value. I, who still own a quite large physical gaming library containing mostly pre-2010 PC games, don't have a place to store them. Digitisation does play its part.
Interesting times ahead.
I am discussing this whole topic in another place, but I'm not going to link to it. There are some good arguments being made by community members. It would be great to see Steam provide installers, but I remain of the mind that Steam should play its part as a digital game custodian, too. This isn't only applicable to Steam, but it is the biggest player in the space.
I saw Running with Scissors post this on X:
The platform currently has all the tools for good practices, the EULA means nothing when you can back the games onto a hard drive and call it yours.
Literaly the only thing Steam needed to be perfect is to offer the ability to create offline installers like GoG does.
They are wrong about the EULA, but they are rebellious. But yes, having the installer, you could sidestep the rules. Also, I see it is now deleted, but someone related was very much against my idea of custodianship. Maybe they misunderstood the idea thereof. Nobody will ever own a copy of a game; all you own is the right to access and play it. Even Running with Scissors has an exclusive ownership clause.
At the end of the day, this is what should be achieved, copied from one of my own documents:
The right to use and play video games should be a protected consumer right, ensuring reasonable access without equating it to full ownership.
The right to use itself should be a form of ownership that needs protection. Reasonable access can be guaranteed via a protected copy being kept available for use. There are, at this time, numerous online game stores that already have copies available for distribution that are archived within repositories. Just like hoarding physical media, a user would also need to hoard their digital games library; this is not reasonable. There is a whole lot more to this, also covering modifications, and also who gets granted access upon "sunsetting". It is a broad discussion, with far too many technicalities. I am not going to touch on it all.
From everything I read, the proposed action that gets the most clout is that for open-sourcing... You are going to have a really difficult time if you want access to IP, and IP that is connected to or built upon other IP, etc. Never mind bad actors wanting to exploit code and make it available for training, etc. The last thing gamers would want is erosion of digital property.
Anyhow, I hope that the right arguments are made, and I have read some good propositions from others.
citizens-initiative.europa.eu
www.techspot.com
