110
PlayStation fans brutally reject Sony's disc decision, eye Windows 11 PCs over Xbox
(www.windowslatest.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
110 points (84.0% liked)
PC Master Race
21787 readers
6 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aside from Nintendo, how often to today's games actually fit on physical media and not require downloading/patching to play?
Actually asking, I don't have any consoles.
Most games from my small-to-medium sized collection fit on a single blu-ray disc. Only some bigger AAA releases don't. I think only like 2 games I own have more than one disc - Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2.
I'm actually surprised they'd be willing to supply multiple disks. Thanks for the info.
Well they don't always, but you can just use multiple discs in that case. I think final fantasy has done this as well as a recent example, but this has already been done since the days of games still being on CD.
It’s significantly more expensive than simply having the rest be downloaded via an update.
With developers going under left right and centre, putting an even higher cost on their production is a death sentence.
That's not because of the discs lol. If you afford to spend 300 million on slop like concord, you can print discs. And a franchise like gta 6 can definitely afford them.
It is because of discs, actually. Every single extra dollar it costs to manufacture them is like 5% of the revenue from the sale of the game that the publisher loses out on. That’s huge.
I'm sure they'll be fine compared to the 30% that sony/steam takes.
So because they already lose 30%, they can afford to lose another 5%?
I don't see why not, they could before couldn't they? Even if you want to stick to the cost argument, i don't have to care about that, cause i need to look out for myself as a consumer. If they can't provide a way for me to own the game, i'll simply take my business elsewhere. There's a reason i opted to buy a disc edition ps5 instead of a digital edition, because i didn't want to be locked to their storefront. That hasn't changed one generation later, so if that's the only option i'm just not going to buy it. Also, you claim physical is dead, but the situation is more nuanced when you look at the sales on a per game basis. There are definitely a lot of games that sell more digitally, but there are also first party titles like rift apart that have a 75%/25% physical/digital ratio. I think they're definitely taking a risk alienating those first party customers by going digital only, but we'll see what happens i guess.
You absolutely don’t have to care about the profitability of the companies who make the products you enjoy……unless of course you want them to keep making more of those products.
As for games like rift apart, that game had a physical copy bundled with consoles for a long time. Anything bundled isn’t worth counting.
Also where did you get your physical:digital split for that?
By Sony’s own figures, over 85% of all first party titles sold are digital.
If they screw me over then no i don't want them to make more products, i can live without.
So if the sequel to your favourite game of all time was too big to fit on one disc, had been in development for 10 years, and had spent all of the developer/publishers money getting it out, and they opted to make it require a download as well as the disc, and the game was going to be your favourite game of all time, never to be beaten……you’d prefer they go out of business and never make another game?
That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I mean, they don't HAVE to go out of business, i'm just saying i wouldn't buy the game if i knew upfront that the game wasn't on the disc. It's not that i never buy digital games, but i usually never buy them full price, if i do it's usually on pc, and even then it's rare.
An extra 5% in costs is often the difference between a company existing or not.
I'm not sure what else you want me to say, i've said my piece. I can't feel bad about every company that goes under because i didn't buy something from them, otherwise i would be living under a bridge. I don't want to be at the mercy of the one single storefront that exists on playstation going forward, so i won't be buying those consoles anymore.
I’m saying that it is often, if not always, not financially feasible to do a multi-disc release.
Wait, i'm confused now. Have we been talking purely about multi-disc this entire time? Cause if so, there aren't many games that even need this, and usually games that are big enough to need 2 discs are made by companies that can afford it, like rockstar and square enix.
There used to be CDs that came in cereal boxes, occasionally a game would be on two disks.
Also starcraft was on two disks for the installation, though I believe the second disk was for expansion to the main campaign.
Oh, Starcraft! I can only afford 1 copy but want to play with my friends... install multiplayer only on secondary pcs. or was that warcraft 2, or both
I was there too. I remember installing Doom from floppy disks. I've just never had an Xbox or Playstation, so I have no context for how those medias have evolved over the years. I assumed at this point they were mostly digital already.