Digital is the future. However, my point of view is looking at a mostly digital future, not purely digital, which is a significant difference. Yes now purely digital isn't realistic, and is part of why the initial Xbox One was highly criticized. However, we're already seeing a shift into a mostly digital future for…

You're exactly right about Microsoft, and they jumped into it without realizing the impact a digital only avenue would have on consumers. But I commend them for that because they were at least trying to advance consoles at the time, something Nintendo and Sony didn't do this generation outside of hardware. If they had…

I think the only reason this is tied into the subscription is because of the multiplayer of this game, which would make sense. But I do think this is a test by Sony to see peoples' interest in paying less for a digital game, it may just be a case of them choosing a poor one to start with, or it may not. We'll have to…

This is Sony doing it for consoles, which is completely different.

Here's the thing though, I doubt gaming digital distribution only will ever happen. Look at music for an example on this. For 10+ years now digital music has been the way to access music, yet you can still go buy the physical copies. There's too many risks in going digital distro only that companies aren't going to…

Well yes, it could end up being overly abused by companies. But my point was more that it should be cheaper for the consumer. Whether it will be or not is up for debate, but in the end the production cost of major games will go down and that should translate into cheaper prices.

Apologies, I confused your reply with another.

I appreciate the clarification and didn't mean to over generalize if you weren't intended to come off as I suggested. My point is only to make notice that a lot of people are very well aware of the risks of digital distribution and while informing people who aren't aware of it is beneficial, it should be done in a…

Yes, I understand that, but my point is until the one for this game states that's so we can't say that you're just renting the game from Sony here.

I can get that completely, but, and I mean no offense to this in any way, it could be presented better from your point of view.

I'm open to debate, hence why I replied. I'm questioning the more seemingly elitist attitude that seems to come with it. Informing people is one thing, bringing it up in every article of this topic as though people have no clue about it and then acting as a martyr because people are getting tired of hearing about it…

Unless there's literally something in the EULA of buying this game that's stipulated you're renting the game then why wouldn't you be able to make the argument that you own it?

Until it happens, yes. But are you talking about companies purposely taking down a service or it going down from technical issues? Those are two very different things on this subject and should be completely separated.

It definitely feels like them testing the waters on digital distro becoming more mainstream. Which is a good thing.

You're likely told that because people are sick of hearing about it more than anything. I get wanting to warn others, but trust me, they already know.

Except this is obviously done to test the waters on what consumers would prefer, a cheaper digital copy or a more expensive physical copy. And it's worth it, because digital distro is the future whether you like it or not. You mention how this could infringe our rights, but neglect the fact that it could also lead to…

People still use the argument of "one day the cloud won't exist (and other forms of digital distro, etc.)" yet do we have any proof of that actually happening yet? You mention how unreliable computers and the internet are, yet when was the last time a digital distro service was down for more than maintenance?

If that's the case then I'm even more confused by his position. If a game is cleverly designed enough to fool someone into thinking they're accomplishing something that's comparable to real life accomplishments then that game has done it's job, and far exceeds what the majority of games are capable of in that aspect.

My entire point is that other common forms of entertainment rarely teach you anything at all and are as completely unproductive as his opinion suggests DS2 is, yet somehow DS2 is so much worse off for it. Not to mention the majority of games also fall into the same category, yet only DS2 qualifies as the worst game…

While it's the author's opinion that he has a right to present, when many people disagree with it you have to question the opinion's validity. To call the game the worst ever based on his complaints is flat out wrong and begs the question of whether or not the article's headline is click-bait (which is almost…