Hideo Kojima has reacted to the news that PlayStation will soon discontinue disc games, telling an audience that he’s “really sad” about the news but more concerned about what could happen if cloud gaming becomes dominant in the future.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Who was the shitstain who said gamers "need to get used to not owning games"?

Yeah well fuck that guy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    Then why arent his games DRM-free and released on GOG? Death Stranding had Denuvo.

    Classic say what is popular PR move.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Because he's not the publisher Sony is and they ultimately control the budget and marketing which includes adding Denuvo.

    Only thing he can do is advocate against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (10 children)

    It was infact published by 505 Games on PC, after Kojima got the rights to the IP from Sony. But he owns Kojima Productions, he chose which publisher to use and agreed to their terms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    The first one was published by 505 not the 2nd one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    How does that change anything? Death Stranding still had Denuvo and both games are not DRM-free or released on GOG (or elsewhere) with standalone installers. His comments are a PR move, otherwise he would put his money where his mouth is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

    Because it drives home what I said earlier.

    He can only advocate that the publishers don't add Denuvo.

    You have two instances with two very different publishers both requiring Denuvo. If it was only major publishers like Sony/Ubi/EA pushing it that would be one thing. But even when smaller publishers like 505 are requiring it that should tell anyone how expensive and troublesome it is to publish games. The only way he could circumvent requirements would be if he decided to self publish the title. Kojima may have been around for some years and might have some money but he doesn't have self publish AAA titles money.

    And besides, you can be apart of an industry and recognize it needs to change and voice your concerns for it. That's how progress starts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I know you love him dearly, but he could have done a lot better. 1 man studios manage it, surely big Kojima could have. This is simply another Kojima PR move, which he is good at.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    Please show me a 1 man studio that has the capital to develop AAA titles that cost well over 100 million. Please I'll wait.

    The only thing I love here is how genuinely dumb you sound with that reply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    You can keep moving the goal posts all you like to defend your daddy, but he didn't redevelop the game, it was just launched on PC, which did not cost over $100 million to do. He then made a second one, made the same decisions. He does not give a fuck about game ownership or he would lead by example.

    Stardew Valley was made and published by 1 guy, has sold over 40 million copies and has a DRM-free release. Turns out you don't need to spend $100M or a publisher to make a more successful game and support game ownership. Where's the goal post going next? Just gonna be stuck on how much a game costs to make? Gonna move it to the graphics? Pointless actor hires? Surely if you spend over $100M you can make a version with no DRM, right?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    My guy the one moving goal posts here is you.

    I explained to you in the most simplest of terminology that the publishing party decides if Denuvo gets added not the developers. You then decide to go on this brain dead ass rant about PR moves and 1 man teams publishing games. That is goal post moving.

    And then you vomit this reply out?

    Again, I asked you to find a 1 man studio, after you claimed they exist, that had the money to self publish a TRIPLE A GAME which typically run about 100 million to make. And what do you pull out in defense of your own goal post moving? The indie darling Stardew Valley.

    Can't make this shit up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I haven't moved anything, I have stuck to the same point the whole time. Kojima is in a position to provide a DRM free game, he chooses not to. I said solo developers can manage it, I never mentioned budget, that was a goal post you moved so you could better argue. Costing $100M to make and DRM-free are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist and Kojima is in one one of the best positions to do it.

    Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur's Gate 3, DOOM Eternal, all AAA games which each cost around $100M or more. All have DRM-free releases.

    How are you so unbelievably dense? Get that Kojima dick out of your mouth for a minute and think about what you are saying. You fanboys are crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    My guy you said 1 man teams could self

    I asked you to provide an example of your claim within the AAA industry and you couldn't.

    Guess what, Baldur's Gate, Cyberpunk, and Doom Eternal were not one man teams. So still wanting on that proof.

    The only thing here dense is your understanding of the game industry. Try harder man.

    Also to clown on you more.

    Baldur's Gate and Cyberpunk are self published. Which is very ironic because I uhh said this earlier

    The only way he could circumvent requirements would be if he decided to self publish the title.

    Oh and as far as Doom goes.

    They didn't fully remove Denuvo until 2023

    Crazy man. So confidently incorrect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    I asked you to provide an example of your claim within the AAA industry and you couldn't.

    The goalpost you moved. I never said a one man team made a AAA game with $100M. I said an indie developer can make a DRM-free game, what's stopping a AAA dev (as shown with the AAA examples, clearly nothing other than choice).

    Baldur's Gate and Cyberpunk are self published. Which is very ironic because I uhh said this earlier The only way he could circumvent requirements would be if he decided to self publish the title.

    Yes, which as I said earlier:

    But he owns Kojima Productions, he chose which publisher to use and agreed to their terms.

    So, Kojima could have self-published. Those titles are not just 'magically' self-published, there is a choice made there.

    Oh and as far as Doom goes. They didn't fully remove Denuvo until 2023

    1/3 of the examples, yes. But they still did after 3 years, Death Stranding still hasn't after 6 years...

    I see you are going to resort to going around in circles now though in an attempt to defend your beloved, so I am going to move on, as you'll never admit defeat. Good luck out there! o7

  • source
  • parent
  • 62 comments in c/games@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 24 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Can't wait for Death Stranding 3 to feature a character called "Sad Discman"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    At the end of the day discs are not the important part consumer protection and the right of first sale in the digital space just need to be created to fix this mess. I also wonder if the Tariff tomfullery was a factor as they couldn't have any consistency of cost and profit like before.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    the right of first sale in the digital space just need to be created to fix this mess

    That sounds nice at first, but if you think about it, the logical conclusion is that: rather than an artist making a sale per person who wants to experience their work, they would make sales proportional to the maximum number of simultaneous viewers. With digital ownership, it would be trivial to instantly transfer ownership, so the moment someone is done playing a game or watching a movie, they'll sell it instantly to someone else.

    The only content that could benefit in such an economy is low production value slop that seeks to go instantly viral and issue licenses while there's still demand. Then by the time it dies down they're on to their next slop hit. That and live-service titles that try to keep people holding their licenses. Short single-player experiences, and games from small creators who rely on passive income from a few new people finding their game over time would sell a few copies at first, and then the licenses out there would just always undercut the purchase of any new license.

    Also the exchanges would make a bunch of money by taking a cut of each sale. Which is arguably better than just Sony or Valve taking their cut.

    I don't like it either, but we can't act like right of first sale for digital licenses would solve all problems and not create any new ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    The shorter version I’ve used to describe this concern is: Imagine game resale could happen through a script kiddy’s Python program. Rather than individuals arranging sales over chat, anticipate that most sales would be arranged by online sites that are copying the model of GameStop, and twice as scummy as CSGO skin gamblers.

    You sell your copy of a game you bought for $50, down to $20. It’s bought instantly by an AI algorithm, and then relisted for $34.99. Then that one’s bought instantly to resell for $39.98.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I'd be surprised if the arbitrage opportunities are that broad, but yeah, it would be dominated by automated trading. It would be the same as trading stocks. Every piece of content would effectively have a bid/ask spread for its licenses, and people would have bots that are constantly speculating on them. I suppose when trade volume is low and prices vary, the swings could be quite wide trade-to-trade.

    But this is what NFTs are, just with a decentralized exchange so that no single company can take a cut of every trade, and we already know how people felt about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 77 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    You could release DRM free copies that users can copy to any form of media they like. If you are using DRM and complaining about this I have no respect for you.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 4 months ago

    I don't disagree with you but I also have to assume there are contracts / stipulations in place that prevent a publisher from doing this after sony/microslop/Nintendo agree to sell digital / physical copies if your game.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    So you'd rather live in a world without Metal Gear Solid, Zone of the Enders, or Death Stranding?

    There's no way Konami or Sony are going to let that fly. Should Kojima have died on the DRM hill on principal instead releasing his art to the world the way he did?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    hence why I'll never own a playstation device again.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    But who is left? Nintendo?

    And that's only because Nintendo tend to lag about 5 years behind everyone else. They're not sticking with physical out of their belief in physical games, that's for sure. Half their stuff is already a key and a download.

    Realistically, it wouldn't really matter about discs at all if we had real digital rights. The rights to transfer games from one account to another, or even between stores. The rights to copy games to other devices, and copy them back again, or even from an online source if the original disappears for whatever reason.

    Physical games could take the form of a keycard with a license on it, similar to a credit card chip. Scan it on my machine to attach to my account. Scan it on another to attach to someone else's account and remove from mine. Run offline by leaving the card in the machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I still buy blurays because I like owning the disk. I should have the same option for video games

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I agree, and buy physical games too, but I don't think the law can mandate a disc drive.

    It could mandate that digital goods remain ours forever, and that companies provide a way to keep them forever.

    We've been lucky that the main players in this are still going. Valve, Sony, MS and Nintendo have deep pockets. But we've seen companies go bust before, and they'll go again. Sega were the top dog until they weren't. Before now we've always had the physical option. Now we won't. This is the tipping point and laws must be made to protect us before we lose everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

    I haven't bought a console in over a decade, but I was under the impression that most/all "physical" copies these days were little more then digital download codes on discs or in cases. How many actually hold the whole game, enough to qualify as "owning" it?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Most discs still contain the full game, most physical releases contain discs of the full game

    Some physical releases are just an empty case with a code. Some Nintendo Switch cartridges are just license dongles for the game download.

    You’ve never owned a game. You’ve only ever licensed a game. This is true for all software. Removing the physical medium of distribution just allows the copyright cartel the control it has always wanted over something you paid for. But they have been hoodwinking consumers over what “purchase” and “buy” and “own” mean. Technically speaking, any game company could send you a C&D and tell you to stop playing their game forever, your license is revoked, and if you ever played it again they could sue for damages. Doubtful they would, as I doubt it would be worth their time; but this does mean they have the right to just decide their work is no longer available and vanish all digital copies; and they could also make all physical discs stop working through system software updates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Exactly. The only reason physical media has seemed like "owning" is because the mechanism to actually enforce their license has not been feasible.

    You know how often movies or shows flip off on streaming services? That's the future of games if the laws don't change

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Well, you see, Ju$tice is expensive and unreliable.

    So the decision of using or not the Justice System for enforcing one's rights isn't purelly "am I likely to win", it's also about "is it worth it bringing it to Court", which is especially important when the damages one is entitled to get are low (like the price of a game).

    At which point "who controls the thing under dispute", which is theoretically unimportant in a perfect Justice System, becomes the main deciding factor.

    Maybe an example will make it clear:

    • You have a game which the publisher wants to take away from you. They're actually in their right to do so: you actually read through and accepted BEFORE PURCHASING (this is important in jurisdiction which aren't legal jokes, unlike the US) a set of terms and conditions that gave them that right and it was clearly that this wasn't a sale but a time limited licensing. However you have the actual installer for a single player game (in your computer, physical disk, whatever), totally free to install, no phone-home DRM authorization check - you control that copy. They have to actually take you to court to force you to delete that game from your system and destroy all copies. This is a $50 game. Are they really going to do it for a $50 game?!
    • Similarly but reversed: you bought a physical disk with a game, it cost $50, it has phone-home DRM to install and to run. You didn't agreed to anything before the purchase and you're in a legal jurisdiction (such as Germany) which is not a joke so the implicit rights from a sale cannot be altered unilaterally post sale by a forced change of the contract terms of the sale (i.e. EULAs aren't valid there). You're in the right yet they block you from installing or running that game. To get back what you're entitled to or compensation (all of $50) you have to take them to court. Are you really going to do it for a $50 game?!

    Anyways, the point I'm making here is that well before a Court of Law actually goes through the whole thing and determines who is in the Right and orders a certain action in favor of and/or compensation for the injured side, de facto the outcome is often decided by the actual stakeholders deciding "is it worth it taking this to court?" and in a system where Justice has costs (the bigger the costs the more that's the case) "who controls it" is pretty much the single biggest factor in that decision.

    In simple terms, unless there is some kind of streamlined Judicial process for that kind of case (like there is around things like loans) bringing a case to court to force the side in control of something to act in a certain way with it is only worth it for large monetary amounts, and generally the price of a game is below that.

    It just so happens that at the moment for console games having the installer for it in a physical medium in your control is having control of that copy but, as my example above illustrates, if the game does phone-home DRM authorization checks like some PC games go, it's actually not really under your control even if you have it in physical media.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Not true for the majority of games, however there have been a few that have done this or something like this.

    Been seeing this sentiment a lot in the wake of the news and want to stress, most games still come on disc these days. FF7 Rebirth, for example, is so big it comes on two.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Hidden Kojima

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    The same Koijima thar was doing a game for Stadia?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    He pitched it, it was approved, he started working on it.

    Then he received pressure to make it multiplayer (presumably to add microtransactions). He refused, so the game was canceled.

    Yes, that Kojima. The same Kojima who never sold you a microtransaction, weapon skin, season pass, or even a paid DLC. The same Kojima who never compromised his artistic vision for a payday, the same Kojima who never bowed to studio pressure to make his game "more accessible" or "more marketable". The very same Kojima who had to be forcefully removed from his own studio before he'd allow Konami to have a say in his creative process; yes, him. That's the Kojima you're referring to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Same kojima who is apparently very good friends with Geoff "the Doritos pope" Keighly

    Yeah that's probably the worst I can say about him, but Geoff's events really makes my skin crawl with his overly sponsored/branded shows

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The same Kojima who did not make a Stadia game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (16 children)

    God I wish his games were better.

    I’ve tried to get into them many times, and usually I find the experience to be soooo lacking.

    It’s sad cause when he does get it right, the game can be really good, but he focuses too much on things he thinks everyone wants, like very long cut scenes.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Have you tried the death stranding series? I just finished 2 yesterday. It was fantastic. In both, you can tailor your experience - skip cut scenes, drop difficulty to 'story' for frustrating fights, etc. But those games tell a story in a way only video games can. And all the little flourishes that emotionally connect you to your character, like rocking the controller to sooth the baby sealed in your chest pod, are so charming and affecting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    As someone who loves Kojima games and has since MGS1, not wanting multiple hour-long cut scenes in an action game is a perfectly reasonable preference. Even diehard Kojima fans acknowledge he's long-winded with his storytelling and his pacing is glacial; it's practically part of his style at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Yes that's perfectly reasonable, hence a matter of taste.

    I acknowledge all those things but I like them. I hope everyone is able to find games they love according to their own subjective tastes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    More like a patience issue.

    I just don’t have the time to invest in something that I don’t find fun for the sake of it getting fun later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I 100% agree especially now my time is so limited and I have so many amazing experiences to choose from, but the thing is some of us are enthralled by these games from start to end.

    There's no one else around who actually makes games like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    If you don’t like the long cinematics just skip them. Problem solved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    But I play games to enjoy the story, the art of game making is about telling a story in an interactive way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, you think that solves the problem? Go play MGS4 or Death Stranding. Skip every cutscene, then come back and tell me what happened in the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    He should launch a console.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Hideo should know that having a disc doesn't mean your ganm will work and in some cases is as good as a game-code as all it does it download a massive 'day one patch' when you pop it in.

    This shit is silly af.

  • source
  • [+] -16 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Said the guy who released a horror game teaser then took it off the store…

    Death stranding sits at about 10k votes to bring to gog.com but nah. Gotta have that DRM.

    But nice try Kojima. You almost got me.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I’ll call bull on the game removal front. Pretty sure that was Konami being shitsticks when they had the falling out.

    You are spot on the GoG front though. If he really cared about ownership he would of put it on the storefront and not hid behind the DRM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    Fair enough. Apparently that was 12 years ago already. Damn, where did the years go?

    But yeah Kojima is just doing cheap lip service here. He never cared about game preservation at all. Sorry for the people here that worship him like a god but he never chose game preservation when he actually did have full reign.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    It’s a teaser for a game that never came out, I’m pretty sure he had complications with studios. What’s the point of keeping a short demo of a game that was canceled?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    P.T. was the announcement teaser that Kojima was to be directing Silent Hills with del Toro but then Konami cancelled it as the company exited the video game industry and Kojima left to found their own studio.

    Why blame Kojima for something Konami did without their involvement at all and long after they’d left the company?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments