No physical discs for Playstation games (1st & 3rd party) from 2028 onward

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fezzik
  • 235 comments
  • 17,243 views
From a cursory check you may not like what that does to the prices of games.

Maybe there's cheaper options out there (are read-only SD cards a thing and are they cheaper?).
Perhaps a card/stick that the game is stored on so instead of running the game on the card (like a disk), it is simply stored on the card and you download its content and play it on your console (essentially like having a back up of your game). However though, to avoid piracy, they might have to have a system so that you can only play the game if the card is plugged in, even if the game data from the card is already downloaded.
 
Last edited:
But it's also not really relevant. Discs are done now, with streaming ripping the rug from underneath the home cinema market (as I said, a quarter what it was five years ago) even at 4K because the average person has more than enough headroom to stream a 4K movie while someone else in the house is also doing that
Interestingly the sales of UHD movies grew last year (which I think you had previously mentioned), but in comparison to 5 years ago it still is a shell of itself. It will be interesting to see if that growth continues. Over the last year, when walking into my closest bricks and mortar store to browse for movies the UHD section has grown while the BD and DVD sections continue to shrink.

The problem with streaming 4k movies from most services is that the quality isn't on par with a UHD disc due to the bitrates that they are streamed at. Colour banding can be very noticeable on streaming services while in the same scene from a UHD disc the colour gradient is smooth just as an example. Don't get me started on the audio.

When the streaming services eventually bump up the bitrates to a comparable level of UHD discs that will be no doubt be the end of UHD discs for movies if it hasn't already happened by then.
It's a niche market and is already available (kind of as the movies are downloaded not streamed) though the buy in price is abhorrent. Frankly for most people that have average quality tv's and a soundbar at best the current steaming is fine as they aren't chasing or can't afford the best possible quality that's available.

In the meantime I'll keep buying UHD discs while I can.
Just come out and explain that discs are dead and that you'd love to support them for longer because fans really appreciate a good limited physical edition
This is what I can't get my head around and couldn't agree more.
 
Last edited:
From a cursory check you may not like what that does to the prices of games.

Maybe there's cheaper options out there (are read-only SD cards a thing and are they cheaper?).
I'm 100% sure you're right and I'd hate that. ugh the whole thing is dumb and is a real turn-off for the future of entertainment as a whole.
 
Perhaps a card/stick that the game is stored on so instead of running the game on the card (like a disk), it is simply stored on the card and you download its content and play it on your console (essentially like having a back up of your game). However though, to avoid piracy, they might have to have a system so that you can only play the game if the card is plugged in, even if the game data from the card is already downloaded.
The issue is likely cost. High capacity storage isn't cheap, and even though you can get around bit rate by installing the game to a local drive, the actual storage device would likely push the price of physical media games up a lot.

You can bypass that by the car simply containing a key that grants you access to download the game, but then you end up having to ask, why bother with the physical media over just a digital only download in the first place.
 
They want to remove the free market and relative value to sap as much as they can from you. Simply put.
100% that's the whole intention behind it. By getting rid of the free market, they'll have more control on what the market value for games will be, and you can be sure they'll use that to squeeze as much money as they can out of you. I've also mentioned in an earlier post that we can't discount the possibility of them leaving game stores in the dark should they decide they only want to sell games on their own digital storefront. We can't say for sure if that will happen or not, but it does certainly bring us one step closer to seeing game stores rendered obsolete.

The introduction of digital-only consoles helped with that too. They tested the waters with them for this generation and it succeeded. Not only were people buying into them, but it provided the opportunity these companies needed to ease them into the market. Makes it all the easier to make that final push.
 
Even a 256GB SD 8.0 card (300Mbps) is over £200, although a CFexpress A 4.0 (2.0Gbps) would be better and still just about £140.
The price for sale has next to nothing to do with the price to produce. Especially with storage and ram these days.

So much storage and ram has been bought up by huge companies to artificially inflate the price like mad. Another market which is completely artificial/controlled in its values.

There was never an actual shortage.

The price to produce these is hilariously low compared to what they're selling for, because they think we are idiots.

Yet another free market trying to be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
The price for sale has next to nothing to do with the price to produce. Especially with storage and ram these days.

So much storage and ram has been bought up by huge companies to artificially inflate the price like mad. Another market which is completely artificial/controlled in its values.

There was never an actual shortage.

The price to produce these is hilariously low compared to what they're selling for, because they think we are idiots.

Yet another free market trying to be destroyed.
While you aren't wrong that the prices are massively inflated at the moment, and production cost is the real number, you have to consider, what incentive or motivation is there for a company to sell these cards as a physical games medium for significantly less than as a generic storage drive. There is none. So the cost to the consumer would still be astronomically high. The prices need to come down, sure, but they're still volatile.

When we do consider production cost, while a disc costs pennies to produce, a capable card would cost around £5. That's roughly £5 per unit of profit wiped out without putting the prices up. Even on something capable of 2gbps, you are still transferring data slower than M.2 drives as well, so it still might not be capable of running some games directly off the drive.
 
Even on something capable of 2gbps, you are still transferring data slower than M.2 drives as well, so it still might not be capable of running some games directly off the drive.
Just a minor correction - M.2 is a form factor, NVME is probably what you're referring to. SATA SSDs are available in 2.5 inch and M.2 formats, whereas consumer NVME drives (which can be significantly faster) usually only come in some M.2 variant.
 
Last edited:
So much storage and ram has been bought up by huge companies to artificially inflate the price like mad. Another market which is completely artificial/controlled in its values.
These companies don't buy ram or storage to inflate the price, they buy it to be on top of the "ai" game*: running useful ai models requires a lot of data, this data need to be stored on a fast medium (ssds) and for training (feeding the data to gpu systems) the data needs to be processed many times so something even faster than ssds is required: ram.
These companies buy almost everything available on the market, the biggest one can afford to buy capacity from manufacturers and did so for the next few years.

*AI companies currently don't make profits (the closest one to make profits is Anthrophic) of the subscriptions they sell, they can only survive because they get boatloads of money from investors. To stay in front of competitors and keep their subscribers they need to go "bigger" and "better".
Companies that make profits of ai are companies that sell hardware (for example nvidia with gpus, network cards & switches, or micron or samsung that make nand for ssds)
 
The price for sale has next to nothing to do with the price to produce. Especially with storage and ram these days.

So much storage and ram has been bought up by huge companies to artificially inflate the price like mad. Another market which is completely artificial/controlled in its values.

There was never an actual shortage.

The price to produce these is hilariously low compared to what they're selling for, because they think we are idiots.

Yet another free market trying to be destroyed.
These companies don't buy ram or storage to inflate the price, they buy it to be on top of the "ai" game*: running useful ai models requires a lot of data, this data need to be stored on a fast medium (ssds) and for training (feeding the data to gpu systems) the data needs to be processed many times so something even faster than ssds is required: ram.
These companies buy almost everything available on the market, the biggest one can afford to buy capacity from manufacturers and did so for the next few years.

*AI companies currently don't make profits (the closest one to make profits is Anthrophic) of the subscriptions they sell, they can only survive because they get boatloads of money from investors. To stay in front of competitors and keep their subscribers they need to go "bigger" and "better".
Companies that make profits of ai are companies that sell hardware (for example nvidia with gpus, network cards & switches, or micron or samsung that make nand for ssds)
This is actually being fought in court, at least for DRAM: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/1124...ed-dram-price-fixing-and-collusion/index.html
100% that's the whole intention behind it. By getting rid of the free market, they'll have more control on what the market value for games will be, and you can be sure they'll use that to squeeze as much money as they can out of you. I've also mentioned in an earlier post that we can't discount the possibility of them leaving game stores in the dark should they decide they only want to sell games on their own digital storefront. We can't say for sure if that will happen or not, but it does certainly bring us one step closer to seeing game stores rendered obsolete.

The introduction of digital-only consoles helped with that too. They tested the waters with them for this generation and it succeeded. Not only were people buying into them, but it provided the opportunity these companies needed to ease them into the market. Makes it all the easier to make that final push.
This is why I am convinced what the public wants, should regulators act under anti-gatekeeping laws, is not to allow third party app stores on the console (something that already happens on mobile), but rather pushing them to keep making physical media - costs be damned.
Commentary on one of the legal cases, which doesn't amount to much, the shocking part is the details on Xbox, I didn't realise they were that far in the hole, noting that the numbers quoted don't even include the 75 billion acquisition of Activision. https://fortune.com/2026/07/09/sony-playstation-discs-lawsuit-xbox-antitrust/
Paywalled article.
 
Paywalled article.

Strange, I can view it no problem - anyway, the gist is Xbox invested 20bn in the last 5 years, the result was half a billion drop in revenue, including 33% drop in hardware revenue. They are now selling four studios and shedding 20% of staff. That 20bn figure is curious too, given they paid 75bn for Activision during this period.
 
These companies don't buy ram or storage to inflate the price, they buy it to be on top of the "ai" game*: running useful ai models requires a lot of data, this data need to be stored on a fast medium (ssds) and for training (feeding the data to gpu systems) the data needs to be processed many times so something even faster than ssds is required: ram.
These companies buy almost everything available on the market, the biggest one can afford to buy capacity from manufacturers and did so for the next few years.

*AI companies currently don't make profits (the closest one to make profits is Anthrophic) of the subscriptions they sell, they can only survive because they get boatloads of money from investors. To stay in front of competitors and keep their subscribers they need to go "bigger" and "better".
Companies that make profits of ai are companies that sell hardware (for example nvidia with gpus, network cards & switches, or micron or samsung that make nand for ssds)
are the "useful" ai models in the room with us right now?
 
I think there's no chance of that happening, and even if a case were to head in that direction, Sony would simply change track and attack the issue logistically and argue it's simply not going to be possible to use discs going forwards as @UKMikey just said. Arguably that's the point they should have led on anyway.

Really, what people should be after rather than waste time and money on frivolous matters, is a legal guarantee that they will be able to keep their game and play it whenever they want for as long as they want without the corporations removing it or removing access to it from their libraries.
The EU has admitted they can't do anything to prevent Sony to discontinue physicals: https://www.techspot.com/news/113088-eu-cant-stop-sony-ending-physical-playstation-game.html
 
Exactly this! It's been proven time and time again that even if you bought a piece of content digitally the content server (amazon, sony, microsoft) still has full "ownership" of the content and the consumer is just a renter and if I can only rent things even when I "buy" them then Piracy isn't Stealing.
 
Let me rephrase for the pedantic among us:
If Buying isn't Ownership Piracy isn't a crime at all.
You would be right, except for the fact that it is actually crime in most countries whether you like it to be or not. When you pirate a game, you are duplicating copyrighted material without authorisation to do so. You are not stealing ownership of the game. In addition you are also depriving the the rights holder of funds relating to sale of licenses to use the software.

There are strong views around video game ownership and copyright, but as things stand, it is a crime no matter how you spin it. That's not to say the developers and publishers are all spotless and innocent, they're anything but, and they will and do exploit their customers.

Whilst it may be tempting to dismiss or justify piracy in relation to some of the games industries practices, that doesn't stop it from being a crime.
 
Its not a question of them forcing playstation in to retaining physical copies, its about ownership of digital items.
Exactly this! It's been proven time and time again that even if you bought a piece of content digitally the content server (amazon, sony, microsoft) still has full "ownership" of the content and the consumer is just a renter and if I can only rent things even when I "buy" them then Piracy isn't Stealing.
People in general conflate possession of physical copies as "ownership" and wouldn't take nothing else, which is the issue regarding the opposition to this move. Rightful or not, worth noting that Limited Run Games is also known to bandwagon on this (given complaints I heard about their delay rates).
 
Last edited:
If Buying isn't Ownership Piracy isn't a crime at all.

Buying software has NEVER given ownership: you're merely buying a licence to use it. Same with music, movies, etc. So, this reasoning is utter nonsense. Intellectual copyright exists for a reason.

That said, corporations are some of the most disgusting, vile, penny-pinching, bloodsucking parasites on our societies and I would gladly welcome their complete demise.
 
I don't care so much about the semantics of owning vs. licensing as I do about Sony setting the precedent that they can reach into your console and simply remove things that you've already downloaded.

Them doing that with all those movies right before announcing the discontinuation of physical media means that I've got no trust in purchasing digital content from them at all.
 
As Harry Styles sings in his song "Sign Of The times"

Just stop your crying
It's a sign of the time
Welcome to the final show
Hope you're wearing your best clothes.

Just my 5 cents.
 
I don't care so much about the semantics of owning vs. licensing as I do about Sony setting the precedent that they can reach into your console and simply remove things that you've already downloaded.

Them doing that with all those movies right before announcing the discontinuation of physical media means that I've got no trust in purchasing digital content from them at all.
Yeah this is exactly the point. Precedent has been set for this behavior for a while. Amazon has already been known to remove things off of peoples kindles for several years now. Now Sony has gone in and removed 500+ content items that people had already paid for.

Basically what you're pinning all your hopes and dreams on is that the rights holder you buy content from owns the rights forever because as soon as they lose them your access to that content will be removed.

It doesn't matter whether or not Fox has rights to anything Star Wars, I already own the box sets. But if I only owned digital those films could be removed from my purchases because the distributor no longer has the rights to distribute. I think this is the part of digital only that a lot of the people not up in arms aren't understanding or don't see as an issue or are otherwise unaware of what is absolutely guaranteed to happen in the immediate future.

In other words you'll own nothing and you'll like it.
 
Back