![[EDIT: CONFIRMED FALSE] Starfield physical edition won't include physical discs.](https://szmer.info/pictrs/image/5238cee4-2855-4ae1-9e0b-3631d3bbc1cb.png){kind=link}
This means you can’t pass the game around to your friends or sell it afterwards, which completely ruins the purpose of physical media imo. I mostly play PC these days so this doesn’t affect me, but it’s a disappointing direction for console games. At least they could’ve used an empty disc that has proof of ownership.
EDIT: Bethesda has confirmed that only the PC version won’t include a disc. Physical versions of Xbox will include a disc. Whew.
It’s a 125gb game, what kind of disk were you expecting it to ship on?
An Ultra-HD dual layer blueray disc can hold nearly 100gb of data. It’s not especially complex to have a game with 2 physical discs that encompass different parts of the game. They’ve been doing it since PS1 (FF7 was 4 iirc).
Yeah, but back in the day, a CD cost a lot less than a dollar. Have you looked at the unit cost for a 100gb disc?
And if it comes with a single-use registration code 80% of the people in this thread would still be pissed off. So, it’s now more expensive, and still deeply flawed.
Because the not use of registration is the whole point? It needs to be optional, how it worked very well for years on PC.
Multiple install disks? That I can still install in my basement without an internet connection many years later like we did with games on floppy disks?
Just 26 DVDs or a mere 178 CD-ROMs
One that carried the game key, making it portabaly transferable.
Yeah, so the issue here isn’t “omg how can they sell a case with no disk” it’s “hey, I want to own my game”, which is totally fair. Seems like people focus on the most superficial part of the whole issue, a literal shiny piece of plastic.
okay, clearly only a switch/indie gamer but 125gb for one game? I’m sure it’s for the assets but isn’t this just pushing costs and resources onto the consumer?
It wouldn’t have been the first game to have multiple discs to install it.