With the digital future coming to fruition year by year, the offline capability of video games has become a significant point of discussion. For some, it’s about video game preservation, for others it’s about video games as physical media. And in the age of constant updates and DLC, fans are questioning what makes a “complete” game, at launch or otherwise. Younger players may not have noticed the change, two generations ago when a game running off the disc, in a “good-to-play” status, was taken for granted. The technological jump to high-fidelity graphics changed not only how games play, but also how they are made.
Players lament about the capitalist plagues of modern gaming when it comes to microtransactions and downloadable content. Game engines, screens and design and development have changed fundamentally. We only see the result being high-demanding hardware and unoptimized software. It all starts with whether a game can play offline, without any internet connection. How “playable” are games today?
Physical Media
Physical media used to be the only way for games to be played, with development and pricing revolving on the production of cartridges in the past, and discs after that. When the Xbox One and PS4 came around, there were still discs, but there was also the online marketplace. You can only play by downloading to the internal SSD memory of the console and booting it up, since. This includes discs that now function as a data carrier for you to do exactly that. The only reason players need to keep the disc in is for it to act as a license check. So technically, true-to-heart physical gaming died two generations ago. However, returning to that original plug-and-play format was the Nintendo Switch. Since it used cartridges, the technology allowed it to be played instantly with no download required. It was physical in the purest way.
That is the divide: download from disc or play from cartridge. However, since the digital storefront was introduced, it already changed the trajectory of physical media. Some titles missed out on a physical release either due to storage capacity or incapability due to playing a weak console like the Switch. Some games require the high speeds available with the very capable SSDs on modern consoles. Generally, physical media just wasn’t in mind for a lot of developers, and much less so for publishers.
Offline Play
The decent thing about all this is that no matter the format, the majority of games were available to play offline. The differences now lie in a different definition of offline play. DRM and required internet connection complicated things. DRM was required for any given copy of a game to be played, and some developers required the internet to force updates or streaming assets. Few games actually required the internet (at first), aside from exceptions. DRM was always a must, making it so that every disc had to be inserted even after the game had downloaded from it. Fortunately, the license check did not have to go online, and players were able to stay offline to play, in general. This is now the current definition of offline play and objective playability: nothing stops you from playing anywhere and at any time you want.
It is simple to understand, as it describes the technical accessibility of video games. This extends even to digital units because as soon as you’ve downloaded the game—you’re good to go. When you turn off the Wi-Fi or disconnect your ethernet cable, you can still play your copy. By the new standard, you effectively own the game (assuming the console plays well forever). Some people disagree with it being considered ownership at all, but that’s another discussion. Playing the game is the first thing that comes to mind for most players, for better or worse.
Evolution of Game Development
The new issue with even these physical games is the changing development of titles. Developers are now able to keep working on a game, fixing things or even adding content. For the quality of the game, this is a net positive. Bugs get fixed, gameplay is balanced, and options are added. However, this affects the philosophy of design on the developer side, and the philosophy of a complete game on the player side. In a way, the digital generation has made it so no game is technically complete at launch as it would have otherwise been. In the old days, products had to have been tested and wrapped up with development so they could be physically produced and distributed. No updates, flaws and all. But all intended content is there and ready to play in reasonable conditions.
Developers now seldom release a game without tweaking it after launch. Oftentimes, games will have a DLC or update roadmap before the title even releases. Developers who seek to create the perfect experience for players likely see this only as a benefit. But players who prioritize physical copies, or playing games offline may see this as a negative. Due to these roadmaps, it also puts into question the actual value of the content provided at launch. Some players may think a game isn’t worth “full” price until absolutely all updates are one. Other players may think development should extend or delay until the content is “complete,” for a later launch date rather than trickling updates. In other words, the desire for the definitive edition of games has increased. The philosophical debate continues. As long as it all plays offline no matter the condition, it’s good to go for most.
Publisher Abuse
This tolerance changes when physical media itself requires internet connection when booted, or if the game requires a constant connection. It is at that point that it is not officially playable offline. Any disc requiring an additional step online defeats the purpose of being physical. In general, a game requiring a constant connection is the least offline playable experience. When the situation gets like this, it is the poor choice of the developer or publisher that causes it.
To not put any data on the disc is a penny-pinching or license abuse issue, considering it is very inexpensive to produce discs. In fact, discs were adapted for their cheapness and quick production as the original cartridge games were extremely costly in resources and time. Removing the option of playing offline is the far end of the spectrum when it comes to playability. A game riddled with bugs and crashes is literally unplayable. License abuse is the worst thing after that, as it forsakes total replayability and ownership at once. There is no way that could be considered playable.
The New Standard
In some ways it has become pretty unclear what a playable game is. But at the same time, the modern gaming issues have made several players sensitive to what it means for a game to be playable. We know what update roadmaps look like, what physical media is, and what DLC does to game development. The question still remains: How playable are games today? The first answer is, of course, that games are less physically playable than before. That much is obvious with the way games are produced. The second answer is that games are less playable at launch than before.
Modern Gaming Woes
The topic in popular debate usually turns to games generally being less playable and oftentimes less qualitative. However, what is not typically accepted by the disgruntled are that the bad examples tend to be the exception. Call of Duty, sports games, Ubisoft, Electronic Arts and live-service games make up a small percentage of all games. Yet they are the only games under scrutiny. It is fair enough, considering these games are some of the highest-selling and highest-played games of today. It is not the reality of gaming that is so threatened by the idea of unplayability. What is so threatening is the trend of bad development cycles and money-hungry game design, as it plagues once-great franchises. When development is left alone, the designers’ main objective is to make their games playable and fun above all else. It is a game designer’s job and usually their personal interest to do so.
Software Accessibility
So far, the playability of video games nowadays can be reasonably described by how accessible its software is. What is truly understated is the inconsistent accessibility of its physical media. The differences vary not only with each generation since discs were introduced, it also varies with each console. Nintendo Switch 2, Xbox Series X, and PS5 all have different playability levels offline for their media. The Series X is required to go online when first booted to even use, with offline play available after an update released sometime after launch. The PS5 is totally offline capable with its original model, but requires an initial connection with any other model for its physical library. The Nintendo Switch 2 needs a day one update to play, but also has compatibility issues with some original Switch games that need updates.
Not only that, but each console suffers the inability to play particular titles because of specific features. PS4 VR on PS5 requires additional accessories; Series X does not support Kinect; and Nintendo Switch 2 is unable to play Nintendo Labo because of accessories. This touches on backwards compatibility, so it may not be far to compare its playability. Though this describes how difficult it is to point it out, much less simplify it. Offline access is not a guarantee anymore.
What is Playability Today?
It would be a bit of an anticlimactic conclusion to say that playability is based on perspective, but that is the truth of the matter. The answer we can arrive at, though, is that it definitely depends on the distribution format and a game’s developer or publisher. Physically, offline playability has gone down—but software-wise, it has gone up in quality. Most of the change from previous generations to now can be chalked up to development evolving and publishers switching priorities. Great-looking software simply requires new and different hardware, and the delivery of software has become far more convenient.
Players have changed too, as it is always the consumer that determines how acceptable a product is. The average user chose the convenience of a digital storefront and demanding graphics over physical media, for the most part. If playability were truly an issue, the entire industry would stop, and live-service games would die overnight. Yet, people are becoming increasingly frustrated with modern gaming. The idea of ownership is becoming a hot topic. And value is being more associated with purchasing games—not just having fun.
The funny detail about the discussion is that both physical and digital formats can be updated in one way or another to accommodate certain tastes. Most games on home consoles are in fact playable from disc. Some games, digital or not, will have day one updates that aren’t required, but make the title even more playable than it would have been. If a game wasn’t previously able to be played offline, it can be updated to do so. It is unfortunate for collectors in most cases, yet the offline component is ultimately still there. And in the best case, physical editions can have reprints or revisions, as are popular for Switch first-party games.
Public Perception of Game Development
It is not unreasonable to demand the best conditions. Neither is it unreasonable to criticize design philosophy and pricing of games. But the issue has gone farther than whether a game can perform in an offline state. A game launching with no updates and a lot of content might be considered by most to have high playability. At least, that is the assumption: games released like that are supposedly “full” games, complete games. Many are nostalgic for those times when games felt fun and innovative and suffered few complexities—you just plugged and played. Today, gaming is more complicated, riddled with obstacles and even the idea of ownership is threatened. People are losing faith in developers themselves, mistaking them for the bad management of publishers. It is dire; the current generation feels essentially like an extension of the last one.
What if the real issue is just that games are made differently (publishers excluded)? There are those who believe that DLC is just content being held back to create more profit. Or that constant updates mean that a game wasn’t actually ready to launch and isn’t truly playable. Some of this is a side effect of the development cycle taking longer, that is one well-known aspect by now. However, these negative assumptions are just that—assumptions. The best directors of today, of critically acclaimed titles, themselves frequently update games and add new content to them.
The Goal
It may be an unfortunate effect of that long cycle, but it is usually well-intentioned. Several developers opt to keep updating and revising the game for the player’s experience. They do whatever they can to improve the game. If games release in complete condition at launch, it tends to be a choice by the developer to do that. Though even those cases vary, with some going through early access or getting playtests through betas. In some way, development manages to take just as long anyway. Ultimately, this is meant for the good of the game. We don’t truly know what a game would look like without additional updates: it would likely have less content or be stuck with its bugs. A designer’s intention is to always work for the player. That is the assumption we should all take.
While expectations do need to be tempered, I myself still hope for complete editions, especially in physical media. It is not something too difficult for any publisher either. It is about the choices they make, and it can be incredibly easy if they wished. When a game completes its cycle, additional content included, the game can be redistributed. Whether a game had a day one physical or only a digital release to its end, it can release a new physical edition. Fans like myself have no problem waiting for or rebuying a game we love in a complete package, and it can even increase its price according to its DLC. Anything beyond that, I would consider both lucky and welcomed. It is a win for a publisher’s public image, and the health of the community.
Tempered Expectations
Even if that doesn’t happen, I can still play most of my library offline and fully available to me. It would be a disappointment, digitally—and I will play the games distastefully, yet obsessively. It would be amazing if there were a solution to the physical media downsize, but it is something most of us have come to accept. This is probably why gamers are fighting for the next best thing—ownership. We take for granted our library attached to our accounts, especially with the digital future. If the ability to play our purchased games goes away, ownership is compromised, and all playability goes with it. Games are hardly less playable overall, and still, it all hangs on the decision of publishers. In ten years, the question of playability will be even more important than now. Hopefully by then, I’ll continue popping in discs or cartridges of the newest titles. Though no matter what format, I’ll keep playing the games I love, as long as they stay playable.
