30+ Years of Gaming: If Buying Isn't Owning, Will I Buy the PS6?

I've been playing video games for more than 30 years.

My gaming journey started with the NES, followed by the SNES, Sega Mega Drive, Sega Saturn, PlayStation, Sega Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and now the PlayStation 5.

I've watched gaming evolve from cartridges and discs to downloads, digital libraries, subscriptions and games that can sometimes require an internet connection just to work.

For most of those 30+ years, there was something I never really had to question:

If I bought a game, I owned a copy of that game.

Maybe that assumption was never completely true from a legal perspective, but from a practical point of view, it certainly felt true.

I could put the cartridge or disc on a shelf. I could lend it to a friend. I could sell it. I could buy a second-hand copy years later. And, most importantly, I didn't have to ask a company's server for permission every time I wanted to play it.

Now I'm not so sure.

Sony Is Ending Physical PlayStation Game Discs

On July 1, 2026, Sony announced that it will stop producing physical game discs for new PlayStation games starting in January 2028.

After that point, new PlayStation games will be distributed digitally through the PlayStation Store and through retailers selling digital formats.

Sony describes this as a natural response to changing consumer preferences, pointing out that digital gaming has become the dominant way people purchase games.

And from Sony's business perspective, I understand it.

Digital distribution is simpler.

There is no manufacturing of discs, no printing, no physical packaging, no shipping, and no inventory sitting in warehouses or stores.

Sony also doesn't have to deal with the same physical retail constraints.

But as a gamer who has been buying games for more than three decades, I have a different question:

What exactly am I buying?

:contentReference[oaicite:0]

Physical Games Were More Than Just a Disc

When I bought a game on NES, SNES or Mega Drive, the game was sitting right there in my hands.

The cartridge contained the game.

Later, with the PlayStation, Saturn, Dreamcast, PS2 and Xbox 360, the same basic concept continued with discs.

Of course, modern physical games have complicated this idea.

Some games require large patches. Some require an internet connection. Some don't even contain the complete game on the disc.

So I don't want to pretend that physical media is perfect.

But there is still an important difference.

A physical copy gives me something tangible that I can retain independently of the storefront.

If Sony shuts down a store, removes a game from sale, changes its licensing arrangements or decides not to support an old platform anymore, I still have the disc.

That distinction becomes much more important when physical media disappears completely.

"Buying" a Digital Game Doesn't Feel the Same

This is the part that concerns me the most.

When I purchase a digital game from the PlayStation Store, the game appears in my library. It feels like I bought it.

But I don't actually receive a physical copy.

Instead, my access is tied to my account, the platform and the services that support that purchase.

And we've already seen examples showing why this distinction matters.

Sony has recently announced that 551 StudioCanal movies and TV shows previously purchased through the PlayStation Store will be removed from customers' libraries in the UK from September 1, 2026, because of licensing arrangements.

The important point isn't that these are movies rather than games.

The important point is that people had purchased the content, yet Sony can ultimately remove access to it because the underlying licensing arrangement changed.

:contentReference[oaicite:1]

:contentReference[oaicite:2]

That is exactly the kind of situation that makes me uncomfortable with an all-digital future.

If something I paid for can disappear from my library because a licensing agreement expires, what does "buying" actually mean?

It Has Already Happened With PlayStation's Older Stores

This isn't just a theoretical concern about something that might happen decades from now.

Sony has already announced the closure of the PlayStation Store on PS3 and PS Vita.

In most regions, the stores are scheduled to close in July 2027.

Sony says users will still be able to download previously purchased content after the closure "for the foreseeable future."

That's reassuring to some extent.

But notice the wording:

"For the foreseeable future."

It doesn't mean forever.

Sony is essentially telling us that the ability to access previously purchased content depends on the company continuing to provide that service.

:contentReference[oaicite:3]

And I understand why Sony is doing this.

The PS3 launched in 2006. The Vita launched in 2011. Supporting old payment systems, security infrastructure and storefront technology indefinitely isn't practical.

But from the consumer's perspective, it demonstrates the fundamental problem with digital ownership.

The company controls the infrastructure that allows me to access what I purchased.

What Happens When the Store Is Gone?

Imagine buying a game digitally on the PS6 in 2029.

You pay $100.

You download it.

You play it for 20 hours.

You come back five years later and want to play it again.

But what happens if:

The PlayStation Store is no longer available?
Sony changes its account infrastructure?
The game is delisted?
The publisher loses the licence?
The game's servers are shut down?
The authentication service is discontinued?
Your console is replaced and the old download is no longer available?
Sony decides that the game is no longer supported?

Maybe Sony will continue allowing us to download our purchases for decades.

I certainly hope so.

But hope is not ownership.

Sony Has Already Shown That Services Can Disappear

Sony's own announcement about the PS3 and PS Vita stores is perhaps the best example.

The store isn't disappearing because the games suddenly stopped existing.

The hardware still exists.

The games still exist.

The people who bought them still exist.

Sony is closing the store because maintaining the old infrastructure no longer makes business sense.

And that is perfectly understandable from Sony's perspective.

But it highlights something important:

Digital ownership is ultimately dependent on a service provider.

A physical disc doesn't need a storefront to continue existing.

A digital purchase does.

This Isn't an Argument Against Digital Games

I want to make something clear.

I actually buy digital games.

I enjoy the convenience.

I don't have to get off the couch to change discs.

I don't need to worry about losing a disc.

I can preload games before release.

I can buy a game at midnight without going to a store.

Digital games are incredibly convenient.

And sometimes the digital version is simply the better option.

The problem isn't digital distribution itself.

The problem is digital-only ownership without meaningful long-term guarantees.

There is a big difference between:

"I prefer buying games digitally."

and:

"I am comfortable with a future where the only way to access games I have purchased is through a platform controlled by the publisher."

Those are not the same thing.

Physical Media Isn't Perfect Either

There is another side to this argument.

Physical media isn't automatically permanent.

Discs can become scratched.

Cartridges can fail.

Optical drives can stop working.

Modern games can require huge patches.

Some physical releases are effectively incomplete without an internet connection.

Recent testing by Does It Play has also shown that not every modern physical game is fully playable from the disc alone. For PS5, its database found that a significant portion of tested games require downloads or have limitations without them.

So even physical ownership has become more complicated.

:contentReference[oaicite:4]

But there is still an important advantage.

A physical copy gives consumers an independent copy of the software or at least a physical distribution medium that can survive independently of a storefront.

That matters for preservation.

It matters for collectors.

It matters for second-hand buyers.

And it matters for people who want to keep playing games decades after their original release.

The Game Preservation Problem

This is probably my biggest concern as someone who has been gaming since the NES era.

Think about the games I played as a kid.

NES.

SNES.

Mega Drive.

Saturn.

PS1.

Dreamcast.

PS2.

Those games are decades old now.

Yet many of them can still be found.

You can buy old cartridges and discs.

You can put them into original hardware.

Collectors can preserve them.

Museums can preserve them.

People can trade them.

Digital-only games don't necessarily have the same future.

If a game is available exclusively through a digital storefront and that storefront eventually disappears, preservation becomes much harder.

And if the game also requires online authentication or server connectivity, the problem becomes even bigger.

A game could theoretically still exist somewhere on a company's servers, but if consumers cannot legally or technically access it anymore, does it really matter?

This Is Where I Start Questioning the PS6

Which brings me to the question I've been thinking about since Sony's announcement:

Will I buy a PS6?

I've owned PlayStations for generations.

PS1.

PS2.

PS3.

PS4.

PS5.

PlayStation has been a major part of my gaming life.

So naturally, I expect that I will be interested in the PS6.

But if the PS6 becomes a completely digital platform, I need to ask myself something different.

If I buy a $100 game, but Sony can ultimately determine whether I can access that game in the future, am I really buying it?

Or am I purchasing a long-term licence to access it?

Maybe the distinction doesn't matter if everything works perfectly.

If Sony continues operating the PlayStation Store for the next 30 years, perhaps I'll never notice the difference.

But what if they don't?

What Would Make Me Comfortable?

I don't necessarily need physical discs forever.

What I would like is a stronger concept of digital ownership.

For example, if I purchase a game, I would like to know that:

I can permanently download the version I purchased.
I can reinstall it years later without relying on the game still being sold.
If the game is delisted, existing owners retain access.
If the publisher shuts down its servers, the single-player portion remains playable whenever technically possible.
If Sony eventually shuts down the PlayStation Store, purchased games can still be downloaded.
If Sony completely ends support for the platform, there is a clear preservation mechanism.
If Sony removes something I purchased because of licensing issues, I receive a refund or an equivalent replacement.

That would make digital ownership feel much closer to actual ownership.

The "Forever" Question

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic.

Nothing lasts forever.

Companies disappear.

Hardware breaks.

Servers are shut down.

Physical media deteriorates.

Even a cartridge from 1989 isn't guaranteed to work forever.

I understand that.

But there is a difference between something naturally becoming unusable and a company deliberately controlling whether I can continue accessing something I already paid for.

That's the distinction that bothers me.

When I buy a physical game, Sony doesn't have to keep the game available in its store for me to keep it.

When I buy a digital game, Sony becomes part of the equation.

And the more digital gaming becomes dependent on accounts, servers and storefronts, the more important that distinction becomes.

After 30 Years of Gaming, I'm Not Ready to Give Up Physical Media

I've experienced almost every major transition in console gaming.

Cartridges became discs.

2D became 3D.

CRT televisions became LCD and OLED.

Local multiplayer became online multiplayer.

Memory cards became hard drives.

Game rentals became digital downloads.

And now physical games are heading toward extinction.

I don't think digital gaming is inherently bad.

In fact, I enjoy many aspects of it.

But I don't want convenience to come at the cost of ownership.

After more than 30 years of gaming, I still like having something that is mine.

Something I can put on a shelf.

Something I can lend.

Something I can sell.

Something I can keep for 20 or 30 years.

And something that doesn't require a company to keep a storefront alive before I can play it.

So, Will I Buy the PS6?

Honestly, I don't know.

That's probably the first time I've ever seriously questioned whether I will buy the next PlayStation generation.

I've bought almost every PlayStation generation because I wanted to experience what came next.

But if the PS6 becomes digital-only, my purchasing decision may depend on something very different from graphics, performance or exclusive games.

It will depend on trust.

I need to trust that when I spend my money on a game, I will still have meaningful access to it years later.

Because after 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I'm asking for something unreasonable.

I'm simply asking:

If I buy a game, can I really say that I own it?

And if the answer is no, then perhaps the more important question isn't whether I want the PS6.

It's whether I want to keep buying into a gaming ecosystem where "buy" no longer means what I thought it meant.