The Verge56%

Sony is killing discs  and showing us why it’s a terrible idea 52%

By Andrew Webster0%

7/1/2026, 3:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Slippery Slope, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.8% saturation with 306 hits. Analysis detected 2,064 faulty-reasoning hits from 788 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,562 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.70% of the article peer group.

The future of video game preservation just took a major hit. 
This morning, Sony announced that, starting in January 2028, the company will no longer produce physical PlayStation discs, which means that from that moment on you can only purchase new PS5 games digitally. 
At the same time, Sony also announced that it’s going to start winding down the digital stores for both the PS3 and PS Vita, helpfully illustrating one of the most pertinent issues with a digital-only future for gaming: Once the stores are gone, so are the games. 
It’s a terrible blow for preservation of the medium. 
In a lot of ways, both announcements seemed inevitable. 
It’s clear that consumers have largely  though not entirely  shifted to buying games digitally. 
According to Sony’s most recent financial results from May, around 80 percent of PS5 games sold are digital. 
Meanwhile, just last week, Grand Theft Auto VI developer Rockstar Games announced that when the next GTA shows up in retail stores in November, it will actually just be a code in a box, with no disc. 
Digital games are in some ways more convenient for players. 
You can prep downloads in advance, keep a big library of games on a single console, and take advantage of frequent sales. 
There are also some notable immediate drawbacks, like the inability to sell used games or simply share a copy with a friend. 
From the publisher’s perspective, digital games are more lucrative for Sony and its contemporaries, who no longer have to deal with the costs of producing discs. 
But a more hidden cost to the digital shift comes in the form of preserving video games. 
Given the complex nature of consoles and constantly changing formats, preservation is already a massive challenge. 
Back in 2023, the Video Game History Foundation claimed that 87 percent of classic games  defined as anything released before 2010  were “critically endangered.” 
The reason for the 2010 cutoff? 
That’s when digital storefronts became prominent, portending an even bigger issue in the future. 
“Our experiences gathering data for this study suggest that these problems will intensify over time due to a low diversity of reissue sources and the long-term volatility of digital game storefronts,” the report read. 
The closure of digital stores isn’t new, of course; just two years ago, Nintendo shut down the storefronts for both the Wii U and the Nintendo 3DS. 
And while you can still (for now) download games you’ve already purchased, these closures mean that titles that are exclusive to that particular store are essentially inaccessible to everybody else. 
If you buy a 3DS right now, you have no way to play the classic puzzler BoxBoy. 
In the past, this has perhaps seemed like a minor issue, as the number of digital-exclusive games for platforms like the Wii U and PS Vita was relatively small. 
But with the entire medium moving toward digital, including industry-shaking giants like GTA VI, this problem becomes much more clear. 
Starting in 2028, every PlayStation game comes with an expiry date; as soon as the PS5’s digital store shuts down, a huge swath of games will simply become inaccessible. 
That means not just small digital games, but also major blockbusters. 
There have been some steps made to alleviate these issues. 
Most modern game consoles now let you carry your digital library across devices  Xbox has made some notable efforts on this front  and on PC the storefront GOG has an entire program dedicated to keeping old games playable on modern hardware. 
These are great and necessary efforts, but they aren’t enough on their own. 
For one thing, plenty still slips through the cracks; mobile games, for instance, are massively popular, but are rarely subject to preservation efforts outside of fan projects. 
Just as important is the fact that these efforts rely on the goodwill of platform holders. 
Once they shut down a store, or stop putting efforts into keeping games playable across multiple generations of hardware, the games are once again impossible to legally play. 
(This isn’t just a gaming problem, by the way; the shift to streaming is having a similar impact on film.) 
Physical media isn’t a perfect solution to these problems. 
Discs and cartridges will degrade over time, and they usually require specialized hardware to even use. 
But they at least give players and preservationists a greater degree of control over how they’re able to collect, share, and preserve these experiences, without having to deal with the whims of console makers like Sony. 
It’s already a nightmare trying to keep old games alive  in 2028, the problem is only going to get worse. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Andrew Webster: 4.2%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.4%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Andrew Webster: 5.9%The Verge: 3.8%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 4.6%Andrew Webster: 2.8%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 4.8%Andrew Webster: 1.4%The Verge: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 2.7%Andrew Webster: 1.6%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias2.7%This article: 7.6%Andrew Webster: 4.6%The Verge: 6.2%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 16.2%Andrew Webster: 0.7%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion16.2%This article: 8.2%Andrew Webster: 0.7%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 1.2%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 4.0%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Andrew Webster: 4.9%The Verge: 2.4%Pessimism Bias11.0%This article: 13.2%Andrew Webster: 9.0%The Verge: 9.7%Negativity Bias13.2%This article: 4.6%Andrew Webster: 0.6%The Verge: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 5.3%Andrew Webster: 1.6%The Verge: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.7%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.3%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew Webster: 5.8%The Verge: 2.8%Halo Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Andrew Webster: 3.1%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.4%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.4%Andrew Webster: 2.6%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority15.4%This article: 11.4%Andrew Webster: 2.1%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma11.4%This article: 15.9%Andrew Webster: 2.1%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope15.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.1%Andrew Webster: 9.4%The Verge: 6.8%Hasty Generalization14.1%This article: 2.5%Andrew Webster: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring2.5%This article: 2.5%Andrew Webster: 0.7%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon2.5%This article: 4.2%Andrew Webster: 4.0%The Verge: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.9%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.8%Andrew Webster: 3.0%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.6%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature4.6%This article: 1.4%Andrew Webster: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division1.4%This article: 10.7%Andrew Webster: 2.8%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal10.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Andrew Webster: 4.5%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%Andrew Webster: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground1.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.3%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Andrew Webster: 2.6%The Verge: 2.6%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 2.5%Andrew Webster: 1.2%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 38.8%Andrew Webster: 18.4%The Verge: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice38.8%This article: 2.5%Andrew Webster: 0.6%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Webster: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Andrew Webster: 2.0%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.2%

788 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech627writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageSony • 33 words • 100.0% coverageSony • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSony • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRockstar Games • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageVideo Game History Foundation • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sony

100%flagged-word coverage
98 attributed words61% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+6.7 ptsWriter: 41.3%Sony: 48.0%48.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +33.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sony: 33.7%33.7%Unattributed Quote-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Sony: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Sony: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Sony: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.