Honestly, I wasn't even going to post about this here. But the more I sit with it, the more I realize this shift completely upends the entire concept of gaming as we know it. I just couldn't sit back and watch where the industry is heading without throwing in my two cents.

Yesterday, on July 1st, Sony made it official: physical disc production for new PlayStation games will end completely in January 2028. From that point on, new titles will be digital-only, either straight from the PlayStation Store or via a download code inside a retail box. Sony’s official logic is that roughly 85% of their game sales are now digital. But we all know that’s just a convenient excuse. It’s been all about maximizing profit for a long time now.

To be clear, the discs you already own will keep working. Nothing in your current library is getting bricked. But the PS4 and PS5 are now officially the final PlayStation generations to support physical games. From 2028 onward, you don't buy console games anymore; you just rent licenses that live on someone else's server.

For the collectors among us, this is where it hurts. A "Collector's Edition" after 2028 is just a statue, an artbook and an empty steelbook case. It's merchandise built around an empty spot. The game itself, preserved on physical media, is gone. A limited edition of a digital license. Think about how absurd that sounds.

Nobody finds it strange to own a physical collection of books, records, or movies. You take a vinyl off the shelf, you put it on, it plays. Whether it’s 1985 or 2045, the experience is yours. Why should games be any different? The irony is that vinyl is experiencing a massive revival because labels kept pressing it. Sony is doing the exact opposite with a format people are still actively buying.

And almost as a cruel demonstration, on the exact same day, Sony announced that the PS3 and Vita digital stores are officially being sunsetted. Discs from 2006 still spin and play perfectly fine. Meanwhile, the digital storefronts from that exact same era are being switched off. That is the entire reality of digital "ownership" summarized in two sentences.

If there's any silver lining to this absolute mess, it’s that it might finally push people back toward PC gaming.

Look, we all know physical PC releases died out a decade ago. But the difference is that PC players actually fought for true ownership through DRM-free platforms like GOG. You can literally download an offline installer, throw it on a backup drive, and it’s yours forever. No corporate master server required. If Sony forcing digital-only makes console players realize they’re being scammed and drives them to a platform where "buying" still actually means owning, I’ll take it as a win.

Because let’s be honest about where the console market is heading: you’re essentially paying $70 for the privilege of borrowing a file until some executive decides to turn the servers off. It’s a terrible direction for the industry. The worst thing we can do is just roll over and accept this as "progress." We have to vote with our wallets. Support DRM-free storefronts, buy physical while it’s still an option, and stop paying full price for temporary licenses.

For those of us who still love having a physical collection, I actually put together a practical guide on how to back up and futureproof your PS4/PS5 discs before 2028 cuts us off: https://bestclassicpcgames.com/futureproof-ps4-ps5-game-cd-collection/

I’m curious where everyone else stands on this. How many of you keep a console shelf next to your PC setup, and what’s your game plan for it once the discs stop spinning?

Diablo II launched on June 28, 2000 in the US and June 30 in Europe, so the game turns 26 now.

That feels slightly unreal to write. Back then, if someone told me some event happened 26 years ago, I’d be like, "Lol what, was that before or after the dinosaurs?"

Now that I’m older, that period of time doesn’t feel completely unimaginable anymore... but man, it's still a lot of years, and so much has changed since then.

I always go back to hitting Act III for the first time. Not even a big boss fight, just stepping onto the Kurast Docks and realizing the whole vibe had completely shifted. Going from the desert straight into that muddy, rainy jungle, those tiny little flayers rushing you from everywhere, and that weird oppressive music. It just felt way older and nastier than anything before it.

And then Mephisto. That bridge, that room... basically the start of the "time to farm this guy forever" phase for everyone.

It's wild how almost every act had a specific memory tied to it. The Rogue Encampment music. Getting absolutely deleted by Duriel before your loading screen even finished. Walking into Chaos Sanctuary. Even Baal runs that basically just became late-night chat rooms where you happened to click on monsters.

Honestly, I still remember these maps clearer than games I played last month.

What's the one D2 memory that stuck with you the most? A ridiculous drop, getting scammed with a fake Shako, a LAN session, or just a town theme? Are you playing the Resurrected version ?

I was genuinely excited for the mobile launch of Guild Wars Reforged. The original game has exactly the kind of loop I've been craving: a few solid classes, deep skill combinations, a massive world to roam, and a pure focus on questing, mob hunting, and dungeoneering for better armor. No endless daily chores, just a great old-school RPG.

Instead, the mobile launch has been a total heartbreak. I downloaded it on my Google Pixel 10, and it is unplayable.

• The performance is terrible: Even on the lowest possible graphics settings, the lag and stuttering are unreal. This engine is decades old... there is absolutely no reason a modern flagship phone should be choking and rubber-banding like this.
• The monetization is insulting: They slapped an incredibly restrictive mobile wrapper on it. If you try to play the free tier, you get hit with literal pop-up ads just for moving between maps, on top of being locked out of public chat and trading.
• The sad reality: The brilliant gameplay is technically still buried under there, but the execution of this port ruins it. It’s incredibly frustrating because I don't need fancy graphics or overcomplicated systems... I just wanted that pure, satisfying loop in my pocket.

Did anyone else here try to jump into this for a nostalgia trip, or did you wisely stay far away? Because right now, it’s just a massive disappointment for me.

I have to admit, I’m a bit late to the party here. I only discovered this game a few years ago while doing some research, and I honestly don't know how it managed to slip under my radar for so long. That said, I am deeply torn on it...

On one hand, the setting, the characters, and the whole Aztec-noir vibe are incredible. Manny Calavera is a legend, and the writing has this amazing, unique charm you just don't see in modern games. The world-building is easily 10/10.

But wrestling with those original 1998 tank controls and trying to decipher the completely baffling "moon logic" puzzles? It's an absolute chore. I wanted so badly to just soak in the story, but the actual playing part kept getting in the way of the experience.

Did people genuinely enjoy the gameplay loop back in the day, or did everyone just use a walkthrough and tolerate the mechanics because the vibes were immaculate?

I’d love to share a core gaming memory that I bet a lot of you will relate to.

Somewhere around 2004–2005, my friends and I were constantly messing around with Hamachi, trying to simulate a LAN connection just to play one specific game: Rise of Nations.

Man, the memories. Our matches would easily clock in at 1 to 2 hours, usually culminating in the entire map getting absolutely nuked to oblivion once we hit the Information Age. While the single-player could occasionally feel a bit repetitive, our 5–6 player multiplayer lobbies completely eliminated that. Every single match was a completely unique, chaotic psychological thriller.

Looking back, this game was way ahead of its time. Here is why the gameplay was so brilliant:

1. The Perfect Child of Age of Empires and Civilization

It took the real-time, fast-paced combat of Age of Empires and beautifully married it with the grand strategy elements of Civilization. You weren't just managing troops; you were managing an entire empire's borders, research, and rare resources.

2. The Genius of National Borders and Attrition

Unlike other RTS games where you could just ninja-build a barracks right outside your enemy's base, Rise of Nations introduced National Borders. If you marched your army into enemy territory without a Supply Wagon, your troops literally started dying of attrition. It made defense viable and forced you to actually plan supply lines and tactical invasions.

3. A Streamlined Economy (No More Babysitting Farms)

They completely solved the annoying RTS micro-management of resources. Wood camps and farms never "ran out" or needed to be manually rebuilt. Once you set up your economy, you could actually focus on the macro-strategy, diplomacy, and massive military maneuvers.

4. The Absolute Rush of Tech Progression

Going from clubbing each other in the Ancient Age to launching cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and ICBMs in the Information Age was an incredible journey. The tension of racing your friends to the next Epoch kept everyone on the edge of their seats. If you slacked on science, you'd find your knights going up against gunpowder and tanks.

The ultimate risk/reward: The game even had an "Armageddon Clock." If players launched too many nukes, the clock hit zero and everyone instantly lost the game. It was the ultimate Mexican standoff.

The depth of the 18 unique nations, the tactical use of Generals and Spies, and the sheer scale of the battles made this game an absolute legend.

Did anyone else spend their weekends fighting through the ages via Hamachi? What were your go-to nations or strategies?

Back on May 23rd, 2006, Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening finally dropped on PC. It was my very first introduction to the franchise, and it completely blew my mind. Games just weren't doing fast-paced, stylish combat with that kind of crazy freedom of movement back then. It felt completely unique.

Looking back, it’s crazy how much Capcom nailed with this one. Showing a younger, incredibly cocky Dante, nailing the brutal rivalry with Vergil, and introducing the four core combat styles (Trickster, Swordmaster, Gunslinger, Royalguard) completely changed character action games. Plus, the weapon variety was unhinged. You're out here fighting with a literal lightning guitar (Nevan) or ice nunchucks (Cerberus). It also gave us one of the best soundtracks ever ("Devils Never Cry" still slaps) and a notoriously brutal difficulty level that made people lose their minds.

For me, later games never quite caught that lightning in a bottle again. DMC4 definitely upgraded the combat formula (especially letting you switch styles on the fly), but it never felt as iconic or cohesive. DMC5 was great too, but the environment design kind of put me off. The constant insect-like aesthetics, nests, and literal bugs everywhere just wasn't a setting I enjoyed running through.

I actually still haven't played DMC1 or DMC2. Since it’s pretty clear we won't be seeing a new entry in the franchise for at least the next few years, should I bother giving them a chance now? 

Preordered it, played from launch. Short version: Alkimia kept the thing that actually mattered. No hand-holding, no level scaling, no glowing trail. Wander somewhere dangerous and you die, same as 2001.

The early combat is rough on purpose, slow and punishing, almost mean on Hard, right up until you train that first weapon skill and it clicks.

What I keep going back and forth on is who it really lands with. It's basically a Soulslike from before Souls existed, and my gut says the Souls crowd will love it loudest while a lot of newcomers bounce off the first hour before it opens up.

Anyone else playing it? Where are you landing on the combat?

Full write-up here 👉 https://bestclassicpcgames.com/gothic-1-remake-review/

Genuinely one of the most original things Sega ever made and I don't think people talk about it enough.

You weren't racing for trophies or following some dramatic story. You were a completely unhinged taxi driver trying to earn tips by driving as dangerously as possible. That's it. And somehow that was enough to make one of the most addictive arcade games ever made.

I came to it through the PC port. Acclaim handled it and it ran fine. It was the only realistic way to play it if you didn't have a Dreamcast, so for a lot of PC players that port was their introduction to the whole thing.

Sega tried expanding the series after that and none of it really landed. CT2 added hop mechanics and multi-passenger pickups, CT3 threw in a Vegas setting and bundled older content, but nothing actually made the formula better. It just made it bigger. Then it disappeared into mobile spinoffs and that was kind of that.

I keep wondering if it could work today. The city building and traffic simulation in modern games is insane compared to 1999, you could make something that actually feels alive. But there's so much that could go wrong.

Maybe that's the problem. It was designed around the arcade model where you had about 30 seconds to figure out if you wanted to put money in. That design philosophy basically doesn't exist in commercial games anymore.

I still go back to Max Payne 2 every few years, and it always holds up better than I expect. A lot of games from 2003 feel clunky now. The Fall of Max Payne doesn't.

What I liked about it then is pretty much what I like about it now. The noir mood is real and not just for show. The city feels worn out and empty. Max isn't a hero, he's just a guy who's lost too much and keeps going anyway. And the story with Mona Sax works because it's messy and doomed from the start. The game never tries to make it neat.

The bullet time is the obvious draw. You dive, everything slows down, the room clears out. Simple, but it never got old for me. The comic-book cutscenes were a smart call too. Cheap to make, full of personality, and honestly they've aged better than a lot of expensive cinematics from years later.

It's also short, and I've come to see that as a good thing. It tells its story and gets out before it overstays its welcome.

The one thing I'll flag: I know Remedy made it and Rockstar only published it. But it carries the Rockstar name, and of all the games that do, it's the one I'd pick first. GTA and Red Dead are bigger, no argument. For focus and mood, though, Max Payne 2 is the one that stuck with me most.

Anyone else still play it? Curious what stayed with you.

Where I grew up, there were a few games that almost everyone knew. They ran on nearly any computer, so they ended up on school PCs, old home computers, internet cafés, cousins’ machines, and random CDs passed between friends.

For me, these instantly bring back memories:

Mario
Jazz Jackrabbit 2
Elasto Mania
Neighbours from Hell
Virtua Cop 2
Icy Tower
Chicken Invaders
Moorhuhn
Sven Bømwøllen
Zuma
Feeding Frenzy

I still remember splitting Elasto Mania across two diskettes just so I could bring it to the school PC.

Which low-spec PC games instantly bring you back?

For many people, the answer is easy: Heroes of Might and Magic III and I understand why. It took almost everything Heroes II had and made it deeper. The factions felt more developed, the strategy had more layers, the maps were richer, and the balance was better. It is one of those rare games where almost every system feels like it belongs exactly where it is.

Then there is the community. Heroes III never really disappeared. People still play it, make maps for it, argue about balance, and keep the game alive more than 25 years later. Projects like Horn of the Abyss show how strong that love still is. Most games from that time are remembered with nostalgia. Heroes III is still actively played.

So yes, if we talk about design, depth, balance, and replay value, Heroes III is probably the better game.

But Heroes II has a different place in my heart.

I remember it very clearly. It was the first PC game I ever saw being played. And back then, the world itself felt different. The 90s, at least where I grew up, were much more grey and boring in a way that is hard to explain now. There was less color in everyday life. Less access to things. Less magic around you. And then I saw Heroes II. It felt like someone had opened a door to another world.

The screen was full of fantasy, but not in a dark or serious way. It had this storybook feeling. Everything looked bright, strange, and magical. The creatures looked beautifully drawn, almost like something from the fairytales I knew as a kid. And the most amazing part was that I could control them. I could move the hero. I could build the castle. I could send these creatures into battle and watch them do what I told them to do. It felt like I had found the wardrobe to Narnia. That is still one of the brightest gaming memories I have. Not because the game was perfect, but because it felt like pure joy.

I don’t think it is only nostalgia. Heroes II had its problems, of course. Heroes III improved many things. But Heroes II also had something very special. Its art style had more warmth. The towns felt more like places from an old fantasy book. The music had this magical, almost theatrical feeling. The whole game was simpler, but that simplicity gave it a charm that Heroes III, for all its greatness, never fully replaced.

Heroes III is deeper. It is better balanced. It is probably the game I would recommend to someone today. But Heroes II feels more innocent. More dreamlike. More personal. So my logical answer is Heroes III, but my emotional answer will always be Heroes II.

What about you?

If you had to choose only one, would you pick Heroes II or Heroes III?

Released in 2000 by Haemimont Games, Tzar was a real-time strategy game with three factions: European, Arabian, and Asian.

For me, the soundtrack was one of its strongest parts. It gave the game a distinct feel and still stands out when I think back on it.

Did anyone here spend a lot of time with it?

I’ve always felt like Rising Kingdoms never got the attention it deserved.

It came out in 2005, was developed by Haemimont Games, and mixed classic RTS base-building with some light RPG elements like hero units, skills, and inventory. It also had three main factions: Humans, Foresters, and Darklings. Plus independent races you could capture and use, like Elves, Trolls, Nomads, Shades, and Dragons. That gave it a bit more personality.

Maybe “one of the best ever” would be too much, but “one of the most underrated” feels fair to me.

Did anyone else here play it back in the day?

I went in hoping for that old Heroes feeling, and honestly for me, it is there. The map flow, the battles, the factions, it really brings back that classic PC strategy mood. The art is more modern, sure, but the soul feels familiar.

Best part, the demo is still free on Steam. --> https://store.steampowered.com/app/3241970/Heroes_of_Might_and_Magic_Olden_Era_Demo/

The full game hits Early Access on April 30, so this is a good time to see if it clicks for you.

There is also a short review here if you want more details:
https://bestclassicpcgames.com/homm-olden-era/

Would love to hear what old-school Heroes fans think.

This game and its standalone expansion were the peak of the series for me. That retro vibe in the expansion was pure bliss. Do you agree?

Lately, my news feed has been full of articles from different gaming websites talking about a recent Game Rant readers’ poll that put Red Dead Redemption 2 at number one. From what I saw, the poll first made waves at around 80,000 votes, and later coverage said it had passed 270,000 votes while RDR2 was still on top.

To be honest, seeing that result left me with mixed feelings.

I can fully respect what the game achieved. The attention to detail is incredible, the world feels alive, and the amount of craft behind it is obvious. The storyline is also really well developed throughout the game. In that sense, I completely understand why so many people admire it.

At the same time, I never managed to truly love it, because I have never been interested in that kind of setting. Cowboys, the Wild West, and that whole period of history just do nothing for me. So even though I can appreciate the quality of the game, I never felt deeply connected to the world it recreates.

That is why I wanted to ask this.

Do you really see RDR2 as the greatest game ever made, or do you think there are better choices? Or is calling any game “the best of all time” just too subjective to take seriously?

Mine is probably Wrath, with TBC just behind it.

Vanilla was the start of everything, obviously, but Wrath is the one that always felt the biggest to me. Maybe a lot of that is Arthas, but Northrend, Ulduar, ICC, that whole period just felt like WoW at its highest point.

TBC is really close though. It kept a lot of what made early WoW good and made the game feel better to play at the same time.

So yeah, if I had to rank them, I’d go Wrath, TBC, then Vanilla.

What’s your order?