There are pros and cons for both sides of the argument about digital versus paper. But I'm going to look at this from a purely selfish standpoint right now. I'm not looking at what I can collect, even though I have a collector's heart. I'm not thinking about how impressive my book collection appears, even though I love it when people visit my home and say, "Wow! That's a lot of books." And I'm not going to focus on being able to pass something down to my children, although I want my kids to enjoy the wonderful books I've discovered (I still can do this electronically, I guess).
I'm looking at the pure economics of this. I don't see why I should pay $7.99, $9.99, $12.99, or $15.99 for a physical copy of a book, when I can by the e-book version for anywhere from $2.99 to $5.99. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm interested in the story. That's it. Not collecting, not displaying, and not passing on. I just want to read the story. And you might say, "Wait, you have to buy the e-reader first." Yes, I do. But I can pay around $150 for an e-reader or I can spend an extra $300 or more on buying the paper versions. (This is based on an average $3 in savings per e-book for 100 e-books. I've seen some only $1.00 cheaper and I've seen some $10 cheaper.)
So from a purely selfish standpoint, I think I will say, "Digital, not paper, please." Now don't get me wrong, I'll still probably stop by the used bookstore from time to time, and if a paper copy of a new book is cheaper than the e-book, I'll buy it. But for me, right now, it just doesn't make economic sense to choose paper.
Just a quick note about my first "real" book giveaway. If I get 100 followers on Twitter, I'll randomly pick one of my followers and send them a new copy of Jeff Strand's Dweller. See? I told you it would be simple for you to have a chance to win a "real" book. And if you haven't read this one, you're in for a treat.