The future of video games is always an interesting debate to have; the industry is one of the fastest evolving environments in the world today and it's almost impossible to predict where we might be ten or twenty years from now. Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot has one idea on the matter, though, and it's quite the suggestion.
His comments come from an interview with Variety, where he talks about his belief that the next generation of home consoles will be the last. He believes that the recent pattern of hardware updates that the industry is used to will soon be replaced by higher quality, multi-device streaming services.
"I think we will see another generation, but there is a good chance that step-by-step we will see less and less hardware. With time, I think streaming will become more accessible to many players and make it not necessary to have big hardware at home. There will be one more console generation and then after that, we will be streaming, all of us."
Of course, streaming has started to have a much stronger presence in other mediums; the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime have become the go-to film services for many users now, and it might not be too much of a shock to see games take a similar path, especially with the popularity of game-streaming site Twitch. Guillemot believes this potential evolution will be a good thing for the gaming world, more so than future hardware updates.
"It is going to help the AAA game industry grow much faster. We have to work on the accessibility of those games, to make sure they can be played on any device, but the fact that we will be able to stream those games on mobile phones and television screens without a console is going to change a lot of the industry."
There are no real expectations to see new hardware arrive at this year's E3 from any of the major console makers, so we'll likely have to wait a few more years before understanding where the next stage of gaming will be for certain.
Do you think streaming will become the norm for video games, rather than dedicated consoles, or do you think we'll still be buying the latest Nintendo hardware twenty or thirty years from now? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.
[source gamesindustry.biz, via variety.com]
Comments 179
Absolute rubbish, people have been saying this for years and the console market is still chuffing enormous.
Well....good luck with that.
They're not even considering countries outside the US and EU with horrible internet connections. Heck even some parts of the US and EU have crappy internet.
[removed]
Services aren't good enough yet for this to work. Maybe in some small parts of the world they are, but nearly not everywhere and it's not going to change fast enough for a system like streaming games to be viable in 10 years time.
Just cause Xbox is evolving into stream all their games from the cloud on any device does not mean Nintendo and Sony going to stop making consoles
Yeah, that's what you'd like Mr. CEO, so that everyone who wants to play anything has to cash out money per hour for your "live services" vomits
Not a chance. I don't think people are willing to hand over all their games to online subscriptions and essentially just rent them all long-term.
I still buy physical whenever I can, digital occasionally. But I don't think I'd ever be comfortable with streaming everything.
If anything, I just hope we see more consoles like the Switch. Loving the mix of on and off TV play. That's my kind of future.
The bandwidth required for successfully streaming a non-interactive movie on Netflix is different to that required for streaming a game, as shown by the lack of success of OnLive and that other service the name of which I forget just now.
Plus internet goes down and you can’t play anything...yeah, no thanks.
He might be right.
Picture this: Xbox and PS disapear and only Nintendo survives.
The word console is changed to Nintendawesomess making Ubi right.
I don't think that'll be the reason, rather console generations disappear in favour of the XB1X/PS4 Pro/New 3DS approach. So like you have the Switch and then the New Switch followed by the Newer Switch, etc.
It makes me sad to the core to think that, based on this prediction, so many employee's and business' will close if physical software goes down the pan. RIP to walking into a shop and being able to have a conversation with fellow gamers about the thing you love.
@AlexOlney I've been hearing that since the early 1990s so well.
"It is going to help the AAA game industry grow much faster."
Yeah, and let the smaller companies die equally faster. I really fear for this kind of future.
This is probably just his way of trying to influence people because it's what Ubisoft wants, but it's not happening for a long time. And I'm more than happy to keep things the way they are (without loot boxes etc) for the years to come. It's not like this is a struggling industry these days
I know I just wouldn't bother personally if this ever becomes the case. Plenty of AAA titles from the past I couldn't even begin to complete in my lifetime.
I'm sure the younger generation would be on board but I reckon lots of people would quit and that would be a big hit.
I don't see this happening until everyone has cheap, fast internet.
Oh my...every generation I must hear this stupid thing.
By the predictions there would be no one buying PS4, XoneX and Switch and we all know the truth.
He’s right.
....
Just kidding! Hardware till the day we die! Woohoo!
I highly doubt that. I don't see consoles going away anytime soon. Streaming is not available for everybody and it's expensive, not to mention just being licensed a game not owning one.
Doubt it to be honest. Most of the money comes from new hardware , and innovation
@AlexOlney: And hasn’t the portability of the Switch changed this “certain future”?
Interesting to see so many negative comments here! I, for one, love the idea of streaming games and with bandwidth getting faster and faster it would be perfect solution to play games - be it on the go or at home. We also see more experimentation with game-streaming services. These factors contribute to making streaming a more plausible scenario for gaming industry than in was the past, as some of you have commented before.
Small, indie game companies could easily host their game on a server provided by bigger companies (steam?). Not to mention that it would open a door for customers to subscribe to their favourite game developer/publisher to access all their favourite titles. + streaming services would be cheaper in the next 6-7 years, after the new gen, making it affordable for most.
Absolutely Bullcrap.
Nintendo and Sony both still go strong and Nintendo isnt planning to quiy anytime soon.
future generations will still go strong with the hardware/consoles.
The only way consoles end is when Chuck norris is no longer immortal, which will not happen lol.
Yeah. Home consoles will die, but it might take more than one more generation.
I Don't think so! 😂
Eh, at the end of previous generation many publishers believed that console gaming would die soon... Not realizing that people weren't buying new PS3s and X360s because they have greatly overstayed their welcome, people were saving money for their successors and PC got a revival thanks to Steam.
They said the same during the last gen era. It's just not going to happen, not only do people like owning games, but the input lag and servers create a poor experience no matter how fast your broadband is. Just look at how terrible PS Now games look and feel compared to physically owning and playing the same game.
The industry is changing ,technology is improving at an enormous rate.One new piece of tech in any industry not even yet invented can change everything.How we think things will be 20 to 30 years in the future will be far different to how things will really be. If the people at the top want to take gaming in this direction and believe they can because of the capabilities they have available to them at the time then that is the direction the industry will go.
Too many people think in the present when ruling out the possibilities of the future.
Like most people here I think he’s borderline delusional. My guess is that he’ confusing his own reality with that of the majority of gamers. Home networks and the quality/pricing delivered from ISPs are not remotely robust enough amongst the international gaming community.
We will likely see more companies trying, but they will at best carve out a new niche. We’re at least a decade away from this even being a viable option to taking over as the established mainstream choice.
You know what they say:
People are terrible at predicting things. Especially about the future.
This will only happen if publishers are actively pushing for it for no apparent reason other than to have more control over what and how we play our games.
I want to say absolute garbage, but if we think far enough ahead I'd be willing to bet my grand kids will be streaming Gameflix games and nintendo and sony will just be publishers. Whether this streaming service monopolises or not I'd doubt that but possible.
I hope I'm wrong because I like my physical game collection.
Then there's always the possibility of a third party starting up a console and cartridge based system and challenging the gameflix, because lets be honest, 90% of the shows on netflix are pretty c-grade, its not like they dont and wont continue to have challengers from rival services and indie film makers. games are the same.
If we look at books and printed media however... thats going the way of the dodo and nobody thought it would when e-readers first appeared.
Fear the future.
I always felt one day we'd get to that point anyway. I still feel like it's 20 or so years off before we commonly see a Nintendo or Playstation app on your smart tv (or whatever tv's will be called then) for example, but the tech is there. It's all about if the big 3 want to make that push.
I think the big dragons will try and push for this. If every smart-TV suddenly is capable of having the latest fifa or madden where you only need to buy a controller, why bother buying a dedicated console? Much cheaper (at least on paper) for many.
The big publishers would be happy to cut out a middle man (Nintendo, sony, etc) in the process.
I see that totally happening but not yet, not even after the next generation. It is still a long way off but this is definitely the future of gaming.
Everything is becoming subscription-based, from TV to music and software, games are the next logical target. The future where we don't own anything, and everything is rented with a subscription is inevitable. And I hate it.
[removed]
Maybe for Microsoft and Sony, but I can't see Ninty being beholden to anyone, or smartphones coming up with an input system to replace Nintendo handhelds.
I see it happening in a decade
Another way you could take these comments is a hint that the XB1 successor and the PS5 are streaming focused. Ubisoft said this last gen and streaming was a big part of Microsoft and Sony's plan for XB1 and PS4 respectively until Microsoft got the massive backlash at the reveal in 2013 causing both companies to do a 180 on many decisions (Sony did a 180 before the full PS4 reveal making Microsoft look worse).
And THAT will be when I finally become a retro gamer!
Nope. Global Internet bandwidth is nowhere near a stable level. Even if every country vowed to stabilize it worldwide, it would take 3 or 4 console generations to complete. Then when finally put in place, it'll still suffer from input lag.
And that's if we completely ignore games evolving into much more demanding things over time.
@premko1 Mind your language!
It's the model all developers want. You'll never truly own games anymore, rather you'll access them through a continuous monthly subscription. That allows Company X to essentially collect revenue on their games forever. This isn't being driven by consumers, but I do see it as inevitable in developed countries with sufficient infrastructure.
If he's expecting middle aged manbabies (me included obv) to accept and adapt to change, he's way off.
Well here is the thing, you need a device to stream to...you cant stream games to your ass can you? Not everyone wants a PC to stream games to which is why a dedicated box/console is always a good option because it comes with dedicated controllers etc. So i rate this dude's got it wrong but only time will tell.
I can't see this happening, not for the next 2-3 console generations anyway. Look at how much backlash(rightfully so) that Microsoft got at the Xbox One reveal. And that only required you to be online at all times, not online AND having a good enough connection to play games without any hiccups. Keep in mind, that was still just 5 years ago and things haven't changed that much.
Then there's PS Now which never took off and has had a lukewarm(at best) response. Gaming in this regard is just a whole different animal compared to movies or music.
Of course this is a very possible future. The real question is, how far in the future and the form that it takes. I personally doubt there will only be one more classic generation but I can see streaming slowly coming into the mainstream more and more. Don't forget, users of this and similar sites are a small niche, comparitively the same as people that would prefer blu ray over Netflix. If you are the average gamer, who perhaps only buys a few games a year, imagine a $15 a month service that gives you access to try online games.
@Octane Sorry - [removed]
I see this as being possible for Xbox, but not Nintendo or Sony.
I do think it'll eventually capture a segment of the market, like mobile has, and it will have an impact on hardware sales, but it won't replace hardware (again, except for perhaps Xbox)
@DandaraLHH Mind your language!
Well I for one will never stream video games. Ever.
Anyone remember Michael Pachter?
Anyway, people like to own things, and while I havea lot of digital games I also like physical ones that can be stored on a shelf.
I remember hearing about this on the last generation and the current one.
Streaming games over cloud is still in early stages and not even available on most countries. Not everyone is from NA/EU/JP after all.
This has been said for the last two generations already. Why don't Ubisoft just go and finish some games off properly.
Not going to happen. The server requirements to run a highly anticipated, newly released, demanding game would be astronomical. How much power would you need to run such a game for a million people at once? The input lag would also be a killer.
@Tokiwa And even if you're from EU, you still get a lot of people who have limited bandwidth or data plans per month, which makes streaming massive amounts of video an impossible prospect. You have to pay a premium in most countries to even get the volume of data that you can download, even on landlines.
And that's not even taking in account speed, which is different from bandwidth. If the time it takes for your device to send inputs, for those inputs to arrive at the server, be processed, the video being encoded on the fly to be sent back to you, and then the time it takes for it to be sent back to you and be displayed by your screen (the latter may also induce lag btw)... you're likely to have, in the current state of things, up to 20ms of delay which at 60FPS is more than 1 frame of delay. 20ms is even under the most optimistic of cases, your average joe would experience even more lag. I don't think anyone would want to play under such conditions and those conditions have not changed at all in the last decade. Bandwidth grows but latency has remained largely unchanged and it's more due to the speed at which data can be sent over cable, there's not much you can do to improve that.
Anyway the day that everything becomes streaming only will be the day that I will go retro-only and stop buying new games. Good riddance for the people calling the shots on such things, I have such a massive backlog anyway that I am pretty much set for life to never get bored .
Give it three or four generations, and maybe.
Consoles will never die.
If they do, I'll be dead by then. And that's probably a loong time from now.
@AlexOlney Quite! I can remember this idea being bandied about so many years back now that my brain hurts trying to remember it. The shift will continue towards download rather than physical, that makes sense, but to say consoles will die soon is surely nonsense.
The first of the big companies to make the "console-less" step might come close to death however!
Ubisoft don't have a clue how video games work.
PS5 is coming out in 2020. It will last until 2028. By 2030, Internet everywhere should be fast enough to download a 1GB file in a sec. Streaming shouldn't be a problem.
No more piracy, you don't own the games anymore, all games will be streamed from the servers. No need to worry about performance of PC/console, the CPU/GPU upgrade is on their end: the user only need a controller.
I definitely see the industry going predominantly digital and ultimately digital-only, but that is a long way from going streaming-only. Who would even benefit from a turn of event like this other than possibly - in the short term at least - publishers?
That's really the issue I have with this kind of argument. Who is going to make this substantial industry upheaval happen? There all kinds of things that could potentially be technical viable in the near future, but unless there is a significant market for it, and at least a somewhat influential lobby (aka big money) pushing for it, it's not going to happen for a good long while.
Btw, all of that is not to say that streaming as such would spell a horrific future, but I do see more than just a few issues that would arise (not that there are none now).
I love the idea of Nintendo supporting access to more power with streaming technology. This is what I predict comes next. I would love it to be around the corner (E3 announcement? Naah.. probably too early - people should buy more Standard Switchs first). If Ninty is fast they will have the strongest handheld AND a homeconsole powerhouse to catch up with Sonysoft and Microny.
AND Nintendo will respect their core fans who will buy physical for at least 2028+.
Some day, for sure.
I hope @AlexOlney is right and it is absolute rubbish.
But even though I am only 26 years old. In ways, I am very old school. I want to own my games. I also buy my favorite movies on Blue Ray and download or even still buy CDs of music I like, so that I have it. But I do get the impression that kids and teens these days don't really care about that anymore. The era of kids who have grown up with smart phones is probably going to be quite different. I still remember not having internet in my house. Kids and teens these days don't tend to know that was ever a thing.
@BraveBiT @mateq The big issue isn't so much bandwidth - it's latency. It takes a lot less bandwidth than most people think to stream game data. Latency is the killer and it's why streaming feels so terrible and completely unplayable to me - even when I'm streaming on my local network within the home. No amount of technology is going to eliminate latency issues either - it's basic physics at play.
@8itmap_k1d Personally, I still don't think so. In addition to latency issues, there's the matter of people simply liking to physically own things. Having a multi-purpose device that you can install other programs on, use when there's no internet, take with you on vacation or to a friends house, etc... means I don't think we'll ever make it to an "all streaming" future. Honestly, I don't think we'll even get to a majority streaming future in my lifetime.
@shaneoh I agree it isn't happening anytime soon, but cloud vendors like Microsoft Azure, Amazon's AWS, and Google all allow for additional server infrastructure to be spun up on demand. It wouldn't really be too much different from how they have to spin up additional servers for online infrastructure today, just on an (eventually, theoretically) larger scale.
That said, I do think the technology will continue to improve and streaming market share will continue to grow - but physical systems aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
We will move to download only consoles in a couple generations. Streaming will be there, but it won't be the only thing. People like having a dedicated system.
Doubt it.
Nintendo took three generations to figure out going online.
It’s not going to be able to switch to streaming in one.
@Octane
Yeah, sorry about that.
This feels like a CEO trying to push a narrative that benefits his company because he is not in the hardware business and he needs a medium to get his product into the market place. I have to agree with Alex and call this rubbish. The PS4 has sold 70+ million consoles in the midst of the streaming era. The Switch is selling well right now and it offers virtually no streaming lol. I do buy a few games digitally if they have high replay-ability but I like my physical media because I own it. It's mine to do collect, keep, and pass off to my son in the future.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding here, but even if games go streaming, wouldn’t you need hardware to stream them to?
I can already see it happening and I’m not happy about it. Cloud gaming and streaming is not gonna b good for the consumer, you will always have to be online to play games, then in order to play games you will have to purchase minutes essentially renting games not buying them. That’s POTATOES. If I buy a game I want to bplay able to play it anytime anywhere, I don’t want to be streaming it. This is worse than loot boxes.
All I could help reading from that title was "BUY GAMES NOW. THEY ARE THE LAST ONES"
I hate these analyst-style predictions. Sure I think streaming will become more popular but I don't think it's completely taking over. That is indeed rubbish.
It's all to do with maximizing profit. If they can cut out programming games for multiple platforms it's a big win for them. Not having to deal with multiplats also cuts down on the amunt of staff they need aswell.
Tbh though, it will happen at some point, just not for a long while yet.
Nobody knows what the next generation of consoles will be able to do, or the one after that, for that matter, so this is a rather bold statement.
Also, if he thinks the driving factor for this will be accessability of AAA content and visuals, then 12-year olds are already plenty satisfied with the fidelity and intertainment of Fortnite running off their iPad. So I don't see anyone two gens down the line in frothing demand for AAA luxury rendering with the added downgrade of the image being delayed through streaming. Local microprocessing advances too rapidly for it to ever become a strict necessity.
I'm not saying there won't be a market. Or that it won't be fun to make games for that market. I just don't think consoles are going anywhere. Only the boring consoles that don't reinvent themselves.
Until internet connections improve worldwide, I doubt this will happen soon.
Also, people love to hold on to physical copies of things, be it games, consoles, and books. (Remember when PAPER was dead and eBooks were the future? Yeah that didn't happen...eBook sales are continually slumping while paper remains the main medium.)
@Hikingguy imagine all the major console makers going streaming only. Then Apple releases a physical console. Then they can advertise it as:
"Apple: reinventing the console."
He´s right ... and it suddenly makes sense why game consoles in some sci-fi moves look like an oversized Gameboy. You can´t stream games in space ... sci-fi movie prop-designers are the best!
Nah, not gonna happen anytime soon. I think you'll see streaming becoming a major deal, but as an added thing to the industry, not as a replacement.
Playing older 1080p games over a stream a la PlayStation Now? Sure thing. But having to stream games in 4K? Nobody has the bandwith for that. And 4K is now becoming the norm, who knows where we are in 10 years?
The problem is that while internet speeds are getting faster and faster, so are game files and visual fidelity getting larger and larger. In that sense the streaming of games will always be at least one generation behind what "proper" consoles can do.
Just like handhelds keep getting more and more impressive, but won't replace consoles, streaming will get more and more impressive, but not replace locally stored games.
Yeves is far more off his rocker than I ever possibly believed. I knew Ubi could be sideways sometimes, but honestly after this revelation, I'm not even against a Vivendi hostile takeover of Ubi. This guy lost the script and is making the decisions for such a huge company.
Streaming for gaming has been tried and tried and never got anywhere. Sony put big money into Gaikai/Now and it's a laughing stock written off by nearly all, with badly compressed video (while the world screams 4k, including Sony), input lag galore, and tinny audio. And that's one of the BEST options in the industry. Microsoft realized that problem and proudly declares their (much more popular but still not sufficient in content) service of "subscribe to download the game library on local hardware."
Sure, Yves is looking "further down the line" in a number of years, but I don't see internet technology improving at a pace that would allow universal streaming to be functional. Worse, it would condense game sales to subscription packages...Netflix wouldn't work if it were Pay Per View, it works because it's $10 to watch everything they have. I wonder how Ubi would feel if for $20 people could play all of their games, all of EA's games, all of 2K's games, all of Warner's games and they'd get their time/view royalties? Because that's what it would take to convert people. Not to mention that would mean Playstation and XBox would cease to exist, Sony would likely cease to exist entirely, or break up, Nintendo would cease to exist most likely as well...so, what, we'd have Amazon and Comcast selling us game subscriptions? That only work in major metro markets due to latency in most other places, or have grainy video elsewhere? With bandwidth caps applied by most ISPs? (maybe he forsees that ending?) And what about the developing world? Eastern Europe? Where internet isn't so hot.
He's living that 90's cloud dream that execs always chase and never seems to happen due to real world limitations. Maybe "5G cellular" will help that. But do you honestly believe Verizon, AT&T, and TMobile will remove caps and allow a TB or 3 of 4k game streaming per month wireless?
And For Honor with input lag would suck so horrendously. It sucks enough with the P2P servers.
This is surreal. The guy that started $100 "for the full game" bundles wants to go the $10/mo Netflix route that's tanking film studios, while his own current business partners in MS and Sony will fight him tooth and nail on it for survival of their divisions, just after Microsoft is seeing some of their best success over the past few years by announcing that streaming sucks and you can subscribe for downloads. I imagine Valve isn't so keen on that idea either.
"We'll just build one target and stream to phones and TVs using the power of the cloud!" This sounds boardroom ready. It ticks all the right investor buzzword boxes. "Phone, TV, Cloud" are the magic words that investors love to hear. Too bad it doesn't actually work for the software medium. Streamed software requiring real time interaction has always sucked and will suck for a long long time. Even MS office sucks in the cloud and thus requires a download of software locally, let alone twitch games.
I wonder if Yves has figured out what it costs to run a datacenter simultaneously streaming 2.5 million renders of 4k (or by then, 8k) video? Of course not, he hasn't figured out how much it costs to run dedicated servers for playing client hosted games yet. Newsflash Yves: Not even a Vivendi buyout could pay THAT tab. You're going to need to tap into the defense/pharma/energy industries to acquire that kind of coin. Maybe Ubisoft could write software for nuclear facilities. It'll work by the 4th patch, I'm sure!
Ubisoft has hit a new low in my mind. EA might actually outrank them now. Actually, so might Atari.
(Not even ranting out of saltiness.....my internet can handle it. Their servers can't. But I know what it's like to not have internet that can handle it, and the industry basically tells you "we're all about the urban core!" Yeah....that could be the best thing that happens to Nintendo. The elimination of PS and XBox and Nintendo becomes the world's only console maker for everyone NOT in the urban cores and its immediate suburbs.
"Nice job breaking it, hero!"
Pssh we'll still be buying new 3DS and 2DS in 10 years.
@Akropolon Tokyo 2020 Olympic Planning Committee is already promising 8k streams at least for the big screens in Japan. You know Sony's going to be a big backer/partner behind that. That means 8k begins in 2 years. Think we'll still be doing "only" 8k in the timeframe Yves is talking about? Sony/Sammy/LG have to sell TVs somehow! A lot of internet handles 4k streaming right now (where cable vendors are selling 4k) but...8k? Comcast still runs 1TB caps. 2TVs streaming hours of 4k daily would kill the cap. 8k+? You blow your cap in a week and a half playing Assassin's Creed: Ezio Strikes Back or whatever they're making by then.
They haven't even rolled out gigabit fiber in most of the US yet. By the time we're onto 8k+ game streams we'll need 2-4GBit. The odds of them ripping up all the barely 10 year old fiber and replacing it? Next to nil.
This is a classic case of the C Suite not even understanding their underlying business and the tech it runs on. Which is depressing. Yves used to be a developer.
@NEStalgia Exactly. Streaming is a nice little bonus for older games - and something that wasn't technically possible before - but not in any way whatsoever a replacement. It's awesome to see the technological leaps of streaming games and I can't wait to effortlessly play 6th and 7th gen games over a stream. But to state the latest, most demanding games will be streamable? Utter nonsense.
Wherever there's money to be made, there are people to make consoles to get said money.
@Dizzy_Boy Does that staff reduction really happen, and does it really maximize profit though? That's the pipe dream, sure. To switch from this where rendering is distributed and the cost burden is distributed to the consumer, the rendering plan requires UBISOFT to buy all the rendering hardware for every instance their players are playing. And all the bandwidth to actually stream it to every end user. Even in a perfect consumer internet world, multiple render farm datacenters around the world with Netflix levels of bandwidth (by FAR more powerful internal hardware for realtime rendering for every target view) costs are extensive.....and that requires a large staff to administer. I don't think this plan saves them nearly as much money as they wish it did. And then has the problems such as EA suffered with Sims 5 launch which tarnishes brands like no tomorrow in minutes.
Sure, RE7 on Switch may work fine in Japan streamed. But Japan is an island chain. It's not quite so simple to get latency down, even over fiber, in larger geographical areas. It's restricted by the laws of physics, not technology at this point. That means MORE datacenters in every corner of the world.
It makes multiplat development look cheap.
@thesilverbrick You would need a TV or a phone and a controller. The video stream would be the same as watching Youtube now, but with inputs being sent to them. You'd be rendering nothing locally, just watching video of the game really running in a datacenter in L.A.
Basically: Remote play, and Ubi (or Amazon or whoever) buys the console. And charges you to use it. Monthly? Hourly?
Yeah, it's that awful.
@AlexOlney I have to say, I have been using Nvidia's Geforce NOW beta service and it is pretty amazing, my internet isn't even all that amazing. That being said, I still think hardware is necessary, at the very least because you need a controller but also because the companies still hold onto exclusives and in Nintendo's case because you need a screen. I can imagine three competitive apple tv like boxes and if it does go the streaming path I can actually see Nintendo coming out quite well, having already partnered with Nvidia and taking the right approach with handheld.
I mean, despite the bad press it got on announcement, Resident Evil 7 was first to be announced as streaming on the Switch. Cloud gaming is something I can get behind and I get the feeling Nintendo are on the forefront while Microsoft and Sony wasted their money on VR
People don't want to believe it, but this will eventually come to pass. Not because we want it, or anything like that, but because it is the natural evolution of both the DRM and "live service" concepts. The big publishers are already pushing for ways to charge us regularly, over a long period of time, with less investment by them. This is the perfect way for them to do it, and pirating would be virtually impossible without some guy who has direct access to where the game is streaming from, and is willing to risk their job.
Naturally, a lot of us don't like this because we're collectors or simply like the ability to pick up and play our old games at our leisure. We don't want access to our favorite games being subject to the whims of developers and access to the internet. :/
@Grumblevolcano Streaming was a big part of Sony's plan because they just bought Gaikai thinking it was the future. I'm sure they're quite glad MS made them change their mind...Gaikai is a disaster. It spared them the humiliation by making it a secondary feature.
MS then got to learn from Gaikai and made GamePass what it is in response to how many people complained about Now. IMO GamePass is what will redefine game distribution going forward, not streaming. All the consumer benefits of streaming as it relates to Netflix, without the downsides as it relates to gaming. And allows all 3 business models to function. Streaming of games just comes with too much overhead. Buying an SLI Titan duo for every end user playing your game at once is never going to happen. And I can't imagine "Assassin's Creed 14, now with about the same graphics as Assassin's Creed 4" being a marketing pitch in the streaming age.
@Ralek85 Well put. Like with video the thing that would push that addoption would be value. Streaming video offers value with access to huge libraries for a little money. I don't think that's what Ubi has in mind here. Honestly I can see the pricing model happening without the streaming. If MS is really serious about GamePass, I can see that growing and moving to a buffet model...even for normal digital games. But remote rendering is so fraught with so many problems and so many upheavals for so many big players. Ubisoft + EA + Activision against Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, nVidia, AMD.....I don't see that being a winnable war. And EA is already well vested in the current digital sales paradigm with Origin...they may anchor for the status quo as well.
@Scapetti Notice like PS Now, most of the GeForce Now games are last gen games? Also notice the ridiculous pricing structure on offer? It's cheaper to render the older stuff than the new 4k type stuff. Which is fine. But Yves sees it as a vehicle to move AAA forward, while even the titans of the industry see it as viable if you mostly use it for behind-the-curve content. In the glory of 1080p while all the new games are pushing the glories of 4k and Dolby Atmos (AC:Origins.) It's in nVidia's own best interest, though to hold that tech from too much success, despite being the best at doing it, since it eats into their core hardware business.
@Heavyarms55 Those kids will learn fast when the things they like are taken from them. So far they live in a fantasy that they have this stuff and it won't be taken from them. When it is, they'll "get it" quickly.
Still streaming is a whole other thing than even just digital vs. physical and the rights of ownership. It may question whether your 'non permanent rental " can be used as much as you want or if its metered. But if metered....isn't that just an arcade? That would contract the industry heavily as people would invest in one game and play it in lesser quantity. If it's buffet like Netflix, it reduces the value of games to the value of toilet paper. And ultimately what you get is a laggy, unresponsive game, possibly with compressed video. In a decade we'll assume no compressed video, but maybe 1080p forever and ever. That won't work as TV vendors are pushing ever higher resolution.
@roadrunner343 The big thing with Amazon, Azure etc, is they're spinning up already installed available hardware. You can't produce hardware resources out of thin air. It has to be physically in place first. They can spawn new instances in VMs but that doesn't increase the hardware overhead. Most of the computing they provide is just client server, data handling, and of course video, which ultimately is just a file server feeding you bits of huge files little bits at a time. There's not much actual compute overhead involved in any of that. Running a RENDER farm for every individual customer on the other hand is a whole other thing. Every company that has tried it has either bailed or cut back output quality to "bottom tier PC" so badly it's funny. nVidia has it the most right but even theirs is so-so. They're kind of the best bet for figuring out how to make render farms economical...but they have profit motive not to do so by way of selling more GPUs.
I never understand why CEO's have such tunnel vision. Just because where you live you have fast and easily accessible internet doesn't mean the rest of the world does. I'm from the US, where if you don't live in a big to medium size city or a forward thinking small city your internet options range from fast and usually one company to slow and usually one company. The last place I lived in had a max of 1.5 Mbps download speeds (the only drawback for living in that town for me) and that isn't likely to change in my lifetime, because it is a small town and telcom companies aren't going to foot the bill to create a more robust infrastructure. Also some countries have data caps (apparently mine included, although I have never encountered that), and telcom companies are not going to take that extra bandwidth for free. I'm not playing for a "gamer's package" to my ISP.
Also single player experiences are still very much alive and desired. No one wants to go through an internet check for single player experiences (Ubisoft endured a great deal of backlash trying to put that on their AC games so they should know better...but they don't cuz they are Ubisoft). I know some games have it still, but there is a reason it isn't the main route taken when making single player games. I can see physical becoming less common as dedicated game stores keep dying out, sure, but streaming is going to have to coexist with some form of offline media (be it digital which is offline after it is downloaded to your system) or physical for a long, long time. He needs to buy a better crystal ball with his money.
Edit: for clarity.
@mateq coming from a small indie shop (2 peeps) we can’t afford to rent amazon gpu instances to run the game for users. will this get cheaper? maybe but i still doubt an indie shop will be able to charge a flat $15-$20 for a game, those gpu instances cost 10x this per month. i can see the large companies lining this, they can afford a data center to host their games and it will give them more control. instead of owning games you’ll now rent them on a monthly basis so they can control the supply better. refunds? no more. steam is also dead, why would i pay them 30% and still have to host my game? i see this being a win for big studios and a huge loss for everybody else
@Ryu_Niiyama i live in a large city, still the best i get in my apt complex is 50mbps down and 10mbps up. getting 1gbps requires me moving to a “cox neighborhood” and forking over like $300/mo
@NEStalgia I'm not sure what you're referring to - it's pretty quick and easy to spin up new environments. Of course you can't magically create hardware - however, even when spinning up large environments for my current and previous employers (AWS & Azure, no experience with Google) we never had an issue obtaining the resources - and that includes spinning up rendering farms for remote engineers. This is a core business for these companies - I would imagine they have ways of anticipating demand and plan accordingly, because I've never heard of anyone getting turned down for resources from AWS or Azure.
The other thing is, this isn't going to happen overnight. There wouldn't be a need to spin up tens of thousands of servers immediately. It's something that would happen over time, but there would be no issue in spinning up hundreds of servers on demand to deal with increased loads if needed. If I had to guess, both Microsoft and AWS have much larger customers as is (Including themselves) so it shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for them to provide the service.
Just judging by the amount of people that seem to be against streaming it is save to say that there is still a huuuuuge market for consoles. I doubt that will change so drastically in the next, let's say 10 years.
Apart from that there are still too many people with not good enough internet and the technical issue of there being an inevitable input lag.
To sum it up: The next console generation will 99% not be the last, at least not in favor of streaming.
@NEStalgia Perhaps we're talking about a different service (there are many, it can be confusing) but Geforce NOW is definitely not mostly last gen games, there also isn't a pricing structure at the moment. It's all very up in the air. Geforce NOW has games like Assassin's Creed Origins (how much newer can you get?), Arkham Knight, Doom, Wolfenstein II, Fortnite, Bioshock Infinite etc. Not to mention the ability to play pretty much your whole Steam catalogue (it's the older stuff that is less likely to work). I played through Arkham Knight at the highest settings on my macbook with my Nintendo Switch Pro controller and it was wonderful, I never had the opportunity to play that game before
Didn't they say this after the PS2 generation and the PS3 generation? This keeps coming up and frankly I just don't see it. Streaming isn't that reliable. Not everywhere has stable internet connections, not even in the U.S.. And speaking personally, I do have decent internet but every now and then the router goes down for no reason. In the middle of a game, that would be super annoying (it's already super annoying when it causes my Google Home not to wake me up in the morning because the router went down through the night). So enough of this streaming crap, it's more reliable to game on a dedicated piece of hardware. Sure, maybe downloads will become the future with an end to physical media, but at least the file is then locally stored on a hard drive. I don't trust the stability of cloud/streaming gaming at all. And unless ISPs start offering beefy plans with lots of bandwidth for an inexpensive price, I don't see this being a popular idea.
I personally think its gonna be a combination of things that leads to the end of console generations as we know it. Streaming being one. And eventually, we are gonna hit a plateau in visuals and the claim to fame in terms of graphical power isn't going to cut it. Will it happen overnight? Probably not. But that doesn't mean technology can't and won't adapt to make it possible sooner rather than later. We've seen extreme leaps in the paradigm in certain areas in short periods of time. All it takes is that one person, that one company to do it, to do it efficiently and at a price point that consumers are fine with
@Scapetti Ahh, I see the list now, the list I saw before apparently was only the ones that also work on Shield. Which is oddly the list they take you to when you click on the games list from the Now page.
That said they still render at 1080p, not 4k (like the home hardware of the next gen will and current gen second tier does.). Heck if pricing is great I'd even join in if the video's not actually compressed (doubtful), and input lag insn't bad (it probably is. If it's not bad for you, congrats, you live near a datacenter! If you don't....physics can't be helped.)....but....the pricing options I've heard floated around are mostly around buying blocks of time....a.k.a. metered pay per hour gaming. No thanks.
@roadrunner343 Those render farms are limited in quantity, expensive to use, and right now used in a B2B capacity. That's different than the costs of enough rendering farms for all, I dont't know, 1 billion game instances running worldwide at any one time? You spin up new instances quickly because they anticipated the B2B demand and had the hardware in place. However your engineers are sharing workstation GPU resources (mid-tier Quadro/FireGL)....not nearly the same power draw as 4k (or by then 8 k) game rendering. CAD is much more targeted in its resource usage. Could it be "done"? Of course. Economically? Doutful. Right now energy/hardware/etc is distributed to consumers. Centralizing would be a mess for rendering.
@Regpuppy I think the problem with moving to this though is going to be this: Their own business partners have financial incentive to prevent it. Consumers even in the complacent gaming industry violently revolt every time it's mentioned. And they can never push it in cold turkey, it has to run paralell to the existing model....and given the choice of pay per hour for inferior quailty or buy once and play a superior performing version.....it's a hard sell on the former.
Of course if the pricing or value made it economical, then consumers would go for it. Like I said above, Netflix would be another in the long line of failed silicon valley unicorns if it was charging pay per view, or pay per minute, or pay to access each film pricing. It succeeded because it offered "everything you can consume for a tiny price." Unless the game industry is prepared to offer that it's doomed in the streaming space. PS Now does that...but does it poorly and has mostly old content. Game Pass uses that business model, mostly with old content, but lets you play the high performer version LOCALLY not streamed. GeForce now does it well, has mostly old content, and is going to charge more or less hourly. This ain't Netflix and Spotify. And now Netflix and Spotify are what consumers understand streaming to be.
@Ryu_Niiyama "Some countries have data caps" You're living in one. Comcast, the biggest ISP, even on their gigabit packages has a 1TB data cap, after which they charge $50 per 10GB up to $200/mo. or you can pay an extra $50/mo to not have the cap. They just rolled that out this year. Their new 2gbit service doesn't have that....of course it's like $500/mo with a $2000 install fee.
Also, AC:O, Steep, and For Honor all have the online requirement (at least on XBox and probably PC), even for the single player content.
Somehow "cloud services" people think this grand future of free data is always over the rainbow without consulting telecom. And they think that pushing "net neutrality" will make telecom just "pony up" the money and build them whatever infrastructure they want for free under government pressure, as though that cost won't end up forcing consumers to be the arbiters of "no more digital." They live in a dream. They've been there since the 90's.
Another prediction by an industry CEO that will no doubt fail to come true. First of all, the future of video games will be dictated by what the consumers what, not the what the industry wants. And consumers like owning hardware and they like owning physical games, partly because it gives them the option to sell the game later. And why would console companies like Nintendo ever go along with this? Nintendo makes money off of its hardware, and its hardware makes its first party software sell much more then it otherwise would. Bottom line, the only possible way that streaming ever becomes the standard is if consumers want it, but they clearly don't want it and I feel comfortable predicting that they never will.
@DarthFoxMcCloud In the beginning there were mainframes and terminals. Then we moved on to the P2P computing world and called it progress. Then we moved to a client server model and called it progress. Now we are moving back to mainframes and terminals, only now, WAN distributed mainframes. And we call it progress.
@JDORS Consumers will want it if it's priced like streaming video is. Is the gaming industry prepared for flat $10 or $20/mo spread across every studio big and small? Doubtful. $240/yr and no hardware to buy? Sure, I'm in for unlimited gaming for the price of 4 games a year. Something tells me most consumers are, and most publishers are not
Netflix and the music business kind of broke their dreams by setting consumer price expectations in the basement.
Streaming will never work cause not every place had good internet connection especially those who lives near the freaking mountains like my brother who loves his games but quit playing online or streaming due to net connection sucking over there. Bringing good internet to a place like that will never work either cause it tends to get blizzards and wind gust most of the time. So yeah UbiSoft keep dreaming cause a stream only future is way too far behind, unless we can turn those millions of farms and villages into cities, it ain't happening.
@tekknik Yeah I've seen that too. I have cox where I live now but only because it is bundled into the rent. Internet really doesn't seem to be getting cheaper/more convenient. I remember as a kid where I had the fastest dial up speeds offered at the time for 19.00USD. The point isn't that it was dial up but that I got a premium package for my area for a decent price. 20 bucks is a bill you don't even think about, but telcoms are not going to do that if they can help it. They want you hooked, stuck with one or maybe two choices, and they want you paying through the nose. It is funny, as I age and despite my job being in the IT sector , I find myself gravitating towards offline mediums more in part because I don't want a telcom/ISP holding my wallet hostage. And that is exactly what they are positioning themselves to do. ISPs want to become as indispensable as a living expense...like groceries. And as companies move more and more services (Beyond entertainment I mean) to being internet based... They may get their wish...and that is a bit terrifying.
@NEStalgia I've never lived in an area that had data caps for home internet (as my large Japanese media collection attests to, LOL), so I couldn't comment otherwise. I wasn't saying that single player experiences don't have online requirements for some games (I cited Ubisoft as a main offender) but that in general people don't want to deal with that. I'll check and see if I need to edit my post.
I know I skipped for honor (and I can't even explain how badly I wanted that game) due to the persistent online requirement. I bought it used to see if it would even work where I was living at the time (I got desperate, sue me) and I couldn't even get the patch to download. Which reminds me, it is going to be a nightmare to update my HD Twins once I get them out of storage. (another point in the Nintendo/PC bucket next gen for me) I do wonder if that is how we will see the next video game industry crash. Not from a glut of bad games, but instead because clueless companies push for an unsustainable business model in the form of online everything.
@subpopz It does feel like we are hitting a graphics wall doesn't it? At this point I want to see devs focus on high quality, evenly distributed textures for all of their games and better AI. 2k-4k diffuse textures upgrades a game's look without needing a overhauled to a graphics engine. I think we are getting to a point in a gen or two where vram overhead can be accommodated without making consoles 1000 dollars. At this point I'm in the "make your games run better before you make them look better" camp...but sometimes I feel I'm alone in this.
@NEStalgia It was just a single example. My point was, the infrastructure is already there for people to do it today. And there are plenty of examples of it already being done today. Of course, there would need to be changes in infrastructure if it ever because the norm to stream, rather than render locally, but we're a long way off from that. And again, even if the industry does shift in that direction, it would be a gradual shift, not an overnight shift. It'll be a long time before they need to spin up 1 billion instances =D As for the B2B requirements, of course they are currently anticipating our demands (Likely not ours specifically, but across all organizations). It's like a bank - they use everyone's resources to satisfy everyone else. It would be the same thing as streaming continues to grow - it's just a new type of business/customer.
As far as I can recall, I don't believe we've ever discussed our jobs/backgrounds before, but it seems clear to me you're pretty familiar with IT, so I don't think we need to discuss how cloud computing works too much more - I think we both get it =) Most people on here don't have an IT background, so it's always a little difficult knowing how much to simplify things, but then risk getting called out on your simplified examples XD
Anyways - despite believing it's entirely possible over the next couple years, especially as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Rackspace, Oracle, etc... anticipate the shift in demand, I don't think it's happening. Not just any time soon, but ever. Demand will increase, and more people will use it, but I highly doubt we will ever see a majority streaming in my lifetime, primarily due to latency, as well as some of the other concerns I previously mentioned. Pardon the wall of text, but I do love myself a good tech talk =)
@NEStalgia That pricing model might work for movies and tv shows but it would never work for video games. How could publishers turn a profit on this model? There's no way. Movies and tv shows make their money from other sources besides streaming. Besides, it's pretty clear that developers have no intention of charging less for their games. It seems they're always looking to charge more whether through dlc or loot boxes.
Don't know if next gen will absolutely be the last but I agree with him that, just like with music, film, and TV, streaming -and limited physical editions- is the future of gaming.
I don't believe this prediction any more than I believed thenworld would end in 2012. But that doesn't mean companies won't try to force it. It is very rare that CEOs actually know their industry and even rarer that they let facts and truths disuade them from their "transformative vision to change the way the industry works".
And the fact of the matter is that the transition to subscription models are what businesses are salivating over right now. And for those of you who think it'll be cheaper, think again; companies don't move to subs because it reduces revenues. And for those who don't know how they would do that, here's a model:
Basic package: you can play the games, but only the featured games we have in rotation. If we rotate them out, you no longer have access.
Slowpoke package: For an additional subscription fee, you can get a larger time window to play games in the rotation. They'll get added earlier and they get removed later than the basic package.
Legacy Collection: Really liked a game or heard good things about one that has gone by? Add it to your legacy list! Simply pay a nominal increase to your subscription fee per game to be able to play that game at any time, prices dependant on thee game itself, age, popularity, and bundle offers.
Save service: Want to keep ypur progress in a game? For an additional fee per game, you can save your game with us!
*Note: all services come with an activation fee, if a subscription lapses and is reinstated, that activation fee applies again as a reactivation fee.
@roadrunner343 LOL, yeah, I make that same error all the time
@Ryu_Niiyama The Comcast cap thing is now I believe nationwide. They implemented it in December/January. So in Comcast only zones (which is most zones) and where Comcast is shared, even on 1gb plans it's that stupid 1TB cap, with up to 200/mo in overage fees or a flat $50/mo to not be capped. They're doing it, of course, to "encourage" people to buy cable and not stream TV. But it also makes the service disastrous for gamers in this digital everything model. I don't have comcast, but that's a horrendous attack on digital gamers. It's effectively a flat $50/mo extra to be a digital gamer on Comcast unless you buy few games.
As for For Honor, don't sweat it. It's a cool game. I loved the campaign. It was brief. Then online feels like Quake CTF mixed with Unreal Tournament. It's kind of a cool game...but something is just....wrong...with online. Which is the main game. Campaign was a fun 5 hours though
Yea Microsoft wanted something like that with XB1. We all know what happened
@JDORS But the trouble is consumers have been trained to expect that pricing model for streaming services. No matter what's sustainable, that's what consumers will expect. AND there's already gaming precedent. PS Now is $15/mo for 600+ mostly older games but some newer games streamed. Game Pass is $10/mo for mostly older games plus new exclusives. Game Pass needs work on a much better catalog, but the groundwork is there. The pricing is set. Anything over $20 will likely be rejected. Which is exactly why this whole nonsense will never fly. EA Access provides the EA catalog (or at least a big chunk of back catalog) for $5/mo.
They want to charge more per unit and streaming will force them to charge less. Or they get greedy and try extreme fees for limited content, and they get railroaded by a more value conscious competitor.
@AlexOlney Exactly! and never mind the fact that in order to stream games seamlessly you need to basically have a fiber connection - not all people have fast enough Internet for that. Also, some ISP's still have data caps, so streaming HD videogames wouldn't take long to go over your cap limit.
@NEStalgia In regards to Comcast, that is terrible. To think I thought that poor vision would push me out of gaming. Apparently it will be ISP practices. It would be great if as consumers we wouldn't accept this...but...too much to ask. Bread and Circuses.
Well maybe For Honor I'll dream of the game they showed off at E3...which was supposed to have a robust single player campaign.
I currently have cable Internet at 150 mbps down & 15 mbps up and PS Now is barely functional on my PS4 Pro. Between the very slight lag already present with the wireless controller and the slight lag from streaming the games, there is a noticeable input lag between pressing the buttons and the action happening on screen compared to playing a game off the disc or hard drive.
@Anti-Matter Similarly, watching Cable television series without a physical device is non-sense. Of course there will still be a need for streaming capable televisions, set-top boxes, PC's, tablet, etc...
@Ryu_Niiyama Graphics are hitting a wall because the human eye is only capable of so much. 4k is pretty much pointless on a tv smaller than 55 inches, unless you're sitting 1-2 feet away to look at the pixels. Even then, if you're sitting about 10 feet away from the tv, like many living room set-ups, you don't start to see a benefit until screen sizes are around 80inch or so.
People have been spewing this "now will be the last console gen" for ages, yet nothing has occurred that would lead to such moment.
@Regpuppy Like I said I'd like to see a greater focus on texture mapping anyway. 4k isn't worth much with muddy textures.
Not that I believe it’s close to even happening, but the day it does go to streaming only is the day I truly become a retro console only collector/player. They can keep the streaming crap.
@Regpuppy
LOL
I would rather see an Obvious pixelate graphics from 240p video games on LED TV rather than 4K on LED TV.
240p >>>>> 4K
So classic, so video games, not 4K.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The day streaming takes over gaming is the day I stop buying video games.
@Anti-Matter You're obviously being facetious, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Yes, 240p and 480p would look like crap on a modern LED or OLED tv. But I'm not arguing for these resolutions. I'm saying that we hit a point of diminishing returns for visual quality once we get to 4k. Unless a screen is bigger than 55-60 inches and/or much closer than 10 feet, the human eye, with 20/20 vision, will struggle to see the difference.
@AlexOlney You are 100% right; those were my thoughts, exactly. We've been hearing this sort of silliness for ages.
people will still want to play games on the go like the switch. mobile devices would not have the power to play these streaming games like the switch can. Then those games would not be yours to have. I prefer having my own games than streaming games that are not yours.
@slider271 The problem with comparing streaming video games to streaming movies is how video games require a much faster connection due to their upload requirements that simply do not exist with movies and music. You need to be able to upload very quickly or else there is going to be a lot of noticeable lag.
I live in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and even there my internet connection isn't really fast enough to comfortably stream video games, and those are some of the best cities for fast internet in the entire United States. I simply do not see this working for the vast majority of Americans.
Then you have all the problems such as data caps that they are trying to impose with ISP's which will surely ruin the popularity of streaming video games. Trying to stream 4k is bad enough with a data cap, imagine trying to stream video games all the time.
We will need a major overhaul of the way we approach internet connections in the USA for this to work, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon by the look of things.
Hey Yves, how about coming to a rural region of the planet, say...my corner of North America, and analyze how long this pipe dream will take to come to fruition?
Streaming TV, music, and movies is all fine as those simply need to buffer, but playing games this way will require a very powerful, reliable, uninterrupted connection wherever you are. Not to mention the player is outta luck when that streaming service inevitably moves on and shuts down. It leaves too much power with the company in charge of the service.
@AlexOlney Couldn't agree more... Streaming? Bah! I wouldn't even stream games if I was bloody wired to the serverfarm hosting my games! It isn't smooth, it isn't going to be smooth, and it's not the direction gamers want the industry to go. It's a solution that will, even in 10 years, leave half the planet unable to play games. If not more.
Input latency!
Is there going to be a breakthrough (or two, or three) in next couple of years, that would cut the input latency signifigantly?
I don’t mind subscription but input latency kills games.
@AlexOlney exactly.
Its city people in 1st world countries that spout BS like this. "all of us?" Even in large swathes of the United States where you measure your land ownership by the acre and not the square foot, there is either dial up or maybe satellite. Broadband? ha! Cable and fiber are just dreams for many still. And that's in a first world country. Think about the rest of the world. The entirety of central and south america including Mexico still have a long way to go in terms of internet infrastructure and are still many of them developing markets for videogames. One of these days Nintendo will crack into China, and instantly sell at least twice as many of whatever console it is that they are making at that time. What about if/when the DPRK's political system is overhauled, or reintegrated with SK again? That could see in a generation a whole new market of people getting into the market who just need and want a game console too.
This man smacks of silver spoon mentality and should not be part of a company that is so vast and multi-national. He thinks the world revolves around his life style and that is embarrassing really. What a chungus.
Those wanting interactive cinematic experiences will make their beds much in the same way mobile users have. They want the experience. Hardware and collecting etc etc isn't important to the mainstream. If they can get that experience on their phone or TV, then so much the better.
However, I firmly believe that there will always be a market for a bespoke gaming system, especially one that can capture the imagination of a new audience. Nintendo seem to know what they are doing within this field.
Take for example ADOBE a much bigger and smarter company. They would love to provide their IDE as a fully streamed service just like Office 365 web but they can't due to the fact that latency issues are experienced differently between productivity suites.
Whats good for office apps and browsing does not work for development IDE's graphics apps. In my work we have Citrix server on a lan environment solid and clean and running these apps is horrible - Games will have the same effect - it's not passing the network deltas it's streaming every change and actually processing each user interaction on a server and what it means you need to host GPU farms that costs x10 then what is currently priced and you need to solve the latency (meaning you need to stay very close to those customers physically (less then 10ms reaction) and make sure each of those customers have a powerful internet infra to their ISP.
This will be possible in S. Korean in 5 years from now at least. the Rest of the world can forget about it.
@NEStalgia Thanks for explaining that. I feel dumb, haha. That said, reliable streaming is years away from being marketable in place of a console, especially for any kind of portable gaming. I thought digital only games were bad enough, but streaming? That’s a million times worse.
In addition to all of the other major issues listed here in the comments section, I'd like to mention another possible problem: what would a "universal streaming service" do about the issue of controllers?
If you have games that are able to stream on TVs and phones and the like, how would controls translate across all of these platforms? What if one publisher requires a controller with a special set up (a specific layout of buttons, motion control, etc) - what then?
With out traditional physical consoles providing default / standard controls for that platform, will gamers be forced to buy several different proprietary controllers in order to be able to play certain titles?
I could actually see a scenario where game publishers actually get into the market of producing their own "unique" controllers, forcing a physical sale by making certain games unplayable without that publisher's proprietary set-up.
And how would complex console-caliber games even play on a phone or tablet without real physical buttons? You can only do so much on a touch screen.
I just can't see all publishers and studios agreeing to use a singular generic / universal controller. Especially publishers like Nintendo who tend to highly value novel control set-ups.
In any case, of all the current hardware console manufacturers, I actually see Nintendo as being in the best position to survive such a transition. Their powerful place in the portable console market could allow for something akin to a Switch-esque system that can also stream. This would be of a huge benefit over phones and tablets as it would provide traditional controllers that those devices lack.
Ugh please no, I might literally abandon this lifelong hobby if that happens. I physically own my games, I’m a collector. And I probably have a large enough backlog to last the rest of my life... I can’t imagine having internet that can handle constantly streaming games anyways, and handhelds would be pointless because I definitely wouldn’t always have internet...
Big companies like Ubistank and EA have been trying to push their agenda on the consumer, but the consumer's will decide in the end. Even if streaming ran flawlessly, which I doubt will ever happen, I still like to own my games. Microsoft is steering in that direction only because the market dictates it for them. Unlike Nintendo and Sony, they've been a stain in the industry.
@AlexOlney Yeah, never mind the resurgence of physical, social boardgaming.
(try streaming boardgaming).
Never mind that nice hardware brings you joy in itself to own and hold and use - much in the same way its nice to own figures.
Hardware will evolve and the experience will evolve.
Quality people will always want a quality experience, there will always be Market for it.
Local play is always the way... 9
@Ryu_Niiyama It must be a comfort to you to know that no matter what vision changes you experience with your monooccular vision, you will still never be as myopic as Yves Guillemot and his cadre of cloud and mobile obsessive industrialists!
Sadly consumers have accepted their place as servants of their overseers, fully breaking the entire point of a free market right around the time broadband became a thing. I'm not sure what weird effect the internet has on people that enthralls them into servitude but I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that a world without internet would have been better than a world with internet, despite the positives it provides in some areas.
I can remember analysts saying this every generation at least as far back as the GameCube. Didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
@GrailUK Of course the irony is that the quick input reflex games like DKCTF, Sushi Striker, and Mario Tennis REALLY need local hardware (the tiny latency would kill), and that same problem applies to competitive shooters and such, where the lag of a wired controller is too much for competitors to accept let alone streaming. Meanwhile the cinematic interactive movies need the best graphics they can offer....and streaming isn't that. There's a reason UHD BD is a thing: Not as compressed as streamed 4k video. Almost no segment of gaming actually works in this model. RPGs maybe...that's about it. Most of Ubi's own games would be horrible this way. Wildlands? For Honor? Division....or worst of all, Crew/Crew2? Thay'd play horribly.
Pfft, that's nonsense, in that, most of the time I play my Switch it's while traveling somewhere without internet, like the subway or an airplane...and even when I'm home, I would want my content local so there is no lag...streaming will ALWAYS have some lag.
@MonkiPlays Xbox doesn't have anything like this. There are a few games like the upcoming Crackdown 3 that rely on cloud based content to supplement the base game (like an MMO), but their Game Pass service is actually a subscription to download the games and play locally as though you bought them digitally, and their FAQ for it very directly says they don't stream because of the feedback on streaming being, basically, bad. Playstation has PS Now that is basically this....and it's fairly hated with a low subscription base.
Game Pass is pretty cool (though the library is lacking) specifically because it's not streaming at all, it's more like the old rental stores, but with digital copies instead of physical ones, and you keep them for 30 days + rather than a weekend. PS Now on the other hand has a better library and awful performance for more money.
@JayJ Exactly, and that’s why looking at the rise of streaming music and movies and comparing it to games isn’t something you can do at the moment on most places.
Of course, publishers love the streaming model as, like with digital games, there’s no second hand market so for all games sold he money goes to the publisher, and they control the prices more easily.
What is this french CEO huffing glue or is he really that clueless about gamers? I guess that explains the string of lame releases Ubisoft has crapped out last few years. You got a CEO at the helm that is clueless. I personally have no problem with the concept of streaming but eliminating latency from streaming for most games is a major challenge even on local networks, let alone across the internet. Long long long way to go to be on same level as local console play for anything but casual gaming. He must also be completely unaware of the huge surge in streamers with serious spectator numbers that would have nothing to do with this madness.
Internet connections worldwide would have to become faster and more reliable, but yeah I could see it happening in the next decade.
It’s defo going to happen but it’s going to take a good few years yet. Once they be a stable system that works, it will happen. The savings in producing hardware would also be enormous for companies. It’s easy to see we’re heading that direction whether people like it or not. Granted some people have that stupid argument of they have been saying that for years...but that does not mean it won’t happen.
I hope it does only for the fact that maybe everything’s will one day be played from one device. That’s my dream, and that they are always a available regardless of updates..looking at you apple 🍏
Here's the thing though. if you become pure steam only you won't just have the competition of other gaming companies, you're in competition with every steaming service on said device period. And with more and more monthly subscriptions coming forth, we won't be able to afford all of them since not every games, TV Show or Movie is under 1 service. And when money gets tight, a sub or more will have to go, so it will be hard for services to justify "Hey stick with us!".
Then you have handhelds and phones. Are you going to pay to download the latest Pokemon Adventure, or are millions going to settle with the billions of free to pay games out there or emulation of the older games? You know how easy it is to quiet young kids these days by giving them a phone/tablet screen to play free games or marathon through a whole run of a kids TV show again and again through their Netflix/Amazon/Whatever streaming service? Right there, having a dedicated games system with a few streaming options becomes more safer than loosing the fans all together.
As a company so heavily in favor of the "games as a service" business model, something multiple games publishers want to be successful, it's unsurprising an Ubisoft CEO would say this, but I don't think consoles are going anywhere until you can buy a gaming PC at relatively the same price as a console for the same power.
@RiruKiria
another console industry crash will eventualy happen.
there are already signs. companies realease several similar systems with minor updates. just like in the eighties and early nineties with atari and sega.
its a circle.
the second last time sony saved the industrie, with the psx to make gaming more mature and realistic.
xbox made the community connective.
there has to be somebody to make again that change, otherwise it will bleed to dead.
so a streaming console might be the new step, but who will be the first and do the best.
to be continued....
@PALversusNTSC
Sorry but it will not gonna happen.
Physical media will still exist and beyond.
Game shop will keep running their business.
Digital lifestyle will NEVER dictated our life.
We will Dictate the digital lifestyle as an OPTIONAL choice, Not as a Mandatory gaming lifestyle.
We must Fight back for something we loved (Playing video games in physical media) & will NOT Surrender by Digital Only / Streaming Only domination.
He obviously hasn't used the internet in rural Australia.
BOOOOOOO! Screw his opinion!
Guys we're talking about year 2030. Playstation 5 will come after 2020. 5g+ and super fiber will be standard by then and we will all be old-er. So maybe it will happen.
@Akropolon I'm not sure 4K is becoming the norm just yet. 1080p is still the (upper) standard, and given the price of 4K devices (outside of phone screens) it hasn't caught on yet, at least outside the US.
And since internet speeds are a mixed bag worldwide, 4K streaming is a pipedream in most countries.
I agree with the general sentiment here that streaming will be another mode, but not the main mode. It'll be treated like VR, in my opinion: fancy, but not standard.
Sorry, but I prefer to pay a fixed cost and always have access and ownership (whether physical or digital license) over my games of choice rather than pay a continuous monthly fee for games they may or may not have available while needing to rely on a constant Internet connection, and many other people feel the same way. It's the same reason why DVD and Blu-ray sales and rentals still remain strong despite the availabilitity of the aforementioned movie streaming services.
My parents did eventually splurge for Netflix, but we use it mostly for Netflix exclusive and older TV shows rather than for movies.
I guess I'll stop gaming then cause my internet is damn awful for streaming.
"CRO of large corporation predicts that thing which will benefit his company will happen. Hopes that by saying it often enough it will become so. World is not shocked. Here's Tom with the Weather"
The day gaming goes completely digital, is the day i become a full time retro gamer. I refuse to go completely digital. I only buy digital for small games and when there are great deals.
Hahaha good one Ubisoft! Try living in Australia and saying that. Maybe in 40-50 years our internet will get there.
Way too soon. My guess is that we'll see another 2 console generations at least. Even in 10 years from now, the number of people that will have an internet connection fast enough to easily stream games in 4K will only be a small percentage of the total gaming market demographic. Sure, we'll see a move towards game streaming but it's gonna take a lot of time to get rid of consoles entirely. Unless some miracle technology that will speed up the internet a hundred times is invented in the meantime.
@SomeWriter13 Yeah, I could have been somewhat clearer. With "becoming the norm" I really meant "just now on its way to becoming the norm". I happen to have a 4K TV, but most people in my environment don't. I think the US penetration rate is like... still sub 20% and they're (besides absolutely also relatively) the biggest 4K market. So yeah...
Yah, maybe for ubisoft.
Eww...
Physical > Streaming
The day streaming becomes the only option is the day I stop playing new games.
Whilst this may happen to an extent I believe physical games and consoles will remain but as more niche products. Music streaming, e-readers, digital film and games have hit physical sales but not removed them entirely. In fact we have seen a resurgance of smaller quantities of physical media being produced for specific audiences. I foresee things like this. Whilst some games may never see physical releases in the future I foresee these following the “Live Services” style where a physical copy is in itself questionable as when the service is shut down, it looses all value.
In the the end, the only reason he has said this is because it lines up with their desires. AAA publishers don’t want to be continuously developing games and relying on sales; they want to develop only a few big titles that they will support over time and have continuous cash flow through subscription payments and microtransactions.
They don’t want Some of the money, but ALL the money.
@DABYX this. I have almost 1000 Super Nintendo games I still haven’t played. If this comes to pass, I will be done with modern video games.
@LeonBelmontX Not a chance. I don't think people are willing to hand over all their games to online subscriptions and essentially just rent them all long-term.
There are a growing number of people that proudly proclaim that they are 100% digital because it's more convenient. That they are paying full price for long term rentals and the fact that they are paying more than physical buyers (because they are paying for their own storage too) does nothing to change their mind. They just think that these things are good trade offs to not have to deal with changing game cards/discs.
@Varoennauraa Unfortunately, it is physically impossible for there to be a "major" breakthrough. The vast majority of the latency comes from the time it physically takes electrons to traverse the physical media - not processing time added by equipment. I suppose there could be a breakthrough of some sort in programming that somehow masked the latency (Sort of like playing an online FPS game, there's tricks to mask the lag) but I don't think that would be possible without some sort of game specific client/assets installed. At that point, why stream.
I'm not saying that there won't be any improvements. More fiber optic networks (Ever so slightly reduced latency vs. copper), new equipment with slightly lower latency, software improvements, etc... mean the tech will get better, but not drastically so. The majority of the lag present today would still be present even after all of those improvements.
Not gonna happen. How are they going to meet demands of today's gaming desires? 4K 60fps+ with HDR and Dolby Atmos with near instant controller feedback at the mercy of your internet connection? That's not happening any time soon and hardware demands are going to increase with new Unreal Engine and next gen graphics.
It's never gonna happen because the big Internet service providers are too invested in figuring out ways how to cap usage and squeeze every penny they can out of the slowest speeds and most mediocre service possible. For this to be possible, they'd first have to be willing to provide cheaper, faster, more reliable, more widespread, and unlimited service to the masses first. Then you have to go through the actual process of convincing people that it'd be a grand idea to base their gaming on their internet quality when they're used to even their movies and TV shows buffering.
Yeah, good luck with that.
What's really funny is that he completely bases this off of what would be a desirable future for AAA devs such as himself when the biggest game phenoms of the past decade have been the likes of Minecraft, Pokemon GO, Candy Crush, and Fortnite. All games you could play on a toaster. The market is clearly speaking a much different tune.
@bozalina Right with ya! That'll keep you going lol. Own them physically? If so, triple thumbs up
I live in a major city in the USA. I have two choices for internet provider, and picked the best package available. And I still have trouble with streaming Netflix sometimes.
Do they seriously expect me to believe that over the course of a decade or so, online services will become much more diverse, reliable, fast, and widespread? At a speed capable of matching how fast the technical demands of games are growing?
There are some games being released that have patches of around 10GB, that would not fit into a DVD. When I get a big game on Steam, I usually need at least a day to download it. And these people think... what? Do they think?
@Crono1973 You really can't relate digitally downloaded games to streaming games, and the fact that you are trying to do that tells me how you are very confused as to how downloaded games work. There honestly isn't any real difference to the ownership entitlements to a digital game downloaded from the eshop over a game on a physical game card. Once you download a game it is a part of your console, and you can always play it even if you have no internet connection and the whole network goes down so long as you still have the console you downloaded them on. Even physical game cards can have their drawbacks, you can lose them, discs can get destroyed or deteriorate over time, at the end of the day there isn't a big difference. Calling digitally downloaded games "rentals" is just you telling us how you have no clue as to what you are talking about. For example, I can still play all the games I downloaded on my Wii despite the Wii store being shut down. It isn't like streaming games at all.
Especially now a days when they have a bunch of physical Switch games that require half the game to be downloaded, it is a joke to act like that is somehow less reliant on the internet.
@JayJ Once you download a game it is a part of your console, and you can always play it even if you have no internet connection and the whole network goes down so long as you still have the console you downloaded them on.
With a physical game you can play it any Switch and you need not worry about the eShop closing or a game getting delisted.
@Crono1973 If you have a game downloaded and installed those are non-issues for the most part, see my comment on the Wii. The Wii Store closing down has had no effect on my ability to enjoy the games I downloaded from it.
Right now your attitude is like saying once a physical game stops being sold new in stores that is it and nobody will ever be able to play those games anymore because they can't buy them new anymore.
@JayJ Nope, the advantage of physical games is that they can be resold. You can buy them used long after they stop printing them.
If you have a game downloaded and installed those are non-issues for the most part Having a game downloaded on your Switch won't help you play it on a different Switch and it will make your life a little more difficult if your Switch breaks and you replace it.
Look, if you want to go all digital be my guest be these are the facts. 1) You have to buy your own storage. 2) Digital games are often more expensive than new physical copies because inventory isn't an issue. 3) Used games are almost always less expensive than digital games. 4) You can't resell a game you don't like or don't want to play again.
So go ahead and stomp on your own consumer rights but don't expect others to do the same.
@Crono1973 Are you seriously trying to say physical games are cheaper when most physical games on the Switch command a premium and never go on sale nearly as often?
Anyways, you are clearly one of those crazy people who does not understand how digital games work.
I highly doubt it. Publishers always spout this type of crap every gen because their ultimate goal is to spend less on shipping products and collect more from their bs games as a service model. What better way to achieve that goal than to strip ownership of games and literally turn them into a service
Steaming is not stable enough as it is right now.
Maybe in the future it will be a contender.
But what it gonna hurt the console market is the rise in cross platform games.
The are fewer and fewer games that are unique to just one platform.
This is good for the game developers, but bad for the console developers.
I think what gamers want going forward is options. We already are able to play Xbox games on pc, maybe PlayStation needs to take a step in that direction as well. I personally would love streaming access to Zelda games but I don't think Nintendo will ever deviate from strict console only access.
@Rhaoulos
Except that probably will not happen.
I didn't read through all the comments but am I the only one for this idea?
I have little interest in buying a PlayStation 4 let alone a PlayStation 5. So I would love to see a TV and phone that plays PlayStation games so I don't have to buy another console.
I would love to see XBOX provide XBOX Live on everything it can possibly imagine including the Switch.
I think Nintendo will also go and make more mobile games and should provide some sort of service where you can steam Nintendo games with or without owning a Switch.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...