Now Ubisoft's Saying Consoles Like PS4 will Be Replaced by Streaming Services

Cause PS Now works so awesome, lol.....traditional consoles still have some time, and technology tends to evolve in ways that differ from earlier preconceptions......streaming makes sense, but it's still less than optimal.

What these delusional suits fail to see is that internet isn't all that great for everyone. Consoles aren't going anywhere for at least a few decades

It's the third generation that they talk about it...oh well.

His timeline seems to look like this -
3 more years currnet gen, 5 more years next gen, another gen or 2 of something replacing home consoles, then streaming. So that makes streaming maybe 15-20 years away. Based on the current rate of internet progress - look where cell phone data and broadband was 15-20 years ago - I'd say he's probably more right than wrong.

This is th emost important part -

"we'll still have another generation of consoles before we have new types of consoles coming to the market"

I think new types of consoles are either Roku or tablets w/ TV out. The tech should be there in 8 years to make big box home consoles obsolete. Those boxes are just too big.

One thing that might make a big box acceptable is "centralized" gaming. Working off of the Vita and Rmeote play of PS4 games, would be nice to stick 1 box somewhere in my house and have it work seamlessly all over the house. I have 2 sons a living room and a bedroom. I woudln't mid sticking a big box in the closest w/ my wireless braodband router and playing on any tv in the house. Even if it meant only 1 perosn playing at a time having access on 4 tv's in 4 different rooms would be nice.

And since PS4 and X1 are so close to PCs anyway. MS should work on promoting my main office PC running games on every screen in my house. Sony will have more of an issue due to OS, but by Win 11 I'm expecting PC and X2 to be indistinguishable. I think it may sort of work like that now but you still need an X1. Or maybe not, I dont really follow MS. But buying both an Xbox One and a Win 10 PC seems almost redundant at this point. 1 box, hidden away, multiple screens, should be the goal. .

Won't ever happen until digital prices fall in-line with steam. How long will that be. Half a million years.

@rjejr I agree. It is the way of the future. Widespread sustainable broadband is key. At that there still needs to be an option for rural users.

I think they also fail to realize that a lot of people (including myself) have internet data caps at home. Streaming video games would blow through my 600 gigs in a weekend lol

Seeing how poorly the Just Dance Unlimited streaming service was executed, like other streaming services, there's really no reason to move over from the traditional model. If publishers try to force streaming on consumers, consumers will take their money elsewhere.

Streaming won't work unless Internet speedservice vastly improve along with bandwidth caps being removed, then since we no longer can own a disc or download the game prices would need to be drastically altered and we would need a written and valid guarantee that in 20 years if we want to resist a game we would still have that ability regardless of a game company going under. The day I can only stream something I own (I won't buy a digital movie unless I can download it as well) with no real rights to play it however long down the road is the day I move to whatever service does allow it. Whether it be a competing console or pc. Too many roadblocks at this time and with the rise of streaming video options I highly doubt Internet providers that also provide cable are going to have any incentive to remove data caps.

Who knows whether this will happen, but they said the same with vinyl, and although many changes have occurred and music streaming is hugely popular vinyl sales have never been healthier.

I just can't see the majority of gamers excepting not being able to buy physical copies of their games. The industry is already in decline, at least from console perspective, and streaming only could really put people off for good.

I agree 100% with this statement I can stream PS3 games using only my TV we're not not far away from the age of steaming.

Gotta agree with Savino , its awesome on theory but the consumer could potentially get hit hard in the wallet with streaming subscriptions. Plus data caps, rural users, and the people who are unwilling to change to this knew idea. It will jave to be a gradual change , im thinking 50 years till we see the end of disk based hardwear change to full streaming.

@MarvinTheMartian vinyl sales have definitely been healthier. The 1960s, 70s and early 80s take your pick.

No no no.

This is what they WANT to be the future. They predict this future in order to plant seeds in the consumers' minds, to slowly acclimate us to the idea.

Who benefits from all streaming? The publishers. It's the ultimate DRM. Ultimate, total control. And who is coincidentally predicting this as the future? That's right, the mega-publishers who are thirsty for total DRM.

Yeah... Count me out when that happens. Unless the world gets super fast internet available all over the place, not very many people will be able to play video games years from now.

I always thought this was the real reason behind Playstation Now, to test the water and get the infrastructure in place. Already I can use it on my TV without my PS4, so there must be people playing Playstation games already without actually owning a Playstation

@Savino "With Stream Services you will have to pay for an EA subscription, another for Ubi, another for Take2..."

Why? Don't you think somebody will take over? Google? Apple? Netflix? Cable companies or Verizon? And even if there are a few options - like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime (gotta have my Dr. Who) - well wahts th ediffernc ebetween those few streaming options and having to choose between a PS4, X1 or Wii U to play their exlcusive games?

Streaming will be different, but mostly the same. Somebody will become the Amazon of streaming.

@JaxonH "plant seeds"

Thanks for being the person to point this out, they are talking about the future. I always get a kick out of people saying - "Well, in 50 years if I have to stream my video games I'll quit playing." Dude, in 50 years you'll be dead or an invalid, not the target videogame demographic. It's like 30 year old men can't comprehend that they are going to be old men someday and EA will always be making games just for them. We aren't just talking about future games but future gamers. Future gamers don't buy discs, they download everything on their smartphones and tablets. They don't buy DVDs, they stream on Netflix. Rentals are all they know. You are right to be earful of the DRM future, but kids today view that as the norm. Why own anything, just rent it?

@shosbu "rural users"

I feel like rural users are much more likely to wind up w/ some type of high speed wireless than wired. Just look at how large cell carrier maps are getting. All they need to do it crank up the speed.

Of course there will always be some people way out there who can't get sufficient broadband. But somebody needs to star in those Discovery Channel reality shows. Nobody in those shows every play videogames, too busy building log cabins and hunting for food.

The day console gaming begins revolving around streaming is the day I start gaming mainly on PC with a bit of console gaming on the side instead of the other way around.

@themcnoisy - ok just to be clear, I'm referring to recent times. Of course nothing can eclipse the 60s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30216638

Customers enjoy owning their tangible asserts, and gaming is no different. Streaming may become a thing, in whatever form it takes but it won't completely overtake physical.

Yep. And The Division was going to change gaming forever. Uh huh.

they are delusional

really streaming services are the future for games then please Ubisoft and EA tell me how well OnLive is doing right now

oh wait.......

Ewwww please no. Publishers will have even more control, internet speeds will need to rapidly grow to catch with how game file sizes grow, and no physical copies at all is aa massive middle finger. I'm ok if it's simply available and people have the option to stream, however making it the only option will force lots of gamers to quit, drastically reducing sales and causing the industry to crash hard.

Don't do it!

No streaming service is going to get top dollar to new games. It would have to be discounted to a point of profit loss. I feel a single gaming platform such as a PC and Sony & Microsoft becoming a digital only software publisher with no hardware sales has a better chance then live streaming only. But that's well beyond 2030.

I think it's definitely true that it will happen one day, it's just a case of when. I think these guys are jumping the gun on how soon it'll be, though. Gaming is already moving towards being digital only. PC gaming is already there and has been for years. You buy a disc for PC game now and it's just a Steam installer. PS4 disc games are just "downloaded" off the disc and fully copied onto the HDD as if you'd just downloaded it off PSN. You're no longer playing console games off the disc.

When we get to a point where console gaming is like PC gaming and the disc part is cut out, we just fully download the data rather than copying it off a disc, then all our games are in a virtual library, there's no real difference between that game being streamed to us and us downloading the game. It's like comparing a Netflix where you have to download a movie first to the Netflix we currently have where you stream it.

I don't think it'll be like Netflix or Spotify where you pay a sub and get an "instant collection" as they say. It'll be the same deal as it is now with digital. You buy a specific game and now have access to streaming it. That's all. Like iTunes rather than Spotify.

Of course they would want streaming, with that, they can sell us bad games, and we won't be able to trade them in.

So the top brass can earn more millions and we consumers get f***ed in the **s.

Of course EA and Ubisoft want this. Then they can keep pumping out half ass, heartless games every year with promises of sweet dlc and micro t's that are pointless and the brainwashed kids will keep buying cuz they dont know any better and also OMG! a new Assassins Creed! (Oh wait this already happens). Unless ubi publishes a good brothers in arms(fat chance) or ea makes an actual good nfs like the old ones(which they wont) these fat cats wont be seeing my money anymore.
If (a big if) i buy a ps5 it will most likely be my last. I have a big enough collection of games from when i started playing in the 90s and up until this excellent gen is over that honestly I wont need anymore to keep me entertained. Idk it jus seems no one can think outside the box anymore, all I see is collect these plants, climb this tower and mash x or r2 on these guys until another pointless cutscene and stupid trophy is earned. Then do it all over again 5 or 6 times until the credits roll. Im just getting bored with it all...I..I think I'll go outside for awhile.

Streaming games is fine and is certainly the future but until they sort out poor internet in any place not a city its not viable. More subscription services for games I think its a good idea. There will at some point be Netflix type service for games.

This sucks. Nothing will ever be the consumers anymore. This is exactly how its going to go. I have no doubts about that at all.

Probably. Might be another 10 years until then but I think it will happen. People will definitely not start building PCs out of the blue. Only geeks believe that. Nintendo might still be making consoles but the others will move on.

If Ubisoft carry on making Rayman I will carry on liking them. If they carry on saying things like these and stop making Rayman I will stop liking them.

@Savino "In a subscription based system you already paid for the game, not matter if you will play it or not."

But we already have that too. It's called PS+. We pay $50 per year to get games nobody ever seems to want. People keep paying he $50 per year but every month when the new PS+ games are announced all anybody ever does is complain.

And I think too many people hate EA for too many companies to go with them. So you could be right, EA may be one thing and everybody else may join to form Anti-EA, like otday we have Hulu for newer tv shows adn NEtflix for older seasons of tv shows an dmovies. So maybe we would have to pay for EA to get EAs games, and another company would form to handle indies and other smaller companies. But again, today if people want to play EA games plus Nintneod games like SSB and MK then they need to buy both a Wii U console and either an X1 or PS4.

So the future may be a little different, but not that different.

@JaxonH

Anything these companies can convert into a monthly/annual paid service, they will. Not only that, but they charge extra for season passes, unlocking additional characters, levels, and splitting anything with a story mode into episodes for extra cash. So subs could easily have price tiers. I know they have the right to make money, but it's pretty discouraging... play your old games, or pay a reocurring bill to play new games.

Personally I can see why Publishers want this. Its stops the whole 2nd hand market. The problem though is that it also limits choice and creates a 'monopoly' for the 'console' store. If you can't buy elsewhere, like a retail store, that gives the digital store the monopoly and can charge what they want.

Whilst we do have 'streaming' services for TV, Movies, music etc we also have the option to buy these in a physical format. We can still buy DVD's/Blurays, CD's/Vinyl and so I expect we will still have the option to buy our games in a physical Format.

Digital maybe at its most popular now, but its still thought to account for less than 20% of all console game sales. Personally I can see the physical market staying. Most 'big' games have special/collectors editions with content that can't be sold digitally. Statues, Artbooks etc. These are often sold out before games launch. I am sure publishers enjoy that!

I don't know if it would be in Sony's best interest (for example) to go all 'Digital'. I know they must get money through their Bluray and for every Bluray disc. With the next revolution being 4k and 4k Bluray players, it seems that the next logical step will be include that in future consoles - the same with the next step and 'storage' device if/when Blurays become too small to hold all the information.

As I said, I think this is something that Publishers want for greed but I can't see the majority of people being happy with that.

Won't a game streamed service divide the gamer? Those who have reliable constant broadband (50mps or above) versus sporadic rollercoaster broadband (1mps - 50mps yep that's you BT!). The foolish console manufacturer who does this first will be the next nail in the coffin in my opinion. But... if a service like ps now can give optimal FPS at max visuals without out ever dropping out then there's a chance. Personally if I see 'bittiness'regularly EG. framedrops below 30fps, blurry visuals, the dreaded' waiting icon' for a game stream to catch up or movement lag that game Will be dead to me. Why should we give up reliable gaming as it stands now to a flaky future? And I reckon THE console which only streams and has 'bittiness' can wave goodbye to my hard earned cash!

I really wish people would stop saying that streaming is the future of gaming. It's far from it. People like ownership of things, and games can take a long time to complete, unlike films and TV shows (unless you're watching something that has 10+ seasons). People already have issues with owning digital copies of games, nevermind over a streaming service. Who remembers what happened to Onlive?

As others have already noted, it's funny how it's the CEOs of two of the most despised and Pro-DRM companies are the ones saying this. The day the consoles become streaming services is the day I game exclusively on PC.

okay, that's it. It's time for Ubisofts board to vote this gomer out of the company. get ride of that dookie of a CEO.

Il never stream

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi
Not to be selfish but I hope this never happens. I enjoy my retail games, and the day that a platform stops supporting retail games (for the majority of titles) is the day that I abandon that platform. I did this a decade ago on the PC, and as much as it pains me to, I will do it on console too.

Is it worth it to Sony or Microsoft, or Nintendo, to lose all of the customers that will never buy big budget AAA games digitally?

Who will be the first to lose their customers and watch them jump ship to the other platform holder?

Will that platform holder, newly boosted by a large influx of customers, make the same choice that their competition did?

I hope that the answer to this is: always have retail copies, even if they cost much more than the digital versions.