If they do this, the xbox brand = pointless. People already own a PC and Steam is the dominant market.
So
What's the point?
So
What's the point?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Variety] Ubisoft Believes Next Gen is the Last for Consoles as Microsoft Looks Beyond Platforms
- Thread starter SuikerBrood
- Start date
PC-architecture based, Closed-box ecosystem for playing high-end AAA blockbuster games on your TV going away? Somehow, I just don't see it. Perhaps they'll become more niche by PS6 or 7
Consumer needs and desires drive product innovation and change, not corporate vision. Without it, companies can claim its the future all they want.
Thought maybe they were going to go the route of Steam machines/pro consoles/mobile devices where gens blend together and devs essentially have the ability to support a multitude of new/legacy devices as they see fit. But there's no way an all streaming gaming service is going to work until net neutrality gets figured out. Bandwidth caps will become oppressively narrow before this gets even close to taking off.
It's part of the conversation in this topic whether you like it or not. You not wanting it to count towards a topic on Microsoft's direction doesn't matter. It would be part of this exact conversation, not sure why you don't want it to be. ;)
Playing this stupid game is why I don't get on the gaming boards much anymore. Broaden your outlook and perspective. Microsoft's software/service focus and the rest of their business does affect their direction. The amount of money they make across the board affects their decisions. As we grow older, and the world changes, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and every other industry will move on and adjust. It's a matter of time...and I'm fine with them all becoming software developers for single hardware. They may be separated by years of adjustment, but that's fine.
I couldn't care less about an allegiance to any of them hardware wise. I'd love to have all their games in one place. Right now I have my PS4, PC, XB1X, Nintendo Hardware and multiple other consoles on multiple shelves. I keep a DS and my Vita in my work truck for down time in the field.
Single systems with full access to software would be incredible. While I like PSNow, I used it as a way to get more out of my Vita when I'm on trips, I do prefer downloading my games to streaming them (space is hampered in my Vita's case). A world where I could simply pick a game to play, any game, and not be reliant on separate companies hardware would be great.
Younger me would be against that. "I couldn't care less now" me, would be fine with it.
We do need a far better infrastructure before Streaming becomes the norm though. Services like downloading games/subscriptions will be the next progression for now.
They do say one more generation (I'd guess 2)....another generation would be 10-12 years from now...it's not the next 3-4 years.
Also, it wouldn't surprise me if we just get upgraded boxes from now on. New CPU, new RAM...same games across the board with full BC. (At least from MS and Sony...Nintendo...not so sure)
Last edited:
Not only that, but even if Sony came in last last gen, them selling over 80 million consoles is nothing you sneeze at.
If selling over 80 million is a failure coming from PS2, then god damn what can we call the Wii U? Or the XBO right now?
It's something called perspective. Everything isn't in black n white.
It's funny the narrative switches up depending on what the topic is. XBO is selling half of what PS4 is, so what they are making money.
Consoles are healthier than ever looking at sales. Nope, contraction from last gen.
It's hard trying to keep up with the ever changing narrative.
Bottom line, the PS4 and XBO proved consoles weren't dying, despite folks looking at the Wii U as an example in 2012, 2013. Initially both the PS4 and XBO were seen as doing well. PS4 started pulling away from XBO, then the Switch came out.
Switch and PS4 have been selling extremely well.
All 3 companies are probably making profit.
Perspective.
Last edited:
Nothing new here. For whatever reason MS is always looking beyond gaming with their product- look at how well that did for them with what they originally concepted the Xbox One to be. They can keep claiming to move away from games consoles being a thing, meanwhile Sony will continue to go on and sell the PS5 (and PS6) as dedicated gaming machines and will continue to sell like gangbusters. Same goes for Nintendo. Sorry MS, game consoles aren't going anywhere.
I don`t think people are bothered with this. Many modern patches are as big as the game itself.
Same song and dance near every end of a console generation. I do not think consoles are going to go away.
Patch is different.you can download it in 30 hours .but if ur speed isn't great u can't stream and okay die to bad lag
Been hearing this since Gamecube/PS2.
And the reality remains the same: Until countries really start pushing for infrastructure upgrades so that a majority of consumers can have internet connection that can handle such a task, it's not happening.
And the reality remains the same: Until countries really start pushing for infrastructure upgrades so that a majority of consumers can have internet connection that can handle such a task, it's not happening.
Yeah it's weird nobody talks about this aspect; they just assume it's "the future" without really questioning the benefits from a business standpoint, and from a technology standpoint they focus on the idea that it's possible/happening now and not what it takes to truly scale such a solution and have a good experience for consumers.
Netflix can centralize their hosting far more than a game service; the difference between 50ms response time to Netflix and even 500ms response time to Netflix is barely even noticeable to the end user; as long as the bandwidth is there all that means is a slightly higher time to buffer what you are playing and away you go.
Meanwhile the difference between 25ms response time and 50ms response time for a gaming service is GIGANTIC; let alone 50 to 100, or 100 to 200. Yes internet backbones are improving, routing tech, getting rid of copper, etc. but MOST of what is being upgraded is for the sake of bandwidth not latency. People assume that game streaming will improve with bandwidth and it really won't unless that comes with better latency. And that requires that these incredibly powerful GPU servers be located far less centrally than what current internet services need; you WILL get worse latency the farther you are away form a server hub, it's just the nature of the speed of light. And that is completely unfair to consumers; having an extra 50ms of input lag for your controls to play a singleplayer game compared to the guy a few states over is not acceptable. And it's an EXPENSIVE problem to solve.
I thought OnLive dying a miserable death would finally clue people in but then Sony invested; which obviously maybe I'm just an armchair analyst and Sony "knows better" but that's not necessarily true. Companies invest in technology all the time that doesn't actually pan out feasibility wise. Look at MS, who knows far more about the costs / benefits of this kind of technology and how they haven't jumped in.
It doesn't make sense to me in a world where we can produce $150-200 devices that can play pretty amazing games locally that companies would choose to centralize that processing power (while also distributing that centralization far), maintain it, maintain any upgrades to it, etc. We are talking massive server farms with numerous of these farms in every region of the world for this to be feasible and with an acceptable level of latency performance.
Never said otherwise, it was not always a profitable division though.
Switch is doing great in Europe too and will almost definitely outsell the Wii if it continues like it is, as it's a lot less unlikely it's sales will completely fall off a cliff like the Wii's did.
Wrong, PS2 was at 72m shipped at this point, PS4 is at 73m sold.
and even if it was, the PS4 still make many times as much money as the PS2 did at it's peak.
Based on what? Outside of 1 console, the others are doing better than ever. And the Xbox is doing fine.
I said that PC is doing better, not that it's doom for consoles. You're putting words into every post I make.
No, I responded to the PC is taking more of the market, there's no real evidence of that, it's just also growing and very healthy.
I edited my comment before you posted. And in my original post, I said that it was from my own experience. You've generalized a lot of what I've said and I think you think I'm implying worst things than I intended for you too.
Ah, lets just move on then. Neither platform is really harming each other though, as is evident by them all doing incredibly well at the moment.
How on earth is streaming going to replace consoles? I pay $80 a month for 100kbps and my streaming capabilities STILL aren't up to snuff.
Also, didn't we JUST do this??
Also, didn't we JUST do this??
I don't see streaming replacing traditional console until the 2030s at the soonest. That means at least two more full console cycles (PS5 & Xbox 'Y' in ~2020, then PS6 & Xbox 'Z' around ~2027) before we can even seriously have that conversation about just streaming / games as a service, etc.
The current internet infrastructure in North America is woefully inadequate, and so are even the biggest cloud networks. I think it'll take at least a decade and a half for both the telecoms and the cloud services to build out the broadband & server capability to let the majority of consumers stream AAA games.
The current internet infrastructure in North America is woefully inadequate, and so are even the biggest cloud networks. I think it'll take at least a decade and a half for both the telecoms and the cloud services to build out the broadband & server capability to let the majority of consumers stream AAA games.
I thought even the speed of light wasn't fast enough to fix the latency issue with streaming games.
Some PS4 games are already there so yeah.. It's inevitable in the long run but I don't expect them to be offering them at PS5 launch or anything.
We are so behind in technology right now.
Geezus christ, even some 2nd world countries are going to have 5G network before the US.
Laughable for a so-called #1 super power country in the world with the highest GDP and consumption index. So advanced and developed that the average internet speed in the US is 20Mbits.
We aren't even in the top 25 countries as a developed 1st world country LOL.
What a joke.
Geezus christ, even some 2nd world countries are going to have 5G network before the US.
Laughable for a so-called #1 super power country in the world with the highest GDP and consumption index. So advanced and developed that the average internet speed in the US is 20Mbits.
We aren't even in the top 25 countries as a developed 1st world country LOL.
What a joke.
I get 300 down and 50 up, My friend in Cornwall gets 17 down and 500k up.
No way could his internet handle the cloud compute and streaming requirements unless he enjoys 480p
No way could his internet handle the cloud compute and streaming requirements unless he enjoys 480p
You said it man. Hell I have really nice duplex gigabit wired through my house, and even locally, I'd call 1080p using Nvidia or Steam tech : marginal. 4k at even 30fps is a no go, and latency is absolutely there. Online with the tech we see in ISP for the USA? Hahahhahahaha. Nope.
As I already posted before, the report is essentially Microsoft dreaming about what they would want order to get more money. At no point was any evidence point towards streaming being some inevitable future. They are essentially making a wish upon a star.
If only i could get media attention by saying i want money to rain from the sky.
If only i could get media attention by saying i want money to rain from the sky.
Another misunderstanding is the costs of getting these huge server parks up and running. It's cheap to run a remote desktop server that can service a dozen users running run of the mill desktop applications, it's extremely expensive to run a remote desktop server that can host just a few people running state of the art 3D games with high graphic fidelity. You can't just buy a server, throw in a couple of Nvidia Titans and call it a day. You need specialized graphics cards like Nvidia's GRID K340 or K520 that are suited for cloud gaming. The specs look good but there's a catch: the number of concurrent users. The Nvidia Grid K520 for instance supports 2–16 concurrent users, has 8GB RAM (4 GB x 2 GPUs) and 3000 CUDA cores. That looks good on paper, but that maximum number of 16 concurrent users is only possible when running games at the lowest graphics settings and minimal texture RAM usage per game. Once you start running AAA games with at least console quality settings the number of concurrent users will drop to 4 max where each session has 750 cores and only 2GB graphics RAM. If you have games with higher res textures, the number of concurrent users can drop to 2. And that's without taking into account the CPU required to run multiple virtualized sessions of a modern AAA game. In other words, you'd need extremely expensive servers with multiple Intel Xeon 3Ghz 16-core CPUS, outfit them with multiple Nvidia GRID graphics card and even then that monster server could host only a limited number of simultaneous game sessions. Now think of the number of monster servers you'd need for this "everyone is game steaming" future, the multi-multi billion dollar investments needed to build server parks all over the world to reduce latency and it becomes less and likely that this future will ever come to pass.
People are so shortsighted here its amazing.
Streaming is the future, it benefits everyone, basically everyone, but developers and publishers the most.
- it removes hardware research from companies
- software is available on every existing device
- developers do not have multiple platforms to work on, there are no life cycles anymore so there are no hardware limitations for years, every year there is more power available to developers (no more performance problems)
- no backward compatibility issues anymore
Mainstream will adopt it as soon as good service is provided, because it makes everything easier.
People complains:
- consoles sell better than ever! - who cares what is it now? How it is relevant how the market will look in 10 years? There is no streaming alternative for consoles, so consoles sell well in mainstream
- internet access is not great in many places - bad argument, internet access is getting better every year, in 10 years internet problem will affect several %, which those companies can afford to lose for a time being, because they will be gaining way more consumers than with typical hardware
- latency issues - mainstream doesnt care as long as it works, so publishers wont too, there will be still high end PCs for 'niche' (10s of millions) market
- hardware cost for high end rendering is too high - thats really not true, especially in 10 years.
In 2008 the best supercomputer in the world managed to cross 1 petaflop in a benchmark - https://www.top500.org/lists/2008/11/
While today Nvidia is selling petaflops boxes for $150k. Image what will be available in 10 years.
Please do not say that tensor cores are not for gaming, as we have so much research right now how to use deep learning in graphics processing its not even funny.
Streaming is the future, it benefits everyone, basically everyone, but developers and publishers the most.
- it removes hardware research from companies
- software is available on every existing device
- developers do not have multiple platforms to work on, there are no life cycles anymore so there are no hardware limitations for years, every year there is more power available to developers (no more performance problems)
- no backward compatibility issues anymore
Mainstream will adopt it as soon as good service is provided, because it makes everything easier.
People complains:
- consoles sell better than ever! - who cares what is it now? How it is relevant how the market will look in 10 years? There is no streaming alternative for consoles, so consoles sell well in mainstream
- internet access is not great in many places - bad argument, internet access is getting better every year, in 10 years internet problem will affect several %, which those companies can afford to lose for a time being, because they will be gaining way more consumers than with typical hardware
- latency issues - mainstream doesnt care as long as it works, so publishers wont too, there will be still high end PCs for 'niche' (10s of millions) market
- hardware cost for high end rendering is too high - thats really not true, especially in 10 years.
In 2008 the best supercomputer in the world managed to cross 1 petaflop in a benchmark - https://www.top500.org/lists/2008/11/
While today Nvidia is selling petaflops boxes for $150k. Image what will be available in 10 years.
Please do not say that tensor cores are not for gaming, as we have so much research right now how to use deep learning in graphics processing its not even funny.
Last edited:
No one denied there aren't benefits but... some of this is overblown:
1) Why would it remove hardware research from companies? You think if you run a streaming gaming company you aren't involved in research?
2) You think all streaming systems would be exactly the same, removing the concept of platforms? So you envision a monopoly on backends or something?
3) And how can you claim there are no lifecyles then also claim there is more power available yearly? You think somehow we will update the entirety of a streaming platform every year (not going to happen, there would be staggered updates with multiple levels of power/functionality) but that totally removes the idea that a dev has to target new features?
4) No BC issues? What do you even mean? What if a streaming platform wants to make a major change? Why is this any different than hardware refreshes really, where we already are seeing companies like MS plan for easy BC in the future?
Yes there are benefits; conceptually it's cool for a consumer to have it all in the cloud, no game installs, all kinds of other cool stuff. We've been talking about that for almost 10 years now since OnLive demo'd it. But it's not like we magically get away from publishers having to target multiple hardware sets, they will choose a mix of AMD and nVidia for one; and that's all getting easier anyways with Sony / MS and Nintendo all having far less customized hardware and focusing on making things easy for devs.
Are you serious with this?
Mainstream won't care if when playing a singleplayer game it takes a quarter of a second for a server to get the fact they pushed the "fire button" and another quarter second for the action on screen to represent that? That's sort of ludicrous; essentially with lag for streaming games.. "it doesn't work."
You call everyone else short sighted then post the cost of a single server? A server that you admit isn't even designed for gaming? And then let's pretend the only cost is the CPU/GPUs serving up for hosts? What about networking, the power structure, the human beings it takes to manage these servers?
And you actually think a petaflop for $150k (which is probably way low for what is available today) is actually a good price? That's enough for 200 end users if you give them 5 teraflops. Something like PSN is likely approaching 20 million concurrent users at it's peak (judging by how it's larger than Steam, and Steam maxes out a bit below that.)
And you would need far more than the ability to host 20 million at once because you need to handle the 24 hour cycle worldwide and locate these servers all over the world to handle the peak traffic in THAT part of the world. Let's super low ball it and say you could get away with 8 DCs (no possible way, I'm being generous), and that the peak in each DC is 5 million (again no possible way, low balling) that means you'd need the power to host 40 million concurrent users. At next-gen levels of 5TF (being generous again) that's 200 million teraflops.
That's 200,000 petaflops. So 200,000 of your $150k server number you threw out there.
Roughly $30 billion.
Just for the CPUs / GPUS; let alone networking, paying for bandwidth, the buildings themselves, the power draw, the employees, etc.
And that's going to get upgraded yearly?
Last edited:
If you could stream it, then you wouldn't need a box that could run it. In theory, you could pay less than $100 for the box that runs future titles if they get the streaming right.
He forgot that part.
This is laughable to be honest. The consumers care. I tried PS Now, it's not the same thing, not even close.
I don't see streaming being mainstream honestly, not for at least a decade, most likely more.
Like someone said here, if movies/TV shows still produce DVDs/blu-rays and don't require any input from the watcher. This won't happen in games, where it's unplayable with that input latency.
It just means they will offer their games via streaming in addition to a console and PC.
"this gen" kinda implied that.
And we don't know if it has been profitable overall. Nor do we know if their console business is profitable currently.
Possible, currently it's behind the Wii though.
Yes, because the PS2 had a paper launch. It existed for 8 months supply constrained in Japan only. Calculate from the ww launch and it would be ahead. Point is that the demand for the PS2 was higher.
The money thing is true though, but i'm not sure it's a positive that a single manufacturer is able to milk more money out of people than in all 3 previous gens combined ...
PS4 is behind Wii, One is a good chunk behind PS3 and then you are left with 360 vs WiiU ...
All while the HH market basically evaporated outside Japan.
Theoretically the actual networking aspects of multiplayer gaming can vastly improve with streaming; if all streamed games are hosted in the same DC, the multiplayer portion essentially can run as well as a LAN game would. Even if you are in different DCs the routes between cloud DCs tend to be highly optimized compared to the routes between different player's homes; AWS us-west-2 can communicate with AWS us-east faster than 2 players in Oregon and Virginia could from their homes.
BUT
Then you introduce input lag on the controls.. which is way worse. Multiplayer games use prediction and other tech to make it so even if you are 50ms or 100ms behind another player they give you the kill anyways because your client predicted their movement. Different games are tuned differently for that; the most popular ones tend to have heavy prediction (it's how Counterstrike got so big back in the day, the game actually was EASIER for players on bad connections at times.)
When you get shot despite ducking behind cover for instance, that's likely the work of prediction net code.
You can't use "prediction" to solve input lag from your controller and rendering back to the client. If you are experiencing 100ms in lag, that's 100ms + your controller input lag (25-50 usually) for the server to get the fact you pressed "fire", and 100ms for your machine to recieve the frames showing you shot + HDMI lag for you to actually "see" the shot happening on your screen.
You need OPTIMAL conditions constantly for this not to be really noticeable; and there are some games where it's worse than others.
Last edited:
Nope. I've heard many times how consoles are on their last legs and something else will kill them off. Smart Phones, Onlive, Ouya, PCs, Steam box.....all were going to land the killing blow on consoles. None of them succeeded.
Sure, I guess always online streaming, with people paying a monthly fee and just having a bare bones box to stream to would financially benefit publishers, but is that what people want? Personally, I'd rather have a powerful console where I can buy the games I want, and can play them when I want, without paying a monthly fee and always being connected online.
Sure, I guess always online streaming, with people paying a monthly fee and just having a bare bones box to stream to would financially benefit publishers, but is that what people want? Personally, I'd rather have a powerful console where I can buy the games I want, and can play them when I want, without paying a monthly fee and always being connected online.
Physical hardware will always exist for competitive gaming. I believe that streaming will be a force to be reckoned with in the future, but it won't replace physical hardware outright.
Being barely behind the Wii isn't a bad thing, it's a lot less like a console will ever sell as fast and drop of a cliff as steep as the Wii did, I'd be pretty surprised if the PS4 doesn't beat it when it's done, likely comfortably so too.
Handheld was pretty much doomed the second phones got capable of matching and exceeding dedicated Handheld hardware and even then Nintendo are doing very well in the Handheld market.
I said it earlier, we will likely have 2 100+ million selling consoles on the market by before next-next gen starts popping up, that's not a sign of consoles being in trouble, no matter how hard you try and say otherwise.